My last email was from my phone, so a bit 'terse'....it was directed to Gregg, but if anyone else can cite experimental evidence for evolution I would be welcome being 'upstaged'......John On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 10:32 AM JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Can you cite experimental evidence for evolution? > > On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 12:36 PM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx < > [log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> John, >> >> >> >> You bring up Dobzhansky. Great, let’s talk about him. His actual quote >> was “Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.jstor.org_stable_4444260-3Fseq-3D5-23metadata-5Finfo-5Ftab-5Fcontents&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=AaHgnABClb75RD_seAn_6pnjWXhdszv61oKr0bcvkSQ&s=bIH6OBeS72fEj8kv6FrZXvlGOZ8Iom_lwDQj6Zl1CzA&e=>.” >> And he based that claim on the remarkable synthesis of Darwinian natural >> selection and molecular genetics. So, you are arguing that we should listen >> to Dobzhansky? And yet, you also write: >> >> "There is no scientific evidence for Darwinian evolution, yet we hang on >> to that theory for dear life, knowing it is illogical and >> untestable/unrefutable” (from Sat 3/9). >> >> >> >> I think this is basically a ludicrous claim to make. Which means there is >> much more to systemic knowledge than empirical evidence alone. There is >> interpretation of what the data mean and how to think about it. I don’t >> share your interpretations of empirical evidence. >> >> >> >> Here is how I make sense of the puzzle: >> >> >> >> Natural selection operating on genetic combinations is obviously key. >> However, I do consider it to be significantly incomplete. I think there is >> much more capacity for organisms to evolve into niches than standard >> genetic mutation theory allows. The brings in epigenetics (see my blog >> on this here >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_intl_blog_theory-2Dknowledge_201312_revolution-2Din-2Devolution-2Dreturn-2Dlamarck&d=DwMFAg&c=kbmfwr1Yojg42sGEpaQh5ofMHBeTl9EI2eaqQZhHbOU&r=fAX9xBiqC7Jpwi5bcf42BpKio-w7hhMYFN9VxTHChls&m=kdyPU7LtUT84oPwjve6sOKG09VL-G0yH2TDY2YlWLEs&s=VHEcJA2sEVcOIDyYf1DC3FMjM1PbfKxxxld0WReVCbc&e=>). >> In addition, I agree with you that cell theory is not properly integrated >> with the modern synthesis. So, I am with you the modern synthesis needs a >> significant Newton-into-Einstein overhaul. And I think you are “seer” in >> this regard. >> >> >> >> But, John, your knowledge of philosophy and big picture synthetic views >> of psychology and the social sciences, well, quite limited in many ways. >> So, I embrace the “Torday line” which to me incorporates your findings and >> explains your vision from my vantage point. >> >> >> >> Bottom line: We have different interpretations of data and their >> implications and different ways to make sense of the world we find >> ourselves in. Lots of compatibility, but also some incommensurability. >> Let’s just agree to disagree and move on, shall we? Or you and I can back >> channel if you want. >> >> >> >> Best, >> Gregg >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion < >> [log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *JOHN TORDAY >> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 12, 2019 9:21 AM >> *To:* [log in to unmask] >> *Subject:* Re: In Need of a Clear Language System >> >> >> >> Dear ToKers, the great debacles of science like Heliocentrism, Microbe >> Theory, Vitalism, DNA as the mechanism of inheritance, The Big Bang, have >> all been resolved by experimental evidence. Where is the experimental >> evidence for the ToK/UTUA? I ask because this is the challenge for me, >> which I have offered to resolve by interjecting the experimenal evidence >> into Gregg's ToK as the Joint Points. He chooses to reject that out of hand >> as being a different systematic approach to the ToK. I dispute that, and in >> my defense I will cite Theodosius Dobzhansky, the pre-eminent evolutionist, >> who said that 'evolution is all of biology', psychology being a subset of >> biology. If my take on evolution is unacceptable, then some other body of >> experimental data must be offered in order to resolve this debate. I offer >> this perspective in the spirit of constructive debate....John >> >> >> >> On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 5:58 AM Joseph Michalski <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >> Thanks Brent and Gregg for these additional comments and clarifications. >> I find the Canonizer platform incredibly helpful and a great mechanism for >> comparing arguments and theoretical perspectives, especially since we have >> much more limited opportunities in the academic world through our >> traditional publication