John:
Yes -- I'm all for moving towards an understanding of the "Implicate
Order" but, alas, I seriously doubt that Bohm &al will help us much to
get there (because of the *paradigm* that shaped those thoughts) . . .
<g>
We are convinced that a deep-dive on Aristotle is the best way-to-go
and that trying to "correct" all the mistakes that have been made over
the past 400+ years (i.e. since PRINT wiped out any careful
understanding of Aristotle) is probably going to be a waste of time
(unless fighting with everyone is entertaining for you).
We are already in a *very* new paradigm (as structured by
psycho-technological environments) -- coming at the right time since
the "incoherence" of the last one is becoming deafening -- so
by-all-means let's try to work this through . . . !!
Mark
P.S. I actually know Trivers, somewhat, and, yes, his reputation of
being an SOB is well deserved.
Quoting JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]>:
> Mark, I'm going out of sequence to comment on the links you posted
> regarding John Horgan's 'end of science' essay, etc. I am laying claim to
> the idea that evolution can be understood ontologically and
> epistemologically when it is seen mechanistically from its origins, moving
> forward developmentally and phylogenetically. When looked at that way, many
> aspects of biology become understandable that are currently dogma. The
> point I am trying to make is that if our system of logic is founded on a
> false perspective on reality, as David Bohm said in Wholeness and the
> Implicate Order, then perhaps that's why the physics isn't connecting to
> the reality. Consider the change in human thought after the acceptance of
> Heliocentrism. In my reduction and re-assembly of evolutionary biology I
> have come to the realization that life began as an ambiguity- free energy
> within the cell being negative (Schrodinger) and positive outside of the
> cell. The way in which we have coped with that ambiguity up until now is
> through deception of self and others (Robert Trivers, The Folly of Fools).
> Perhaps the time has come to consider a different paradigm in order to move
> away from cognitive dissonance and toward the Implicate Order, i.e. the
> true nature of Nature.
>
> On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 5:48 AM, Mark Stahlman <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
>> ToKers:
>>
>> "Science" (as we know it) is a *revolutionary* process, that changes its
>> demeanor based on the PARADIGM in which we are living -- which is to say,
>> after Thomas Kuhn's 1962 "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions," it
>> cannot adopt anything like a single "universal" attitude.
>>
>> Aristotle's science was not the same as Newton's and that wasn't the same
>> as Einstein's and so on. As a result, one period's "science" will appear
>> to be "anti-science" in another. (Yes, as you might recall, my father was
>> a historian of science and I'm trained as a molecular biologist, so I have
>> spent some time thinking about this topic.)
>>
>> Since the founding of the Royal Society of London in 1660 (but not
>> institutionalized before that), "science" has presented itself as the
>> rejection of "metaphysics" -- which, as the name implies, was a science
>> that professed to be "meta" (an important topic for this list) the
>> lower-level study of mere "physics." Yes, I have read the archives and
>> noted that Gregg and John have already said a few words about all this.
>>
>> Of course, that rejection of "metaphysics" is just a posture, since it is
>> impossible to actually eliminate what lies underneath/behind whatever
>> science claims itself to be (in any particular paradigm). This fake effort
>> to eliminate what can't be eliminated (termed the "disenchantment of the
>> world" by Max Weber in his 1917 "Science as a Vocation" lecture) has
>> resulted in the current collapse of what many take to be the foundation of
>> "modern" (not to be confused with "postmodern") science -- physics.
>>
>> Recently a fellow I know who writes a blog for Scientific American, John
>> Horgan (who works at the Stevens Institute of Technology, in Hoboken, NJ,
>> where he teaches "creative writing"), wrote a fascinating article titled
>> "How Physics Lost Its Way" that I recommend.
>>
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__blogs.s
>> cientificamerican.com_cross-2Dcheck_how-2Dphysics-2Dlost-2Di
>> ts-2Dway_&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_
>> 5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=2_Z-WnBP9FFDe-
>> vvHWZ7os7vDbHzDx_mSj8C3g3HDGw&s=tJovVyVXkFjHvksbLzLaupM_sEzy
>> 5Bl1ZnrDpw3Uado&e=
>>
>> This, in turn, is based on Sabine Hossenfelder's brand-new "Lost in Math:
>> How Beauty Leads Physics Astray," that I also recommend . . . <g>
>>
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ama
>> zon.com_Lost-2DMath-2DBeauty-2DPhysics-2DAstray_dp_
>> 0465094252&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_
>> 5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=2_Z-WnBP9FFDe-
>> vvHWZ7os7vDbHzDx_mSj8C3g3HDGw&s=Sy_8SfKNt-96VAH9g-bqUH43HeNr
>> NdsL3qguXzur03I&e=
>>
>> I will leave the topic of "why" we go through these series of *paradigms*
>> -- each one revolutionizing "science" anew -- until Gregg returns from
>> vacation but perhaps another important book will stimulate some thinking on
>> the matter. This is the crucial topic of *causality*, which, as it turns
>> out, requires metaphysics.
