I should have said in my first post that I agree with Legault's assessment
of Peterson's popularity with the alt-right having to do with the shadow
projection of frustrated males. As the author states, Peterson's
confrontational demeanor is a magnet for controversy. And yet until he
gets shut-down in a debate (not so easy as the bloggers would like to
think), I don't see him slowing down.
-Chance
On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 1:11 AM, Chance McDermott <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
> Shots fired, Jacques Legault calls Carl Jung a "man boy." The competition
> of saying best that "this is not a competition" is one of the best meta
> competitions that psychologists play with one another.
>
>
> -Chance
>
>
> On Sun, May 20, 2018 at 10:00 PM, nysa71 <000000c289d6ba14-dmarc-
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> By the way, I can't help but chuckle a little bit at the irony of a
>> *trait* theorist who's also a self-described Jungian. [image: Emoji]
>>
>> ~ Jason Bessey
>>
>> On Sunday, May 20, 2018, 9:51:00 PM EDT, nysa71 <[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> An interesting article on Peterson by a clinical psychologist...
>>
>> Jordan Peterson, Masculinity, Jung and the Alt-Right.
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__medium.com_-40jacquesrlegault_jordan-2Dpeterson-2Dmasculinity-2Djung-2Dand-2Dthe-2Dalt-2Dright-2Dc8f07168901&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=j3-4BgcmUR77CC30rwK1llKtGlHYdQFsaOQddZmQKTQ&s=WavcGJ47BtwRSUDv7RE6R4hNNPr2jK9pRx1HQub9QMU&e=>
>>
>> ~ Jason Bessey
>>
>> Jordan Peterson, Masculinity, Jung and the Alt-Right.
>>
>> Jacques Legault, C.Psych
>>
>> As a clinical psychologist specialized in working with boys and men,
>> people have been asking me why clinical psy...
>>
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__medium.com_-40jacquesrlegault_jordan-2Dpeterson-2Dmasculinity-2Djung-2Dand-2Dthe-2Dalt-2Dright-2Dc8f07168901&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=j3-4BgcmUR77CC30rwK1llKtGlHYdQFsaOQddZmQKTQ&s=WavcGJ47BtwRSUDv7RE6R4hNNPr2jK9pRx1HQub9QMU&e=>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, May 20, 2018, 1:34:10 PM EDT, Steven Quackenbush <
>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Thanks Gregg,
>>
>> “Maps of Meaning” is precisely the sort of text I was looking for...
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On May 20, 2018, at 12:39 PM, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <
>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Steve,
>>
>>
>>
>> I had the same sense of 12 Rules and I have not read it. Peterson’s
>> primary scholarly book is *Maps of Meaning*, which I am attaching here
>> (it is freely available on the web). My assessment is that it is
>> complicated, dense, and more philosophy than science. The first 50 pages
>> offers a nice detailed summary of human perception/motivation/emotion
>> action that lines up directly with my basic BIT formulation. It then makes
>> some leaps into mythology and meaning making that I find interesting, but
>> not compelling. He also has done quite a bit of research on the Big Five
>> (which I know will not endear him to you, but I find the work respectable).
>> I recommend watching some of his class lectures. For what I think is a fair
>> review of him and his message to society, I recommend this article in
>> Esquire
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.esquire.com_news-2Dpolitics_a19834137_jordan-2Dpeterson-2Dinterview_&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=hbvHzFx4559qSwz63hDzNcJus-fi9P5FJGvuyk0-T1c&s=6Rg_NodJ_q-I7SaSNFrDUZije3NyWDrWJi09bD8wiG4&e=>
>> .
>>
>>
>>
>> My position is that he is a respectable intellectual who has an
>> interesting and relatively deep view of clinical-personality
>> theory/psychology. I say relatively deep, and by that I mean compared with
>> the CBT EST clinical science folks (not, for example, relative to Sartre).
>> He has read broadly in philosophy and the varied approaches to
>> clinical-personality psychology. His is a view that results in tensions
>> with the modern academic left view. And that is what we are seeing and that
>> makes it valuable and informative at many levels.
>>
>>
>>
>> If folks can show me that he is a fraud or a weak minded individual
>> with deeply problematic *actual* views, I would love to see that and it
>> would change my reaction/assessment. However, what I see is that many
>> people hate what they see as the implications of his ideas and attack him
>> for that. Being attacked for the feared implications of one’s ideas is a
>> very different battle, especially in these times.
>>
>>
>>
>> And, indeed, this is one of my criticisms of the left. There is this
>> policing of ideas as a function of the double hermeneutic…fears about what
>> ideas might mean and then they are twisted and reacted against. My feelings
>> about Peterson are similar to my feelings about the James Damore Google
>> Memo guy, which I blogged about here
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_us_blog_theory-2Dknowledge_201708_in-2Ddepth-2Danalysis-2Dthe-2Dcrisis-2Dgoogle&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=hbvHzFx4559qSwz63hDzNcJus-fi9P5FJGvuyk0-T1c&s=c4RijunvcRTt6XTLykxwi4x_d6jtFxDnpNp3V3nMyc4&e=>.
