Jamie:
Good questions! If you Google your name, your 2017 blog comes up right away -- with your book as the latest thing you've written. I find that acknowledgements are often the best way to tell where someone is coming from, which is why I posted that instead of the text. Perhaps you should take it down if you don't want people to read it . . . <g>
Re: my views, have you had a chance to read the links that I suggested (particularly the archives for this list) . . . ??
1) I was trained as a scientist, so I gathered a few details about reality in the process. Exponential growth is *not* possible in reality. It is 100% "imaginary." Every one of the Internet stats you cite follows the logistics "S-Curve" -- which is *not* exponential (instead it is "second-order" growth, with the limits built right into the equation). I've had a chance to discuss this personally with Kurzweil and he agreed with me. Then he told me that he needed to promote "exponentials" anyway -- knowing it to be false -- since that was his "meme." That is what I call "fraud."
2) Memes are simply another version of *television* advertising which have been "weaponized." This is why the Russian "interference" in 2016 was primarily to promote them and why Facebook &al are now trying to "police" them (behaving more like broadcast television). They are psychological warfare and we'd all be much better off if we simply ignored them (which has largely been the case on this list.) As some have said about the best way to deal with the *effects* of TELEVISION in our lives, "Just turn it off." Memes are manipulation, pure-and-simple. Just say no to memes.
3) Far too much is made of "consciousness" (which is itself a "meme.") In fact, as neuroscience documents, most people have little-to-no awareness of what they are doing or why they are doing it. Overwhelmingly, our lives are dominated by psychological activities that are not-conscious. In particular, our pre-conscious "perception system" -- where we assemble our "ground-level" understanding of the world, including our "intuitions" and "biases" -- is inaccessible to most people. Psychoanalysis was invented to try to deal with this problem but, alas, *memes* only make things much worse. Unfortunately, most people chasing them are driven away from the "truth," not towards it.
Hopefully this has been helpful (although the fact that I don't talk in "memes" might make what I'm saying seem altogether obscure) . . . !!
Mark
P.S. This is my favorite movie clip on the topic of memes. Perhaps you will also enjoy it . . . <g>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.you tube.com_watch-3Fv-3DB1ZOWwW2a gQ&d=DwIBaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb 7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r= HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-j IYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=LEYNjpo977qVXC msa7hGG0ZXLBgP_IGXWP7TKe09CZM& s=63DzD3rZCet9LrNu1XkKJTgpyTkG oOHXwLrvSJtZZUs&e=
P.P.S. I'm pretty familiar with the work of Teillard de Chardin, if you'd like to discuss him in his own context as a 1950s "end-of-the-world" Jesuit. For what it's worth, Marshall McLuhan was incorrectly associated with Teillard by Tom Wolfe in public. I once asked Tom about that and he smiled and said, "Well, I guess I was wrong then." For a closer look at my views, I'd suggest reading McLuhan (btw, my Center has a "library," which might also include some useful references and amounts to my "acknowledgements.")
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.digi tallife.center_index.php_resea rch_library&d=DwIBaQ&c=eLbWYnp nzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_ 5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP- UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m= LEYNjpo977qVXCmsa7hGG0ZXLBgP_I GXWP7TKe09CZM&s=LieKOd9V79tg6M pEMy8xZxfygfA_RKjCaxSSXrtwLxU& e=
Quoting Mathew Jamie Dunbaugh <[log in to unmask]>:
Hi Mark,
I'm curious, why did you decide to dig up my old book and pick out parts of
it to show to the group? That material is old and no longer describes my
views. It does partially, but not entirely. What's your point?
I wish I could get a simple, straightforward description of your argument,
or what exactly you're contesting of my initial email.
Memes were not invented to describe television as-an-environment. The term
was invented to describe the units of selection in culture. Memes have not
(or barely) yet begun to be spawned out of digitial technology. There's no
reason why they can't in principle. When I talk to Cortana and ask her for
a joke or why the sky is blue, a meme transfers from a digital technology
to my brain! Things like this are only going to increase with time.
Yes, social engineering is a big part of the web. But so is general access
to any information you want. It's CNN, FOX, and the news stations that are
losing credibility. They have been socially engineering society since TV
began. Now, if you want the truth and you have the critical thinking
abilities to discern what's true, you can find the truth on the web just
like I found Gregg's ToK system.
I read the links you sent me to get the best understanding I could of what
you're trying to say. Here's a quote from your article on the death of
memes.