>>
>> Judea Pearl's "The Book of Why: The New Science of Cause and Effect" is an
>> attempt by a leading Artificial Intelligence researcher (and the "inventor"
>> of Bayesian networks) to put a band-aid on the longstanding problem of
>> *causality* in the West, going back to the Royal Society and its
>> "rejection" (which, btw, does not exist in the same way in the East).
>>
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ama
>> zon.com_Book-2DWhy-2DScience-2DCause-2DEffect_dp_046509760X
>> &d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HP
>> o1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=2_Z-WnBP9FFDe-
>> vvHWZ7os7vDbHzDx_mSj8C3g3HDGw&s=JMLEyDn5rIPMcpQqTt3ee_KL7e0H
>> BRXLSfTBSffXGsw&e=
>>
>> Have fun on your 4th of July (btw, I'll be kayaking off Long Beach Island
>> if anyone else is out that way) . . . !!
>>
>> Mark
>>
>> P.S. For those trying to get ahead-of-the-curve, you might have noticed
>> that my Center bases much of its work on the insights of Marshall McLuhan.
>> His last book was published posthumously with the title "The Laws of Media:
>> The New Science," although, for many years, that title and subtitle were
>> reversed, echoing the title of Giambattista Vico's 1725 "Scienza Nuova."
>> Vico was writing in opposition to the "new science" of his day (i.e. Newton
>> &al), making him, yet-another "anti-scientist" as things ultimately turned
>> out.
>>
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wiki
>> pedia.org_wiki_The-5FNew-5FScience&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCg
>> mb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-
>> UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=2_Z-WnBP9FFDe-vvHWZ7os7vDbHzDx_mSj8C3g3HDGw&
>> s=MrJZ8RVJF7yWFrLIr5fsFwVMctnk8igjtQsAX5PEezk&e=
>>
>> Quoting JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]>:
>>
>> Dear Waldemar and ToKers, thank you Waldemar for acknowledging the problem
>>> I have highlighted with respect to recognizing the difference between
>>> information and knowledge, a distinction which seems to be overlooked.
>>>
>>> What I had neglected to mention in this thread of ideas with regard to the
>>> distinction between information and knowledge is that the Informaticists
>>> think that if you haven't come up with the 'answer' to the problem, you
>>> only need more data! That may work in a finite set, like the parts of the
>>> Challenger, since Informatics was developed by NASA, but it is inadequate
>>> for biologically-related problems like psychology and medicine; we know
>>> that in biology the whole is not equal to the sum of its parts. As Jaron
>>> Lanier, a Silicon Valley guru tells us, "You are not a gadget". In order
>>> to
>>> understand the ever-increasing data in such fields of biology we need to
>>> 'know' how physiology actually works in order to effectively interpret and
>>> utilize information. Learning to think critically to solve problems is
>>> essential.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 11:47 AM, [log in to unmask] <
>>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear Friends:
>>>>
>>>> I am very much "in tune" with John’s comment about conflating information
>>>> and knowledge.
>>>> John, your comments remind me very much of how, for instance, data is (or
>>>> may be) eventually “transformed” into information, knowledge, wisdom, or
>>>> vision:
>>>>
>>>> I am not aware of any computer program which is able to add the elements
>>>> apparently required for each transformation (with the caveat that the is
>>>> a
>>>> LOT about computers and their programs of which I am not aware).
>>>> It appears that the following are uniquely provided by humans:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Processing & relationship discovery.
>>>> 2. Reasoning & the discovery of patterns.
>>>> 3. The application of principles, empathy, and beliefs.
>>>> 4. The application of values and desire.
>>>> 5. The application of commitment.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The first two and part of #3 suggest the application of cognitive
>>>> functions.
>>>> Items 2, 3, and 4 suggest the involvement of affective functions.
>>>> Item 5 suggests the use of conative functions.
>>>> Requiring cognitive, affective, and conative functions suggests the
>>>> application of multiple connectomes, likely in a recursive manner.
>>>>
>>>> While the first two part of the above list may be assisted by computers,
>>>> the latter three seem to be beyond the domain of computers.