>> The environment of political polarization does not allow us to have deep
>> conversations about issues pertaining to human nature (i.e., in Chance’s
>> post, archetypes and evolution).
>>
>>
>>
>> Best,
>> Gregg
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion [
>> mailto:[log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>] *On
>> Behalf Of *Steven Quackenbush
>> *Sent:* Sunday, May 20, 2018 12:12 PM
>> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>> *Subject:* Re: Jordan Peterson (again)
>>
>>
>>
>> Jason writes: "*People like Peterson take the system as a given (it
>> would seem) and just want to manage the symptoms of what ultimately amounts
>> to a diseased system, instead of getting to the root problem...the system
>> itself.*"
>>
>>
>>
>> Well said Jason! Though, for my own reasons, I would make the following
>> qualification: "People like Peterson *appear* to take the system as a
>> given..." I don't yet know enough about Peterson's considered point of
>> view to pass judgment on his sociopolitical thought (though my suspicions
>> align with Seth Abramson's critique).
>>
>>
>>
>> Yesterday, I was in Barnes and Noble and perused a copy of Peterson's
>> text: "12 Rules for Life". I was briefly tempted to purchase it (simply
>> for the opportunity assess the sophistication of his moral thinking), but
>> then came to my senses: "If it wasn't for the name of the cover, I would
>> not seriously consider adding this book to my collection. A review of
>> the Table of Contents and nearly a dozen random excerpts suggests a low- to
>> mid-level 'pop philosophy' treatise that plays to the (juvenile?) desires
>> of a certain segment of the reading public."
>>
>>
>>
>> Still, I recognize the importance of assimilating the ideas of
>> culturally-significant thinkers, even if their ideas are of questionable
>> substance and sophistication. After all, we have to know what we are up
>> against.
>>
>> So, does anybody have any recommendations regarding the best source(s) to
>> assess the mature thought of Jordan Peterson? [Is the "12 Rules" text
>> representative of his considered point of view?]
>>
>>
>>
>> Just curious,
>>
>>
>>
>> ~ Steve Q,
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, May 20, 2018 at 11:06 AM, nysa71 <000000c289d6ba14-dmarc-reques
>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> Gregg: "Unmarried males at the bottom of the hierarchy create social
>> instability. It is almost certainly why monogamy has emerged."
>>
>> ~ That's one way of looking at it. But then, one could also look at *hierarchy
>> itself*, and consider the possibility that *that* is the root problem of
>> social instability.
>>
>> From an evolutionary perspective, mating systems have a lot to do with
>> access to and control over resources. So in a patriarchal system --- a
>> particular type of hierarchical system where men dominate --- there emerges
>> disparities in control over resources among men. So polygyny often emerges
>> at the top of the hierarchy, leaving unmarried males at the bottom,
>> followed by social instability.
>>
>> Pretty much the history of ancient civilization in a nutshell.
>>
>> So social monogamy emerges, and every male gets one female (like some
>> object to own), and maintains dominance in a little mini-hierarchy in the
>> household, along with all those large-scale justification systems that go
>> along with it.
>>
>> So some of that social instability is managed. But it still doesn't
>> address the disparities in regards to access to and control over resources,
>> (e.g., systems like feudalism or capitalism), which has historically been
>> in favor of men.
>>
>> So how would things be different if women had more equal control of an
>> access to resources? It's not without precedent.
>>
>> Consider the Musuo, where only women own the land, (and strive to keep
>> that ownership equal). Men and women (along with the daughter's children)
>> stay in the mother's household, have "walking marriages", (sometimes
>> lifelong, often times not), share no material resources, and don't even
>> share parental responsibilities, (i.e., the men direct their resources
>> towards their maternal sisters' offspring).
>>
>> Or some cultures have scarce resources whereby it's not even worth males
>> competing over, leading to a system with high paternity uncertainty where
>> males bequeath their resources to their maternal sisters' sons in their
>> inheritance systems?
>>
>> The general point here is that the system and context matter, which the
>> likes of Peterson would seem to ignore. And hence other perspectives on
>> social systems have emerged over time --- other possibilities --- such as
>> anarchism and socialism, (both of which, in their intellectual traditions,
>> often went hand-in-hand). People like Peterson take the system as a given
>> (it would seem) and just want to manage the symptoms of what ultimately
>> amounts to a diseased system, instead of getting to the root problem...the
>> system itself.