*" As computer architects know, digital systems are constructed as
hierarchies of memories. *
*...computers are endlessly busy storing and retrieving items from memory
locations that were initially found inside the machine but are increasingly
found everywhere throughout the world.*
* .... **Digital technology is all about remembering. Thus, digital
technology sounded the death knell for make-believe memes. This radical
shift in our psychology towards memory was what McLuhan was reaching for as
evidenced by his commitment to remembering the basis of Western
civilization. With our new digital environment, this process of remembering
has now become the ground of our daily experiences. " *
Memetic theory is still controversial and not entirely worked out.
According to wikipedia: A meme is an "idea, behavior, or style that
spreads from person to person within a culture"
In my view, this means that memes are the stuff of consciousness as much as
they are behaviors. And technologies are like the phenotypes of memes. I
don't understand how it follows from the fact that digital technology is
all about remembering, that digital technology is the death of memes. That
would be the death of culture. Just because we're remembering more and more
doesn't mean that memes aren't flourishing. Memories are memes. The
technium is built out of memes.
As the internet grows, it uploads more and more of our consciousness. The
process of uploading minds has already begun. Unfortunately, this
information about us is owned by companies like Google and Facebook.
It seems to me that the technium is growing rapidly and uploading
everything it can. Memes can live on computers as much as they can live on
brains, or on paper for that matter. The technium is a giant phenotype of
the cultural memeplex. And it's growing exponentially:
from https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.liv inginternet.com_i_ip-5Fgrowth. htm&d=DwIBaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgm b7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0& r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP- UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m= eN_Uy3kNbHcmkJklHaZuZpkWxHUDnT V0UrAYTWwGru0&s=nkyRilW7N_W3py f29fqqjZna4V4y_IGQE0e8nq_1ohs& e=
Today, the Internet is growing exponentially in three different directions
-- size, processing power, and software sophistication -- making it the
fastest growing technology humankind has ever created:
- *Size*. The graphs in the *historical statistics*
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www. > section show thelivinginternet.com_i_im- 5Fstats.htm&d=DwIBaQ&c=eLbWYnp nzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_ 5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP- UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m= eN_Uy3kNbHcmkJklHaZuZpkWxHUDnT V0UrAYTWwGru0&s=y0dNtQ46o7p-PU AemFkiKGypa3w7w49pKAidbaJDf0I& e=
exponential rate of growth in the number of people that use the Internet.
Soon more than half the world's population will have access to the Internet.
- *Power*. As first appreciated at the *Dartmouth AI Conference*
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www. > in 1956, computerlivinginternet.com_i_ii-5Fai. htm&d=DwIBaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgm b7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0& r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP- UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m= eN_Uy3kNbHcmkJklHaZuZpkWxHUDnT V0UrAYTWwGru0&s=iKpV1oPdZksK_w 5c3EVTRzlpU98FsstEmMx0qYj7_g0& e=
processors and storage continue to double in power and capacity about every
18 months, providing steadily more powerful computers for use by increasing
sophisticated software.
- *Functionality*. Software applications from routing programs to
browser applications continually build on previous technology to become
more sophisticated with every release, continuously evolving to incorporate
new features and capabilities.
Memes are still spawning out of human brains, and they're being expressed
in the technium. Memes are flourishing more than ever now that more
communication is taking place. And as AI develops, memes will start to
spawn out of AI.
Nothing in reality is exponential you say????
Also, you said that Kurzweil is a fraud. In what way? Is this graph
fraudulent?:
The Singularity is more than fantasy; it's a theory. If Kurzweil is wrong
that roughly by the year 2045, the technium will be computing billions of
times more information than all human brains, then the theory is basically
falsified.
I don't understand your perspective. Perhaps you could provide a simple
description. Here's mine, just to put it briefly:
1) increasing memetic flourishing and diversity
2) selection by justification
= progress towards truth
this doesn't mean that all sorts of bullshit won't come out of the
flourishing of memes. Most memes are bullshit. But the truth is emerging
just as well. Truth is the only means of consensus without disabling us.
You talk a lot about weaponized memes and social engineering, but I agree
with all that. Normal war is disappearing, and memetic warfare is the
current era. As the truth emerges, the truth will be selected because it's
justified, and memes are selected by justification.
This very conversation is a conversation about what's true and right. The
globe is involved in a large conversation about what's true and right, and
I'm working on formulating why and how what' actually true and right are
being distilled from the process of justification.
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 1:12 PM, Mark Stahlman <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
Jamie:
No problem -- as a list member, you can access the archives and there's a
thread there on the "New Paradigm" that might interest you . . . !!