>>>> Probably, most “normal” persons have the innate ability to do these
>>>> tasks,
>>>> but John’s experience suggests that the ability to apply all of the above
>>>> requires considerable education and/or experience.
>>>> Hence, the apparently general failure to apprehend the significant
>>>> differences between D, I, K, W & V?
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>>
>>>> Waldemar
>>>>
>>>> *Waldemar A Schmidt, PhD, MD*
>>>> (Perseveret et Percipiunt)
>>>> 503.631.8044
>>>>
>>>> *Strive not to be a success, but rather to be of value.* (A Einstein)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Jun 25, 2018, at 12:48 PM, JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> If you can tolerate a little more anecdotal experience from back in the
>>>> 20th Century, I was raised in a multilingual home (my first language is
>>>> not
>>>> english) in a multiethnic community in New York City and suburbs
>>>> beginning
>>>> in the 1950s. I was encouraged to think and be curious in order to
>>>> assimilate. Although that was not encouraged educationally until graduate
>>>> school, I was prepared for the education I received at McGill University
>>>> in
>>>> Experimental Medicine, being taught by scientists who were actively
>>>> engaged
>>>> in research, prime among them Hans Selye, the physiologist who coined the
>>>> term 'stress'. He and his colleagues on faculty, who had discovered a
>>>> number of hormones- cortisol, aldosterone, prolactin- taught us to
>>>> problem
>>>> solve in the way they had experienced it first hand in the laboratory,
>>>> above all else, that failure meant you hadn't formulated the hypothesis
>>>> correctly. Those were life lessons that I have carried throughout my
>>>> research career. My son, a well-recognized American novelist does much
>>>> the
>>>> same research, only without having to generate data. When we were looking
>>>> for schools for my son to attend back in 2000 the school representatives
>>>> were advocating for a liberal education, given that in the future people
>>>> would have multiple jobs over the course of their careers, and that a
>>>> liberal education was good preparation for such a situation.......does
>>>> that
>>>> no longer apply due to the escalation of tuition?
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 12:11 PM, Joseph Michalski <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Thanks John. I fully agree with your assessment. No question that the
>>>>> narrative has shifted over time to reducing the value of higher
>>>>> education
>>>>> to the overarching metric of earnings/jobs. Certainly a few students
>>>>> still
>>>>> remain who are curiosity-driven, across the many sciences and
>>>>> humanities.
>>>>> But these are more the exceptions than the rule. And honestly, I cannot
>>>>> remember the last time I spoke with a parent who framed the issues in
>>>>> any
>>>>> other way apart from: "What can my kid actually *do *with this degree?
>>>>> This is costing us a *lot* of money!" Finally, our government ministries
>>>>> consistently stress more instrumental learning outcomes, as well as the
>>>>> employment-related metrics. Most faculty members resist, but it has been
>>>>> increasingly difficult to stem the tide in recent years.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best, -joe
>>>>>
>>>>> Dr. Joseph H. Michalski
>>>>>
>>>>> Associate Academic Dean
>>>>>
>>>>> King’s University College at Western University
>>>>>
>>>>> 266 Epworth Avenue
>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__maps.
>>>>> google.com_-3Fq-3D266-2BEpworth-2BAvenue-2B-250D-
>>>>> 250A-2BLondon-2C-2BOntario-2C-2BCanada-2B-2BN6A-2B2M3-
>>>>> 26entry-3Dgmail-26source-3Dg&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vC
>>>>> I4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYB
>>>>> gjO2gOz4-A&m=do8qGY5L8wCPzg90ijJs7PYMEw91kO9D8dlnwmfrJWc&s=
>>>>> Ls55Fxb--I1xu0iIsAwe-CMIjt09lHFOmq32QE2xEac&e=>
>>>>>
>>>>> London, Ontario, Canada
>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__maps.
>>>>> google.com_-3Fq-3D266-2BEpworth-2BAvenue-2B-250D-
>>>>> 250A-2BLondon-2C-2BOntario-2C-2BCanada-2B-2BN6A-2B2M3-
>>>>> 26entry-3Dgmail-26source-3Dg&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vC
>>>>> I4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYB
>>>>> gjO2gOz4-A&m=do8qGY5L8wCPzg90ijJs7PYMEw91kO9D8dlnwmfrJWc&s=
>>>>> Ls55Fxb--I1xu0iIsAwe-CMIjt09lHFOmq32QE2xEac&e=>
>>>>> N6A 2M3
>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__maps.
