Hi *Aydan*,

Yes, good question, and powerful reflection. I see this project as being *very
much *about rejuvenating reverence. The reverential attitude is the
religious attitude *par excellence*; it's what links us to a sense not only
of awe and wonder, but also, specifically, the *sacred*, which is the
awesome imbued with value, and thus our chief source of Meaning (which is
always a helpful thing in a meaning crisis).

Your example about LDS can help elucidate precisely how "sincere irony" can
be employed towards reverential ends. For my part, I grew up in a
conservative evangelical church, so I suspect we might have some shared
contexts in terms of sensibility if not content. As you say, Joseph Smith
breathed relevance and life into American Christianity by means of a mythos
that connected the congregation with sacred history. The problem,
unfortunately, is that such religious mythologies, taken literally, are
false or fraudulent (the "myth" in the sense that Lee was getting at
above). There were no golden tablets, there were no lost tribes, etc. The
enlivened sense of reverence is predicated on affirming literally certain
facts that are not, indeed, factual. Unfortunately, getting "the facts"
wrong tends to mean people "lose faith" in the mythos whenever they come
to this realization. This is what happened to me and my evangelical faith
when I began to study the history outside of a devotional context. No
literal history, no faith, no reverence. Enter disenchantment.
Unfortunately, most discussion of religion tends to stall along this axis
(theists and atheists both posit the same narrow, literal divinity, and
either affirm or deny its existence). However, new horizons of spirituality
open up beyond this divide. One can of course begin to consider non-literal
and thus metaphorical/poetic/symbolic conceptions of the sacred, and one
can come to appreciate that the spiritual life is not best understood at
the level of propositional knowledge, but is also (if not primarily)
participatory, procedural, and perspectival (to use Vervakean 4E cog sci
terms). Such recognitions render one's relationship to myth *ironic*,
because it means there is a subtext, an alternative meaning that the words
are gesturing towards. *This* meaning, largely obscured (and necessarily
Mysterious, even awe-inspiringly so) can be engaged sincerely, even to
reverence, from a position of irony. Indeed, once one recognizes the
postmodern understanding of the limits of language, the contextual
boundedness of knowledge (and what else *Gregg *talks about as the nature
of justification systems), one can appreciate mythmaking as its own form of
genuine conveyor of meaning--no longer in a naive, literal way, but in a
post-reflective way. The "falseness" of myth is no longer a stumbling block
to belief and reverence; if anything, it becomes a portal to appreciating
the unknowability of things, and thus serves as an icon of transcendence.
This is how I've engaged ironic sincerity in my work. In this case, I'm
constructed a myth. I obviously know that, because I'm the one doing it.
There's no way for me to take it literally. But I do believe it. I might
even set up a little shrine to Dante and the Mandala to cultivate this
reference, all while engaging ironically. For more on this sort of idea, I
had a great conversation with *Scout *about this on my Metamodern
Spirituality podcast: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__youtu.be_34T4sOr9l7o&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=R3HWErWO6cqpjBq5eYjmHZyGhcS4rxJEs-O7VydyFkk&s=-cSx4JEz2D8aXPMyThWeDKZhCdJYtF7MyR6s4dVuhIA&e= 
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__youtu.be_34T4sOr9l7o&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=R3HWErWO6cqpjBq5eYjmHZyGhcS4rxJEs-O7VydyFkk&s=-cSx4JEz2D8aXPMyThWeDKZhCdJYtF7MyR6s4dVuhIA&e= >
For the most succinct treatment of all this, see my article in *Notes on
Metamodernism*: [R]econstruction: Metamodern 'Transcendence' and the Return
of Myth
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.metamodernism.com_2014_10_21_reconstruction-2Dmetamodern-2Dtranscendence-2Dand-2Dthe-2Dreturn-2Dof-2Dmyth_&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=R3HWErWO6cqpjBq5eYjmHZyGhcS4rxJEs-O7VydyFkk&s=rYVBeh2_Jn2OxpW9fFXmNMI_LIY0S4333XTrViRgIxE&e= 
Also, some other ideas of mine about reverence, mysticism, and metamodern
sincere irony in the context of pseudonymity can be found here:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.brendangrahamdempsey.com_post_on-2Dmetamodern-2Dpseudonymity&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=R3HWErWO6cqpjBq5eYjmHZyGhcS4rxJEs-O7VydyFkk&s=kGENpwJToEXn403Gx5PmCURtXwJAV6glr01lTSiBdGc&e= 
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.brendangrahamdempsey.com_post_on-2Dmetamodern-2Dpseudonymity&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=R3HWErWO6cqpjBq5eYjmHZyGhcS4rxJEs-O7VydyFkk&s=kGENpwJToEXn403Gx5PmCURtXwJAV6glr01lTSiBdGc&e= >

On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 12:14 PM michael kazanjian <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> *CAUTION: *This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links
> or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is
> safe.