As it turns out, the relationships between ourselves and these paradigms
is not entirely straightforward -- in part because of how our psychology
constantly tries to avoid the "ground," while amusing us with the "figures"
(as Gestalt Psychology would have it). Most of us can only "amuse
ourselves to death" (as Neil Postman suggested.) The antidote to all this
is McLuhan.
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ama
zon.com_Amusing-2DOurselves-2DDeath-2DDiscourse-
2DBusiness_dp_014303653X&d=DwIBaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4
uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgj
O2gOz4-A&m=_qoLd7c7XmwCTDTTzGVrdXaiek-LBw2mLRhS-ZYfXZ8&s=
JHzEL_REAQtv5R1Y4FiGFVeyMZ6BesbUrO-31_yLbEs&e=
Humans have little in common with computers (which, btw, I began
professionally designing 40+ years ago -- followed by decades of deep
involvement with those who took up that task after me and then working with
many top companies in the industry.) Yes -- I've also written quite a lot
of code. My "godfather" was Norbert Wiener (and my father was sitting next
to him when "cybernetics" was invented in 1946.) I'm pretty familiar with
this territory.
I know Ray Kurzweil personally and, alas, he's a fraud (which I've
discussed with him). There is *nothing* in reality that is "exponential"
and the idea of a Singularity (as he discusses it) is 100% fantasy.
Nothing of that sort can ever happen (in reality), but it's great if you
want to sell some books &c.
And, unfortunately, David Brin has to be one of most annoying people on
earth -- with his endless attacks on whoever/whatever -- who has elevated
the role of a fantasy writer to what he hopes to be a "soapbox" (while
ensuring that no one will ever pay attention.) Yes, I also know him
personally and have tried to discuss this with him (but he ran away cursing
at me and my mother) . . . <g>
DIGITAL is what we call our new *paradigm* (deliberately capitalized) and
its effects are still at the level of the pre-conscious in most people.
By-and-large, those who were writing about this in the 1970s/80s/90s were
talking with their "imagination" and not with any fundamental grounding in
what was actually happening. I know this because I was in the middle of
it. Make-believe totally dominates this literature (and many are quite
proud of it.)
"Freedom" depends on there being clear *rules* for you to work
for-or-against. In a world, such as ours, in which these "rules" have been
deliberately removed -- noting that *vice* is what drives the consumer
economy -- our corresponding "freedom" also disappears. If "do what thou
wilt is the whole of the law," then *freedom* is impossible (which is
exactly what neuroscience/philosophy now thinks it can demonstrate).
"Memes" are indeed a product of the *technium* but not the DIGITAL one.
The term was invented in 1976 to describe TELEVISION as-an-environment.
The earlier version was Ken Boulding's "Eiconics" from the 1950s and its
fascination with "The Image." They are "weaponized ads," with "social
engineering" as their goal.
Last year, some of my colleagues published our "The End of Memes, or
McLuhan 101" essay on Medium. Perhaps you will find it interesting.
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__medium .
com_rally-2Dpoint-2Dperspectives_the-2Dend-2Dof-2Dmemes-
2Dor-2Dmcluhan-2D101-2D2095ae3cad02&d=DwIBaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBC
gmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-
UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=_qoLd7c7XmwCTDTTzGVrdXaiek-LBw
2mLRhS-ZYfXZ8&s=95muvP47JW23svJHDHVZhcs7s6GG5YcC8TIAaiTjEbM& e=
Mark
P.S. Another reference that you might enjoy, tying "culturology" to
memetic manipulation of the population -- reminding us of its roots in
psychological warfare coming outof WW II -- is Adam Westoby's 1994 essay
"The Ecology of Intentions: How to make Memes and Influence People:
Culturology" (from Dan Dennett's website) --
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__ase.tuf
ts.edu_cogstud_dennett_papers_ecointen.htm&d=DwIBaQ&c=eLbWYn
pnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-
UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=_qoLd7c7XmwCTDTTzGVrdXaiek-LBw
2mLRhS-ZYfXZ8&s=b8M0OjKpnLkTV0VPkwIQXs0oOJseJuI5HvyfXDOBrW0& e=
P.P.S. My direct engagement with the "memesters" goes back to 1995, when I
invited Doug Rushkoff to come speak at my monthly Cybersalon "party."