>>>>> google.com_-3Fq-3D266-2BEpworth-2BAvenue-2B-250D-
>>>>> 250A-2BLondon-2C-2BOntario-2C-2BCanada-2B-2BN6A-2B2M3-
>>>>> 26entry-3Dgmail-26source-3Dg&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vC
>>>>> I4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYB
>>>>> gjO2gOz4-A&m=do8qGY5L8wCPzg90ijJs7PYMEw91kO9D8dlnwmfrJWc&s=
>>>>> Ls55Fxb--I1xu0iIsAwe-CMIjt09lHFOmq32QE2xEac&e=>
>>>>>
>>>>> Tel: (519) 433-3491, ext. 4439
>>>>>
>>>>> Fax: (519) 433-0353
>>>>>
>>>>> Email: [log in to unmask]
>>>>>
>>>>> ______________________
>>>>>
>>>>> *ei*π + 1 = 0
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion <
>>>>> [log in to unmask]> on behalf of JOHN TORDAY <
>>>>> [log in to unmask]>
>>>>> *Sent:* Monday, June 25, 2018 2:02 PM
>>>>> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>>>>> *Subject:* Re: The Science of Anti-Scientific Thinking
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> OK, I have read the Scientific American article in the interim. I find
>>>>> the observations of interest, but as with my comment about the
>>>>> conflation
>>>>> of Information and Knowledge, the degradation of the educational
>>>>> mission is
>>>>> equally troublesome to me......for example, in the run-up to the 2016
>>>>> Presidential election Bernie Sanders was advocating for free higher
>>>>> education. The discussion of that issue revolved around equating
>>>>> education
>>>>> with earnings, without any mention of the quality of life for those with
>>>>> advanced educations. Like so many aspects of society, we are undermining
>>>>> the educational mission in the name of profit as yet another bottom line
>>>>> enterprise. Given that, why would society put value in the generation of
>>>>> scientific evidence, given that the process is misunderstood, if it is
>>>>> understood at all? Teaching to the test for the sake of expediency
>>>>> doesn't
>>>>> give the student an appreciation of the process so he/she can fully
>>>>> understand the significance of the content, or lack thereof. We are not
>>>>> teaching our students to think and problem solve, we are teaching them
>>>>> to
>>>>> pass exams. When social 'values' are only measured in $ and cents, this
>>>>> is
>>>>> the result.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:42 AM, JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear Joe and ToKers, your email and the SA article are great talking
>>>>> points for us to consider. However I think that there's an overriding
>>>>> problem due to the tendency to equate Information and Knowledge. This
>>>>> has
>>>>> resulted from both the "Question Authority" movement and the 'Arab
>>>>> Spring'
>>>>> of technology leveling institutions of society, including
>>>>> science.....discusss?
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:16 AM, Joseph Michalski <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear Colleagues:
>>>>>
>>>>> Please see the attached article from my newly arrived July 2018 issue
>>>>> of *Scientific
>>>>> American*. The three main hurdles to clear scientific thinking they've
>>>>>
>>>>> identified are: 1) shortcuts to deal with cognitive overload; 2) the
>>>>> well-know issue of confirmation bias; and 3) social goals (or what we
>>>>> refer
>>>>> to as influence as part of Gregg's J-I-I argument). I share the article
>>>>> for
>>>>> a few reasons.
>>>>>
>>>>> First, it's great to see a broad swath of the academic community (at
>>>>> least the psychologists and the research cited) largely reaching similar
>>>>> conclusions about cognitive biases - and how the work aligns with much
>>>>> of
>>>>> Gregg's framing and what I've been reading of others on our list-serv.
>>>>> Gregg and I have attempted to joke, with some irony, that we hope we're
>>>>> not
>>>>> just creating our own "echo chambers" and exercising our own
>>>>> "confirmation
>>>>> biases" by agreeing too much. Every group needs the outliers to help
>>>>> keep
>>>>> us honest!
>>>>>
>>>>> Second, I've mentioned before (using my own siblings in part as
>>>>> exemplars) the problem of discussing issues and struggling to be
>>>>> fair-minded, 'objective,' and receptive to alternative viewpoints, new
>>>>> info, etc. And yet the academy itself has been increasingly under
>>>>> attack in
>>>>> recent years as "liberal re-education camps" and "close-minded" by not
>>>>> embracing alternative viewpoints or shutting down speakers, especially
>>>>> on
>>>>> the right-wing end of the political spectrum, who challenge "liberal
>>>>> orthodoxy" or may be skeptical of any claims-making from university
>>>>> professors -- scientific or otherwise. Nancy commented in part on this
>>>>> issue a couple of weeks ago in a quite insightful way. I'm thinking that
>>>>> the issue is actually much broader in the sense that these issues affect
>>>>> all of us, both inside and outside of academia. It's not simply a
>>>>> matter of
>>>>> any of us being "experts" in our fields or far more knowledgeable about
>>>>> the
>>>>> "facts" and "scientific evidence" in regard to our specialties. All
>>>>> knowledge has a relational component too, i.e., depends upon the social
>>>>> location of the actors relative to each other in combination with the
>>>>> cultural sources of justification systems invoked. This explains in
>>>>> large
>>>>> measure, in my view, the rise of the "alternative facts" and "fake news"
>>>>> critiques that have gained such popularity.