processes. Especially helpful for people to locate >> themselves vis-a-vis others in a constructive fashion. Continued success >> Brent, >> >> >> >> -Joe >> >> >> >> <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=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=AaHgnABClb75RD_seAn_6pnjWXhdszv61oKr0bcvkSQ&s=GATymMoI0b8o7GoHuyAj_0xKwIcgu_V25YF5VsvISJY&e=> >> >> 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=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=AaHgnABClb75RD_seAn_6pnjWXhdszv61oKr0bcvkSQ&s=GATymMoI0b8o7GoHuyAj_0xKwIcgu_V25YF5VsvISJY&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=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=AaHgnABClb75RD_seAn_6pnjWXhdszv61oKr0bcvkSQ&s=GATymMoI0b8o7GoHuyAj_0xKwIcgu_V25YF5VsvISJY&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=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=AaHgnABClb75RD_seAn_6pnjWXhdszv61oKr0bcvkSQ&s=GATymMoI0b8o7GoHuyAj_0xKwIcgu_V25YF5VsvISJY&e=> >> >> Tel: (519) 433-3491 >> >> Fax: (519) 963-1263 >> >> Email: [log in to unmask] >> >> ______________________ >> >> *ei*π + 1 = 0 >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion < >> [log in to unmask]> on behalf of Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx >> <[log in to unmask]> >> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 12, 2019 7:20 AM >> *To:* [log in to unmask] >> *Subject:* Re: In Need of a Clear Language System >> >> >> >> Thanks for this wonderful description, Brent. >> >> >> >> As my slides suggested, I am definitely in the Representational Qualia >> Theory camp. It is interesting because after that, I am not sure where to >> place myself. (I joined and put myself there). >> >> >> >> That means that with canonizer I can see clearly where my approach falls >> relative to others, which is super helpful. I almost went with biological >> naturalism via John Searle. However, I don’t quite share his language. I >> think that the next “breakdown” point I would argue for is “Property >> Quadism” to contrast with property dualism. Property dualism goes under >> mind-brain identity. I disagree with that language system, because I make >> very clear distinctions between mind (the mind) and consciousness. Property >> quadism stems from the ToK and the claim that, ontologically, there are >> four dimensions of behavioral complexity (Matter, Life, Mind, and Culture) >> that characterize the behavioral patterns of objects, organisms, animals, >> and persons. >> >> >> >> Thus, under RQT I would add UTUA Theory of Knowledge… >> >> >> >> Fascinating. >> >> >> Best, >> >> Gregg >> >> >> >> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion < >> [log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *Brent Allsop >> *Sent:* Monday, March 11, 2019 11:09 PM >> *To:* [log in to unmask] >> *Subject:* Re: In Need of a Clear Language System >> >> >> >> Hi Mark, >> >> >> >> You seem to not know much about how canonizer works, what it is, or what >> it has already accomplished. >> >> >> >> You indicated how “Crowd Sourcing” is not the source to “wisdom” or >> “understanding” and that the crowd is “clueless”. I agree with you, that >> currently the crowd is quite clueless. The only reason we want to measure >> this cluelessness, using the default popular consensus canonizer algorithm, >> is so we can compare this to the “expert consensus” as measured by expert >> canonizer algorithms. What you can measure, will improve. This allows the >> experts to better find out what the popular consensus is. Knowing where >> the crowd is mistaken and why, they can then better form the expert >> consensus in a way that the crowd can better keep up. One of many ways >> this canonization process amplifies the wisdom of the previously, >> clueless. For example, global warming experts will finally be able to know >> what the crowd believes, and why. And they will be able to measure which >> arguments better convince the crowd… Again, amplifying the wisdom of the >> crowd. >> >> >> >> Before Canonizer.com existed, many of the notes groups and forums I >> participated in, even the philosophy ones, would try to shame people into >> not bringing up the topic of “qualia”, knowing that this would just lead to >> a shouting match, where no matter what you referenced from what was coming >> out of the Ivory Tower and Peer reviewed journals, someone else would throw >> an equally ivory towers reference claiming it was “fake news”. The same >> old yelling match, and reference throwing at each other never made any >> progress, and ultimately one side or the other would accuse the other of >> being Nazis. The stuff being published in peer reviewed journals is no >> different. This fear and loathing everyone has of even bring up the topic >> of qualia, as a result of all this, is the biggest reason the crowd is so >> clueless. Even many neural experimentalist fear bringing up the word >> qualia. If they try to consult the peer review journals on this, it is all >> junk, so they just give up after a few years. Jack Galant is a very good >> example of exactly this. >> >> >> >> Now, when you go into forums, where people know what canonizer.com >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__canonizer.