We're still friends but he cringes every time I remind him of his "Media
Virus! Hidden Agendas in Popular Culture" . . . <g>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ama
zon.com_Media-2DHidden-2DAgendas-2DPopular-2DCulture_dp_
0345397746&d=DwIBaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_
5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=
_qoLd7c7XmwCTDTTzGVrdXaiek-LBw2mLRhS-ZYfXZ8&s=df97yy6MSH6skw
JsyouY_2TOanHlGU3MphcO7mpuJN4&e=
Quoting Mathew Jamie Dunbaugh <[log in to unmask]>:
Hi Mark,
I'm not sure I understand what you're talking about. Much of what I
discuss is about the digital paradigm. Ray Kurzweil, Kevin Kelly, James
Hughes, David Brin, Eliezer Yudkowsky, and in the last email, Max
Tegmark....artificial intelligence, the singularity. I talk a lot about
memes, and for brevity I didn't mention that memes are now living on
digital systems. The whole technium is a memetic nest, although memes
still
only spawn out of human brains, mostly anyway. They are starting to spawn
out of AI.
Technology is the child of memes. I don't see how any of my language fails
to describe the digital age. Psychology or the human mind still dominate
culture and the technium. But the Singularity might be the moment when the
human mind loses dominance, and Kurzweil (and the average estimate of AI
researchers) believe it will occer in the 2040's.
I think we're headed towards what Marshall McLuhan calls the global
village. The web allows us to integrate at a large scale so that we can
converge on the most universal truth and values.
I mentioned the threat of a totalitarian surveillance society a few
times in my email. It seemed that you're thinking that in digital
conditions, totalitarianism is more of a threat. That might be true. But I
don't think it's digitality per se, but the power of companies and the
government to manipulate us through social networks and the media (which
has been manipulating us for decades or more)....autocracy has been the
norm throughout most of history. I would say that even a tribe or
chieftain would be considered sort of totalitarian because you're being
watched and kept to social norms by your peers and you can't be an
independent thinker. I'm more free to be an independent thinker than ever
before; although the workplace can be a tad oppressive towards people who
think differently.
I don't see how we're any less free now than at any time in history.
For now, the state has all sorts of limits on its authority. But it's true
that the technologies emerging at the moment pose a serious threat, and I
mentioned that. But I'm more optimistic. I think that it's in the best
interest of the companies like Google and Facebook for us to be active,
free-thinking members of society, free from state control. It's not like
we're living in 1940's Germany and I don't think we'll ever return to that
state.
Are you familiar with David Brin's vision of the Transparent Society?
It's much more likely that individuals will be able to watch each other,
just as much as they watch us. Because of this new capacity for us all to
watch each other and participate in a large-scale conversation, so to
speak, we're essentially working on creating a large-scale justification
system in our most universal best interests.
I do think Facebook, Twitter, and Google should share their demographic
data to the world though. I'm a web developer and I've been spending a lot
of time working on how to make a version of twitter that shares
psychological and demographic data with its users. I should know what
Google and Facebook know about me.
In my response to Chance, I made this statement: " Consider how
self-driving cars have to decide who to hit if they have to drive through
a
group of people. Ultimately we have to build absolute values into the
technium."
...that's an example of one thing I envision in the digital age. The
technium is a manifestation of social norms and values and it has no room
for ambiguity. Everything has to be spelled out exactly in the digital age
because that's the nature of code.
In summary:
1) I've been spending a lot of time working on how to make a version of
twitter that shares psychological and demographic data with its users. I
should know what Google and Facebook know about me.
2) the fact that we're all attending to each other in a large-scale
conversation because of the web indicates that we're working on a large
scale justification system, which could turn out totalitarian, but more
likely not through state control, but the dominance of social norms like
any village. The norms we'll converge on will be in the most universal
best
interests of life on earth. My opinion is that the only values we can
converge on are those most compatible with the truth because the truth is
the only epistemic system we can converge on. We're going to have a
society
absolutely dominated by the truth. I don't know entirely what the truth
is,
and I don't think anyone does, but that's where we're headed.
3) We're building social norms into our digital web systems, which don't
have much if any wiggle room for ambiguity, so we essentially have to
discover precise values, pursuits, and beliefs into our society.
4) The web gives a voice to the people like never before. Big Brother
might
be able to watch us, but the people are empowered more than ever as well.
We're more likely to have a transparent society with precise values,
pursuits, and beliefs. We're all going to have to act in the most
universal
best interests of the whole. The threat of totalitarianism comes from
large-scale stupidity, but there's no single stupid value system that can
take over because there are all sorts of different stupidities. The only
thing that we all can possibly converge on is the truth, especially since
our science and technology have to rub up against the truth entirely. I
think that we're converging on "out of many, one" and "all for one and one
for all".
And humans have been pondering the question of free will since ancient
Greece. We might not have genuine, metaphysical free will (that we're free
from the forces of causality), but we do have volition. We make choices.
And we're always under the illusion of free will. Nothing new has changed
that.