>>
>> ~ Jason Bessey
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, May 20, 2018, 10:08:00 AM EDT, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <
>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Sure, if you read that article, you will not find him impressive. To me,
>> that article was a great example of how he is a shiny object that gets
>> folks bent out of shape trying to tar him. The point Peterson is making is
>> one of the key points of civilization and war. Unmarried males at the
>> bottom of the hierarchy create social instability. It is almost certainly
>> why monogamy has emerged. Check out Robert Wright’s Nonzero
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.amazon.com_dp_0679758941_-3Ftag-3Dmh0b-2D20-26hvadid-3D78065371311761-26hvqmt-3De-26hvbmt-3Dbe-26hvdev-3Dc-26ref-3Dpd-5Fsl-5F2aqvktnpi3-5Fe&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=caDsBkH-OMiY318FGpqb4OV1mQq_XqU4iksGDHvHOaw&s=DBSI7zDaoaCpf7oM0o2omvsboPCPx6ZQJZy6IAmPf2c&e=>
>> for an analysis of that.
>>
>>
>>
>> I have no idea what he really believes about “enforced monogamy”. I don’t
>> trust that the snippets from that piece get at his thinking. But, if he
>> really is claiming that this should be a governmental solution, then I
>> agree completely that he has gone off the deep end. That would shift my
>> opinion of him greatly. I strongly suspect that he is talking about society
>> creating norms that support monogamy rather than legal actions. That quote
>> was placed there so that he looks like an ass. That was the clear point of
>> the article.
>>
>>
>>
>> But, I will say I don’t know him personally. And I definitely don’t share
>> his ultimate worldview. My point, which I stand by as of now, is that he is
>> a serious intellectual who is creating waves which I am glad to witness.
>>
>>
>>
>> G
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion [mailto:
>> [log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *nysa71
>> *Sent:* Sunday, May 20, 2018 9:58 AM
>> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>> *Subject:* Re: Jordan Peterson (again)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I just did a quick Google search of the guy, and here's another article
>> about him from yesterday. Yeah, he doesn't strike me as impressive. (The
>> social media responses at the bottom are hilarious, though!)
>>
>> Right-wing thought leader Jordan Peterson endorses “enforced monogamy”
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.salon.com_2018_05_19_right-2Dwing-2Dthought-2Dleader-2Djordan-2Dpeterson-2Dendorses-2Denforced-2Dmonogamy-2Dto-2Dappease&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=qNHoYX8HYLH4G7vkkX5cPGgmoY32I-6-KioTeplAO5o&s=UZXUhDAIOJUjahmefC8K7dsWj3lo4Fm7GuQt7C7ID2U&e=>
>>
>> ~ Jason Bessey
>>
>>
>>
>> <image001.jpg>
>>
>>
>> <image002.png>
>>
>> Right-wing thought leader Jordan Peterson endorses “enforced monogamy”
>>
>> In a profile published in the New York Times, Peterson reveals his sad
>> agenda yet his defenders call it a "hit job"
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, May 20, 2018, 9:42:50 AM EDT, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <
>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks, Jason.
>>
>>
>>
>> Jordan Peterson is a “shiny object” for the academic/identity politic
>> left. He challenges some of their sacred cows, and thus a consequence is
>> that he becomes a hero of the alt right. And that is a reason to be
>> concerned, as anything that energizes the alt right should be concerning.
>>
>>
>>
>> However, it is crucial to recognize that this framing this is largely
>> function of political polarization rather than what he is actually
>> preaching. I don’t think that Peterson is really any closer to the “real”
>> alt right (i.e., White male supremacy sympathizers) than I am. However, he
>> does believe in the animus and anima archetypes. And he believes that the
>> mythologies of our past were central to human psychology and how we
>> function in the world (i.e., they revealed deep things about our deep
>> natures).
>>
>>
>>
>> And, he believes that if we are to be healthy in our living, we must
>> realign our psychologies with archetypal mythologies, at least in some way.
>> (Sound somewhat familiar 😊? He is very Jungian). And he thinks that the
>> postmodern view has completely unmoored us in our quest for meaning making.
>>
>>
>>
>> G
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion [
>> mailto:[log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>] *On
>> Behalf Of *nysa71
>> *Sent:* Sunday, May 20, 2018 9:28 AM
>> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>> *Subject:* Re: Jordan Peterson (again)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Gregg,
>>
>> I want to emphasize the word "suspected". I'm not saying anything with a
>> tremendous amount of certainty. I haven't looked too deeply into Peterson's
>> thought. He doesn't really seem that interesting. But I keep hearing his
>> name pop up from time-to-time, and (with the exception of this list serve),
>> it's never positive.
>>
>> He seems too obsessed with the Soviet Union and a "Red Scare" mentality.
>> He appears to hold great appeal to the alt-right. I get the impression he
>> wants to go back to the "good ol' days" of the 1950s. And dresses it all up
>> in a scholarly-sounding manner that makes him appear to be legitimate and
>> hence appealing (to some).