> ------------------------------
> For excellent accounts of mythology as structure or reality, see Eliade,
> any anthropology book, Levi Strauss, my Unified Philosophy  3rd edition.
>
> Cheers,
> Michael M. Kazanjian
>
> On Tuesday, March 22, 2022, 10:34:20 AM CDT, Aydan Connor <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>
> *CAUTION: *This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links
> or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is
> safe.
> ------------------------------
> In the cultivation of a metamodern myth, it seems that there’s a necessary
> move towards reverence, facilitated here by the artistic rendering of
> current scientific understanding into the poetic.
>
> How do you see reverence fitting in this project, if at all? It seems that
> “sincere irony” (the concept of which I’m still trying to place in the
> metamodern project) is almost a polar opposite to reverence, but maybe
> that’s my misunderstanding. It’s come up in a number of places as I’ve
> ventured into the metamodern landscape.
>
> Growing up in the LDS Church, the work of the founder (seen as a prophet
> by believers), Joseph Smith, seemed focused on the facilitation of meaning
> making on the American continent, trying to weave the story of Jesus Christ
> into the story of people living on the American continent contemporary to
> the stories of the old and new testaments, before Europeans arrived. It
> individualized the idea of access to divine revelation and I would argue
> breathed relevance and life into Christianity for members of the church.
>
> Anyway, every time your work comes up, I think about how it relates to my
> “native” religious tradition. There were/are flaws in it that are important
> to note, and perhaps could be worth thinking about as you move forward in
> this work.
>
> Cheers,
> Aydan
>
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 09:23 Brendan Graham Dempsey <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> *CAUTION: *This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links
> or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is
> safe.
> ------------------------------
> Hi all,
>
> Wonderful! Thanks for your engagement. Here's some response:
>
> *Lee*: There are colloquial uses of the word "myth" to mean "not real,"
> this is true; I'm using the word in a more precise sense, though. In this
> sense, a "myth" is a genre, and doesn't speak to its veracity per se, but
> to its function. Used in this way, we could even call the "Big Bang"
> narrative an "cosmogonic myth" or "origin myth" because it plays a mythic
> function in our society (even if its epistemological grounding via the
> scientific justification system is different from the epistemological
> groundings common to premodern societies). Used in this broader sense,
> "myth" actually conveys the sense not of an untrue story but of the MOST
> true stories, of the most MEANINGFUL stories. So, I don't mean "myth" as in
> "the common myth about 401Ks" or the like, but myth as "the myth of our
> origins, the myth of our culture," etc.
>
> As for complexity, I'mn referring to the idea of complex
> systems/complexity science (a non-reductionistic science of systems,
> cybernetics, emergent properties, chaos, etc.). Such complexity doesn't
> just lead to more and more overwhelming obscurity, but has "islands of
> stability" and "simple" wholes out of a complex arrangements of parts. A
> helpful word for this idea is "simplexity," which is the simplicity on the
> other side of complexity. An ecosystem isn't just a mad chaos of confusion,
> but a highly ordered whole, even though (actually, BECAUSE) it has many,
> many parts linked together in complex interaction.