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=6C0_mIxyrkfL1lP2qpsJwkrCQcZIPtoU5JEzuyMJ3G8&s=EgzHE7goOJoGo2CusKHtbPyYH14YRf_dZoT-2a-EWhg&e=> >> is, everything has changed dramatically. Talking about qualia is now fun. >> Anyone that brings up qualia, now, is quickly met with people pointing to >> links, describing the state of the art of emerging expert consensus camps >> held by the participants in the forums. Instead of all the repeated old >> arguments, on the occasion someone does bring a new argument or scientific >> results to the conversation that is not yet canonized, you canonize that >> new argument. You can measure the quality of such arguments and evidence >> by how many people they convert. We are already seeing this. Again, that >> which you measure, improves the wisdom of the crowd. These kinds of >> conversations, in forums, are now very fun, and you see things start to >> progress at an extraordinary rate, instead of being stuck on the same old >> stupid arguments, over and over again. We even had a high school student >> come to canonizer.com >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__canonizer.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=6C0_mIxyrkfL1lP2qpsJwkrCQcZIPtoU5JEzuyMJ3G8&s=EgzHE7goOJoGo2CusKHtbPyYH14YRf_dZoT-2a-EWhg&e=>, >> clearly initially, quite naive about many of the good arguments and >> theories. Within a few months, since he was able to ignore all the old >> stuff by all the old experts taught in college classes, which most experts >> now agree have been falsified, he was competing with PhDs that had been >> working and publishing in the field for years with his contributions. >> >> >> >> There are also LOTS of people that have what they believe to be the >> “Solution” to the hard problem, which they can’t get published, for lots of >> various reasons, including the fact that many of the ideas look really >> crazy, and have nothing to do with the real “hard problem”. These kinds of >> people flock to canonizer.com >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__canonizer.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=6C0_mIxyrkfL1lP2qpsJwkrCQcZIPtoU5JEzuyMJ3G8&s=EgzHE7goOJoGo2CusKHtbPyYH14YRf_dZoT-2a-EWhg&e=>, >> because it is finally a place where they can, not just publish their work >> they can canonize it, and start finding other people that agree with them, >> building consensus around their best ideas, and abandoning the bad ones. >> >> >> >> Now that canonizer has been around, and we’ve been doing the >> consciousness consensus project for more than 10 years we’ve made a real >> breakthrough. The “Representational Qualia Theory >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__canonizer.com_topic_88-2DRepresentational-2DQualia_6-3F&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=6C0_mIxyrkfL1lP2qpsJwkrCQcZIPtoU5JEzuyMJ3G8&s=0RNGuwEW1JQDWa-AcIzsas_lm9KtG-on5irO0fJ8rwA&e=>”, >> which has almost unanimous expert consensus, is not only proving how much >> consensus is possible in this field, it is the real solution to bridging >> the explanatory gap, describing a real way to approach the qualitative >> nature of consciousness scientifically. >> >> >> >> The Ivory tower and peer reviewed journal industry has been struggling >> with this so called “hard problem’, for hundreds of years. About all >> they’ve given anyone, is that there is no consensus on anything. Only the >> bad arguments are the ones that get so often bleated, by the polarized >> herding crowd. Now, with Canonizer, no more. >> >> >> >> You also said: “You don't get to redefine "canon." The Church owns the >> word.” >> >> Which is also incorrect. The domain name “canonizer.com >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__canonizer.