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 4:40 AM, Mark Stahlman <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
Jamie:
############################
Welcome to the list -- so let me mention a few things that we've recently
been discussing that you might find interesting.
One of them is the shift from an ELECTRIC "paradigm" to a DIGITAL one (c.
2000) -- which aligns with Gregg's vision that we are on some sort of a
"precipice" and that it is this change that will allow his "unified
theory"
to gain wider acceptance.
These *paradigms* come from the "technium" (a Kevin Kelly term) and they
"shape our behavior and and attitudes." Kelly made Marshall McLuhan the
"Patron Saint" of Wired Magazine, and my Center is based on McLuhan's
work,
so I wonder if you've had a chance to look at any of what he said?
The problem of "authority" (or, if you will, "totalizing systems") is one
that we are going to face -- big time. Throughout our lives, we have
been
told that we are "free" (i.e. anti-authority) but, as many suspect, that
was largely an "engineered" fantasy (underpinning the Cold War &c.)
In 1941, Gregory Bateson commented on a presentation by his then-wife,
Margaret Mead, about what was needed in "psychological warfare" terms.
He
suggested a "maze in which the anthropomorphic rats have the illusion of
free-will" and, right on schedule, much of cognitive psychology (and
philosophy) came to the conclusion that we really don't have anything of
that sort (but we'll pretend that we do anyway, leading to
"compatibilism"
&c.)
You seem to be trying to figure out what happens under DIGITAL conditions
(which is indeed what we all need to do), while using the same language
that was current under ELECTRIC conditions (i.e. where most of your
references come from.)
Have you considered that those folks you've been reading were trying to
"solve" a different *paradigm* (which is now obsolete) and that we need a
new "language game" for our new circumstances . . . ??
Mark
Quoting Mathew Jamie Dunbaugh <[log in to unmask]>:
Hi Chance,
############################
A Singleton doesn't have to be an autocrat. The single decision-making
agency could emerge out of the shared intentions of the world, such as a
collective intelligence manifesting on the technium. The Moral Apex is
the
unified body of knowledge, norms, and purpose or intention, along with
the
unification of humanity. This could go along with a centralized
intelligence mediating everything, but I'm more inclined to think it
will
simply be the evolution of the technium/web.
It sure seems that divisive tribalism is the norm right now, but I
suspect
that it's merely a resistance to a larger trend towards cosmopolitanism
and
globalization. We aren't fighting any major wars and there aren't any
serious conflicts between groups. I suspect that the Technium is slowly
gathering us all together to participate in global decision-making.
Consider how self-driving cars have to decide who to hit if they have to
drive through a group of people. Ultimately we have to build absolute
values into the technium. This might seem terrible and could be, but I
think it's forcing us to think very hard to figure out what constitutes
a
just society. Moral relativism has nowhere to go. So because we are
building this techno-social system that's gradually reprogramming
society,
I think we're more likely to program a techno-social system that works
in
the most universal interests. As long as a totalitarian surveillance
system
doesn't threaten people who resist the system, the system will evolve
along
the path of least resistance. But in the process, we have to build in
absolute values and our collective intentions (the meaning of life).
I don't think we'll ever become totalitarian in a way that loses free
speech. That would be the cause of a downfall. Every trend shows
exponential growth towards complexity and integration. I think that the
technium, and the moral apex, will be made out of shared intentions.
There
will be a great deal of social engineering by people at the top, and
it's
a
shock to see how fast people can be socially engineered when you think
about how so many Republicans like Putin now. I'm just inclined to
believe
that things will continue to get better as they have so far. At the same
time, I am worried about hyper-Orwellianism, but I don't think it will
turn
out that way.
Max Tegmark has a great essay on how a company will likely end up taking
over the world with an AGI, by controlling the media, in his new book
Like
3.0. You can read it here:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__nautil.u
s_issue_53_monsters_the-2Dlast-2Dinvention-2Dof-2Dman&d=
DwIBaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1I
XYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=zyQDAfdyvE6LLSL20y-
9SjAqQiVGVi7YE8OVV2Lnt5g&s=WVKUfdnEXpcvZmDB9Q5Nbz9bnezEVs03f
UsVdNPZOd8&e=
It seems plausible to me.
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
write to: mailto:TOK-SOCIETY-L-SIGNOFF-R[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:TOK-SOCIETY-L-SIGNOFF-R[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:TOK-SOCIETY-L-SIGNOFF-R[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:TOK-SOCIETY-L-SIGNOFF-R[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:TOK-SOCIETY-L-SIGNOFF-R[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:TOK-SOCIETY-L-SIGNOFF-R[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