>
> *Brad*: I'm sympathetic to your concerns about the issue of the work
> being "cognitively demanding," and how this might be out of step with the
> stated aim of making these ideas more accessible. This is definitely a trap
> I keep falling into. I guess I'd just offer this: What I'm attempting is
> more in line with what Dante did to medieval learning. He didn't
> necessarily make it all easier to understand, but he aestheticized it, and
> presented the sum of knowledge of his day in narrative and artistic form.
> Even though the Divine Comedy is also incredibly cognitively demanding, its
> translation into the artistic medium does do meaningful work to consolidate
> ideas into a comprehensive narrative that renders facts meaningful, thus
> converting knowledge into wisdom. It breathes some fire into the equations.
> That is, more accurately, what I'm doing, I hope, even if I'm not making
> something easy for everyone. Beyond that, I will say that I've thrown in a
> prose paraphrase, which should make digesting the content much easier for
> most people.
>
> *Brandon*: Thanks for that clarification! The Raven and the Sword; I like
> that helpful mnemonic. ;)
>
> *Gregg*: Yes! You articulate it very well what I'm after:
>
> *"the cultural place Brendan is adopting...is a mytho-poetic epic
> narrative structure to pull on the power of the arts and related
> theological imaginal structures to inspire and cultivate meaning in this
> time of the meaning and mental health crisis. Ala Vervaeke’s work, the gap
> from the Enlightenment can be framed as a massive chasm between science and
> spirituality, whereby the latter refers to a mythos that orients our souls
> toward the transcendent ...Brendan’s work is placed to bridge and transcend
> that gap toward a metamodern scientific spiritual sensibility."*
>
>
> That's very much it. And as for using the Mandala with the iQuad Coin, I
> love it! I hope to see more synergies just like this with all the
> frameworks. And I'd love to have some theophanic vision of the Elephant Sun
> God somewhere in this visionary text! Meta-mythopoets, unite!
>
> Thanks all for this excellent feedback!
>
> Cheers
>
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 7:48 AM lee simplyquality.org
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__simplyquality.org&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=QeXnvLI_UQCIeTPmmOoeiwjTnMsmBXv_yX1JeWH5GqQ&s=x1yzhkA2ViUhSP664Gg5Ga6YI-4N7XzWbfYbhnfbKk0&e=>
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> *CAUTION: *This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links
> or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is
> safe.
> ------------------------------
> Enrichment!  Increasing the value, exploring the possibilities, finding
> connections, offering a variety of viewpoints (toward Consiliance),
> appreciating nuance, embracing ambiguity, …
>
> Thanks,
> Lee
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Mar 22, 2022, at 7:03 AM, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> 
>
> Brendan,
>
>
>
>   This is a lovely piece of work. It honors and illuminates and inspires.
> I found the description in the email to be powerful and on point. (If you
> will, please allow me to make one minor point about nomenclature…the Tree
> of Knowledge is abbreviated “ToK,” because when capitalized in the UTOK
> language system, TOK stands for “Theory Of Knowledge,” as in the TOK
> Society (not ToK Society) and UTOK itself).  In addition, I found the poem
> to be moving and alluring and imaginative and generative.
>
>
>
>   I will share a couple of points in response to Lee’s helpful comments. I
> agree with Lee that simplicity is often something to strive for, especially
> if we are to take an “engineering mind” approach to helping ease folks into
> understanding the reality mapped by a science oriented toward wisdom. And,
> Lee, this is what I see you do so well.
>
>
>
>   At the same time, the cultural place Brendan is adopting, at least as
> far as I am following him, is a mytho-poetic epic narrative structure to
> pull on the power of the arts and related theological imaginal structures
> to inspire and cultivate meaning in this time of the meaning and mental
> health crisis. Ala Vervaeke’s work, the gap from the Enlightenment can be
> framed as a massive chasm between science and spirituality, whereby the
> latter refers to a mythos that orients our souls toward the transcendent
> (represented in UTOK, as the Garden). As I see it, Brendan’s work is placed
> to bridge and transcend that gap toward a metamodern scientific spiritual
> sensibility. As such, his proper use of the term “complexification” seems
> well justified to me. Complexification refers to the coming together of
> differentiated parts to form an integrated functional, patterned whole. The
> ToK System affords us a scientifically grounded big history map of the
> complexification trail across the levels and dimensions of nature that
> affords us the capacity to understand the integrated networks of
> energy-information that enable us to connect in this exchange and
> collectively imagine the Omega.