>>
>> The link to that series of Tweets that Steve provided just seems to
>> confirm what I've **suspected** about Peterson from what little I've heard
>> of him.
>>
>> ~ Jason
>>
>> On Sunday, May 20, 2018, 8:03:53 AM EDT, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <
>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> This is a fascinating rant against Peterson. I look forward to reading
>> more about “metamodernism”.
>>
>>
>>
>> Of course, the ToK/UTUA framework is offered as a “post post-modern grand
>> meta-narrative”. I agree with Chance here that any such approach had better
>> integrate archetypal and evolutionary thinking. Will see if metamodernism
>> does that with any degree of sophistication.
>>
>>
>>
>> Fun stuff, all of it.
>>
>>
>> Best,
>> Gregg
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion [
>> mailto:[log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>] *On
>> Behalf Of *Chance McDermott
>> *Sent:* Saturday, May 19, 2018 11:39 PM
>> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>> *Subject:* Re: Jordan Peterson (again)
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Steve, thank you for sharing.
>>
>>
>>
>> This is my first contact with Abramson. When Abramson explained Peterson
>> as a dangerous demagogue, I found myself wanting him to explain it in clear
>> terms rather than imply it was obvious. I do agree with him that
>> Peterson is winning, and will continue to win, the intellectual and social
>> battleground. My parting initial thought on Abramson is: "Good luck
>> defining a stable post-post modern reality without understanding and
>> accepting evolutionary and analytic psychology."
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -Chance
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, May 19, 2018 at 10:25 PM, nysa71 <000000c289d6ba14-dmarc-reques
>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Steve,
>>
>> I love it! It pretty much confirms what I suspected about
>> Peterson....that he's an intellectual fraud. And probably an awful human
>> being, as well.
>>
>> ~ Jason Bessey
>>
>> On Saturday, May 19, 2018, 10:03:06 PM EDT, Steven Quackenbush <
>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Those ToK list serve members with an interest in Jordan Peterson might
>> enjoy Seth Abramson's recent twitter thread exploring the cultural
>> significance of the "Jordan Peterson" phenomenon:
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_SethAbramson_status_997980968886644736&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=SUtm9tnJaZzJ5V6m3k0AI2KUIMu2D6Cc2eHpfYJcH-E&s=NU4PR9imzD-fU65IAJhPvtd52ypqjSe2Hgy9veas2jY&e=
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_SethAbramson_status_997980968886644736&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=yfn0_vJxE90Rt5MYGKSZx5sY4KG9gsdAWdFfncSexjQ&s=RDe8OWAZXA618jEZAf3GsrVplYxeKxDC2JgC5uSV8u4&e=>
>>
>>
>>
>> At the time of my writing, Seth is still constructing his thread. Here
>> are a few excerpts (from the most recent tweets):
>>
>> - Tweet 62: "...Peterson offers a dead end that lives more in 1318
>> than 2018..."
>>
>>
>> - Tweet 64: "...I fear the choice in America over the next few years
>> will be between embracing a multiversal, five-dimensional
>> post-postmodernism or being stuck—forced to eat—tired, one-dimensional,
>> fundamentally fascist pap that looked new for a second."
>>
>>
>> - Tweet 69: "My advice (and view): it's okay to agree with Peterson
>> on the first 1% of his worldview—that postmodernism must eventually be
>> supplanted. But the key is to note that what Peterson wants to supplant it
>> with would already have seemed passé by 1690. It's a *total joke* in 2018."
>>
>> ~ Steve Q.
>>
>> ############################
>>
>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
>> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
>> following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bi
>> n/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>>
>> ############################
>>
>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
>> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
>> following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bi
>> n/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>>
>>
>>
>> ############################
>>
>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
>> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
>> following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bi
>> n/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>>
>> ############################
>>
>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
>> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
>> following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bi
>> n/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>>
>> ############################
>>
>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
>> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
>> following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bi
>> n/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>>
>> ############################
>>
>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
>> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
>> following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bi
>> n/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>>
>> ############################
>>
>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
>> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
>> following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bi
>> n/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>>
>> ############################
>>
>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
>> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
>> following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bi
>> n/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>>
>> ############################
>>
>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
>> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
>> following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bi
>> n/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>>
>>
>>
>> ############################
>>
>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
>> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
>> following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bi
>> n/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>> ############################
>>
>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
>> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
>> following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bi
>> n/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>>
>> <Peterson-JB-Maps-of-Meaning-Routledge-1999.pdf>
>>
>> ############################
>>
>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
>> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
>> following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bi
>> n/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>> ############################
>>
>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
>> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
>> following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bi
>> n/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>>
>
>
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
or click the following link:
http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
|