>>>>>
>>>>> Finally, note too the fact that our researches across the many fields
>>>>> within the academy -- but especially in the social sciences and
>>>>> humanities
>>>>> -- gradually have chipped away or at least provided insights about the
>>>>> standard forms of knowledge and justification systems that have helped
>>>>> certain groups to maintain their power and privilege for many
>>>>> generations
>>>>> (and across cultures). If I show you the lead article from the
>>>>> well-respected journal *Criminology* last month (which confirms
>>>>> something I've hypothesized about for years) showing the adverse
>>>>> effects of
>>>>> early childhood exposure to lead for healthy brain development and some
>>>>> adverse behavioral outcomes, then how does one "receive" and "interpret"
>>>>> that information? What are the implications for even something as basic
>>>>> as
>>>>> "equality of opportunity" for youngsters who grow up with high lead
>>>>> exposure in their environments, to say nothing of the many other factors
>>>>> that affect their "life chances" simply because they grow up in a
>>>>> certain
>>>>> neighborhood or attended woefully under-resourced schools or a thousand
>>>>> other factors beyond their control? Back to the article and the various
>>>>> mechanisms that we use to simplify the whole darn thing. I'm thinking a
>>>>> la
>>>>> Colonel Jessup's famous quote in *A Few Good Men*: "You can't handle the
>>>>> truth!" Can any of us? 😎 Best regards, -Joe
>>>>>
>>>>> Dr. Joseph H. Michalski
>>>>>
>>>>> Associate Academic Dean
>>>>>
>>>>> King’s University College at Western University
>>>>>
>>>>> 266 Epworth Avenue
>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__maps.
>>>>> google.com_-3Fq-3D266-2BEpworth-2BAvenue-2B-250D-
>>>>> 250A-2BLondon-2C-2BOntario-2C-2BCanada-2B-2BN6A-2B2M3-
>>>>> 26entry-3Dgmail-26source-3Dg&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vC
>>>>> I4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYB
>>>>> gjO2gOz4-A&m=do8qGY5L8wCPzg90ijJs7PYMEw91kO9D8dlnwmfrJWc&s=
>>>>> Ls55Fxb--I1xu0iIsAwe-CMIjt09lHFOmq32QE2xEac&e=>
>>>>>
>>>>> London, Ontario, Canada
>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__maps.
>>>>> google.com_-3Fq-3D266-2BEpworth-2BAvenue-2B-250D-
>>>>> 250A-2BLondon-2C-2BOntario-2C-2BCanada-2B-2BN6A-2B2M3-
>>>>> 26entry-3Dgmail-26source-3Dg&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vC
>>>>> I4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYB
>>>>> gjO2gOz4-A&m=do8qGY5L8wCPzg90ijJs7PYMEw91kO9D8dlnwmfrJWc&s=
>>>>> Ls55Fxb--I1xu0iIsAwe-CMIjt09lHFOmq32QE2xEac&e=>
>>>>> N6A 2M3
>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__maps.
>>>>> google.com_-3Fq-3D266-2BEpworth-2BAvenue-2B-250D-
>>>>> 250A-2BLondon-2C-2BOntario-2C-2BCanada-2B-2BN6A-2B2M3-
>>>>> 26entry-3Dgmail-26source-3Dg&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vC
>>>>> I4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYB
>>>>> gjO2gOz4-A&m=do8qGY5L8wCPzg90ijJs7PYMEw91kO9D8dlnwmfrJWc&s=
>>>>> Ls55Fxb--I1xu0iIsAwe-CMIjt09lHFOmq32QE2xEac&e=>
>>>>>
>>>>> Tel: (519) 433-3491, ext. 4439
>>>>>
>>>>> Fax: (519) 433-0353
>>>>>
>>>>> Email: [log in to unmask]
>>>>>
>>>>> ______________________
>>>>>
>>>>> *ei*π + 1 = 0
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ############################
>>>>>
>>>>> 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-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
|