>
>
>
> I hope you don’t mind, Brendan, but I took the liberty of taking some of
> the art work that you did with the four rings and added Christian Gross’s
> updated iQuad Coin to the middle (which has UTOK’s “ultimate
> justification”, which *be that which enhances dignity and well-being with
> integrity*, on the gold trim, along with a sun representing the Elephant
> Sun God, which is an icon of the ultimate good/true/beautiful, away from
> evil).
>
>
>
> [image: image001.png]
>
>
>
> To be clear, in UTOK, the iQuad Coin can be thought of as representing the
> point at which the psyche, mathematics, logic, and physics, along with the
> one and the many, and the past, present and future are joined in a nondual
> empirical experience of onto-epistemological awareness (to use some of Nik
> L.’s language from his nondual empiricist frame).
>
>
>
> I see this epic from Brendan as helping us to be and become oriented
> toward the Omega under the light of the Elephant Sun God. As such, I thank
> you for this emerging work with a deep sense of gratitude.
>
>
>
> Best,
> Gregg
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* theory of knowledge society discussion <
> [log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *Brandon Norgaard
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 22, 2022 12:34 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: TOK and A New Mythology for the 21st Century
>
>
>
> *CAUTION: *This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links
> or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is
> safe.
> ------------------------------
>
> Thanks Brendan – you have an amazing imagination and you are quite
> inspirational!
>
>
>
> Also really a minor point but just to clarify for the other members here,
> Mr. Dempsey’s name is spelled Brendan.  It read that while the names
> Brendan and Brandon are spelled and pronounced quite similarly, they have
> entirely different etymologies.  Brendan, I understand, means raven in
> Irish Gaelic, while Brandon means sword in Old English.
>
>
>
> 😊
>
> Brandon
>
>
>
> *From:* theory of knowledge society discussion <
> [log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *lee simplyquality.org
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__simplyquality.org&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=QeXnvLI_UQCIeTPmmOoeiwjTnMsmBXv_yX1JeWH5GqQ&s=x1yzhkA2ViUhSP664Gg5Ga6YI-4N7XzWbfYbhnfbKk0&e=>
> *Sent:* Monday, March 21, 2022 6:35 PM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: TOK and A New Mythology for the 21st Century
>
>
>
> *CAUTION: *This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links
> or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is
> safe.
> ------------------------------
>
> Brandon,
>
> Thanks for this; your writing style is beautiful. I too look forward to
> reading the next chapter.
>
>
>
> I dare to offer a few comments.
>
> You describe this as a myth, which is generally considered not to be
> objectively true.
>
> I understand it is your goal to describe reality as it is, not to
> fantasize about what we don’t know, nor to reject what we do know.
>
> I encourage you to describe this as something other than a myth. Perhaps
> as a saga, or a history, or an autobiography, or some newly-coined term.
>
> I don’t know of any more fascinating story than an accurate description of
> reality as it is.
>
> (Dawkins wrote a book called “The Greatest Show on Earth” to describe
> evolution as it is.)
>
>
>
> Also, although I acknowledge the remarkable complexity of the real world,
> I value simplicity over complexity. (Note, for example my email address!)
>
> I avoid the word “complexification” because it suggests to me an effort
> toward making things more complex (and obscure) than they need to be.
>
> I suggest using the phrase “adding detail” rather than complexification.
> You are not adding complexity to the real world, you are avoiding a
> simplistic description by describing existing levels of detail.
