Mark, without fully understanding the implications of embracing Bohm or Aristotle at this juncture, how effective would it be to exploit my Heliocentrism-like reversal of the way that we see evolution, Man no longer occupying the center of the biosphere, not as a 'stunt' but as a genuine mechanistic insight to what evolution actually constitutes? Let alone consciousness......so for example, in the way that I have conceptualized consciousness as the endogenization of the environment, it would suggest that all organisms are conscious relevant to their own environment and adaptive needs. As you know, the question of whether this is the case remains controversial......your thoughts? On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 2:10 PM, Mark Stahlman <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > 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 > ############################ 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