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=6C0_mIxyrkfL1lP2qpsJwkrCQcZIPtoU5JEzuyMJ3G8&s=EgzHE7goOJoGo2CusKHtbPyYH14YRf_dZoT-2a-EWhg&e=>” >> is owned by Canonizer.com LLC, and nobody could get a copyright on a word >> like that. We're using it quite successfully already. >> >> >> >> Brent >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 11:44 AM Mark Stahlman <[log in to unmask]> >> wrote: >> >> Brent: >> >> Yes, I know. As a result, you will fail. Pick a different name . . . <g> >> >> "Crowd Sourcing" is a fad that people increasingly recognize is *not* >> the source to "wisdom." It certainly has its purposes -- like if >> you're trying to build "consensus" -- but "understanding" isn't one of >> them. >> >> Most people have no clue what is going on -- for good reason. You >> *really* only need to understand something because you are >> "responsible" for the outcome. That means yourself, your family, your >> job -- that's it. Enough. No more. >> >> The notion that a group of people without that direct engagement with >> the subject-at-hand should have something "intelligent" to say is >> idiotic. They never will and, indeed, they really shouldn't. >> >> President of the US? Negotiations with North Korea? None of my >> business. Opinions? Don't have one. Stick your opinion survey where >> the sun doesn't shine (as more-and-more people are, in fact, telling >> the pollster) . . . !! >> >> "Democracy" -- particularly of the *direct* sort -- is a hoax. I know >> some of the people who spread this idea, including those who did it to >> the "shop floor" and they were quite idealistic about it. They also >> thought we should all live our lives like the Aboriginals. Huddled >> around the fire, starring at the flickering images on the tent wall. >> Without literacy. Rousseau would have liked it, I suspect. >> >> >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Fred-5FEmery&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=19-AJ6b2uPtOcvH5PZ8v3aoWOBbQtP-h_fMqr6Mdg9k&s=Str2nuv8x8KlwqngwxVOqJvsjde8rsPQ0zWS5JbgpEA&e= >> >> You don't get to redefine "canon." The Church owns the word. The >> environment can do that -- documenting which, btw, is the whole point >> of the Oxford English Dictionary -- but you can't. >> >> So don't even try (unless you want to learn a lesson that you have >> already been taught) . . . <g> >> >> Mark >> >> Quoting Brent Allsop <[log in to unmask]>: >> >> > Hi Mark, >> > >> > >> > >> > We at canonizer.com >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__canonizer.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=6C0_mIxyrkfL1lP2qpsJwkrCQcZIPtoU5JEzuyMJ3G8&s=EgzHE7goOJoGo2CusKHtbPyYH14YRf_dZoT-2a-EWhg&e=> >> are using and defining canonize in a new way, or giving >> > it a new, or additional definition. >> > >> > >> > >> > Where as the traditional meaning is based on a hierarchy or >> “ecclesiastical >> > definition” our meaning is simply crowd sourced or built by consensus. >> > Instead of top down, it is bottom up. Instead of dictated from above, >> it >> > is self-organized, bottom up. >> > >> > >> > >> > Where the traditional usage is based on tradition, our usage is dynamic, >> > and always changing. It is a measure of the state of the art of a >> standard >> > scientific consensus, theory, and belief. >> > >> > >> > >> > It is simply what the participants build consensus around what they >> want, >> > and the current state of the art of the best terminology we chose to >> use. >> > >> > >> > >> > At canonizer.com >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__canonizer.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=6C0_mIxyrkfL1lP2qpsJwkrCQcZIPtoU5JEzuyMJ3G8&s=EgzHE7goOJoGo2CusKHtbPyYH14YRf_dZoT-2a-EWhg&e=>, >> to “canonize” something, is to find out, concisely and >> > quantitatively, what everyone truly wants or believes. Then once that >> is >> > known, to get it all, for everyone. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 9:13 AM Mark Stahlman <[log in to unmask]> >> > wrote: >> > >> >> John/Gregg: >> >> >> >> This is *classic* . . . !! >> >> >> >> John is PRINT and Gregg is ELECTRIC. Two different "sensibilities." >> >> How could they possibly "agree" on anything . . . ?? >> >> >> >> The irony, of course, is that this is only happening because they are >> >> *both* now obsolete. Both distantly in the "rear-view mirror." Both >> >> looking backwards. >> >> >> >> From an ELECTRIC standpoint, we all have different "language >> >> systems." From a PRINT standpoint, we can actually try to sort all >> >> this out -- "scientifically." >> >> >> >> In both cases, the underlying "biases" are masked. Neither >> >> standpoints recognizes that fundamentally different >> >> psycho-technological environments are at work. And neither will those >> >> who participate in the "Canonizer" game. >> >> >> >> Crucially, neither wants to admit that DIGITAL brings a completely >> >> different sensibility to the "debate." >> >> >> >> Yes, this is classic . . . <g> >> >> >> >> Mark >> >> >> >> P.S. The irony is that a "Canon" isn't either PRINT or ELECTRIC. And >> >> it cannot be decided by a "vote." It is SCRIBAL -- as in "Canon Law." >> >> What a world of surprises awaits us all. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Canon-5Flaw&d=DwIBaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=liZu1PIudVuCGmjsE9GbqAYr0y2OqjrUURySMh9-XlQ&s=6LaimFVFrpAJE-fcNiRoxup3P4z-C3rLwB9vJpzG8jg&e= >> >> >> >> ############################ >> >> >> >> 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