>
>
>
> Coincidentally, the course I recently developed on Finding Common Ground
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikiversity.org_wiki_Finding-5FCommon-5FGround&d=DwMGaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=spHCkv213iGA97kCZCBlBu1dWWEh4gF5cDrjjaAlH4Y&s=opM3q8lLc64dWrn0FUXfzXEVtpjTkdUZSuaPiuM2_9I&e=> is
> as appeal to align our worldviews with reality.
>
> Your writing style is much more beautiful, but our messages may be similar.
>
>
>
> I hope this musing has been helpful.
>
>
>
> Good luck with this.
>
>
>
> Lee Beaumont
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mar 21, 2022, at 1:31 PM, Waldemar Schmidt <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> *CAUTION: *This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links
> or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is
> safe.
> ------------------------------
>
> Brendan: thank you.  I look forward to more.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Waldemar
>
>
>
> On Mar 21, 2022, at 8:46 AM, Brendan Graham Dempsey <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>
>
> *CAUTION: *This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links
> or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is
> safe.
> ------------------------------
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> As a poet and artist passionate about metatheory and concerned about the
> "meaning crisis," I've been keen to find a way to articulate the immensely
> beautiful and inspiring metanarrative of emergence and complexification (as
> expressed by TOK, for instance) into the symbolic language of myth. The
> urgent need for such a metanarrative is probably clear to many in this
> group. Gregg succinctly states in his book, *A New Unified Theory of
> Psychology, *"Currently the worldviews--the large-scale justification
> systems--that guide human action are in a state of 'fragmented pluralism,'
> meaning that they are fundamentally contradictory and incompatible.
> Fragmented pluralism does not seem like an ideal state of affairs," he
> adds, and one might provide a host of evidence for this very valid
> conclusion (p. 26). The importance of a "post-postmodern grand
> meta-narrative" (p. 24) such as UTOK is that it "provides the ultimate map
> of the general background structure that can coherently frame but not
> imprison the infinite variety of human experience" (p. 28).
>
>
>
> Such a coherent frame can, I think, provide the salutary edifice that so
> many people currently lack, who are currently suffering the psychological
> anguish of nihilism, depression, and despair as a result of the
> insufficiency of the dominant narratives on offer. To the degree that such
> value nihilism is a principal driver of society's short-sighted and selfish
> habits of over-consumption and destructive exploitation, such a narrative
> might even "save the world" (so to speak). Less dramatically, to the degree
> that such a narrative is simply true and factual but at present largely
> inaccessible and so unknown to vast swathes of the population, its
> dissemination through more easily accessible modes would be inherently
> valuable.
>
>
>
> Towards these ends, I have begun a work that I hope can effectively convey
> the above-mentioned "post-postmodern grand meta-narrative" to a broad
> audience in a symbolic, mythic register. The work I am calling simply *Ω *(Omega),
> which I summarize this way:
>
>
>
> *Ω** is the story of everything. It is an attempt to render the
> metanarrative of metamodernity mythopoeically, relating the
> complexification of the universe and the evolution of consciousness through
> the domains of Matter, Life, Mind, and Culture.*
>
>
>
> You can read more about the project and view the first 6 pages here:
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.brendangrahamdempsey.com_omega&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=R3HWErWO6cqpjBq5eYjmHZyGhcS4rxJEs-O7VydyFkk&s=taPIzjCC7TpkwI6Zw454r_sCMPlGgbChcaxfXkPKhD8&e= 
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.brendangrahamdempsey.com_omega&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=y0Tvs-M5dlM7XmmabmmeDvY6spuVcIiGz6HHnRmUyGM&s=rZ9tANEq2orPWM4NzOCGCDBVrjwJ9cHuSt5M4AIYky0&e=>
>
>
>
>
> I will continue to serially publish pages as I complete them. I welcome
> any and all feedback.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Brendan
>
>
>
> ############################
>
> 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
>
>
>
> ############################
>
> 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
>
>
>
> ############################
>
> 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
>
> ############################
>
> 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
> ############################
>
> 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
>
> ############################
>
> 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
>
> ############################
>
> 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
>
> ############################
>
> 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
> ############################
>
> 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
>

############################

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