style framework up to appendix essays

5 files changed, 17 insertions, 3 deletions

diff --git a/essays/admissible_contradictions.tex b/essays/admissible_contradictions.tex
index 875ba55..b39f866 100644
--- a/essays/admissible_contradictions.tex
+++ b/essays/admissible_contradictions.tex
@@ -2,6 +2,8 @@
 
 \section{Chapter III. A Provisional Axiomatic Treatment}
 
+\fancyhead{} \fancyfoot{} \fancyfoot[LE,RO]{\thepage}
+\fancyhead[LE]{\textsc{The Logic of Admissible Contradictions}} \fancyhead[RO]{\textit{III. A Provisional Axiomatic Treatment}}
 
 In the first and second chapters, we developed our intuitions 
 concerning perceptions of the logically impossible in as much detail as we 
diff --git a/essays/creep.tex b/essays/creep.tex
index 5bd9b13..232cb10 100644
--- a/essays/creep.tex
+++ b/essays/creep.tex
@@ -1,5 +1,8 @@
 \chapter{Creep}
 
+\fancyhead{} \fancyfoot{} \fancyfoot[LE,RO]{\thepage}
+\fancyhead[LE]{\textsc{Social Philosophy}} \fancyhead[RO]{\textit{On Social Recognition}}
+
 When Helen Lefkowitz said I was \enquote{such a creep} at Interlochen in 
 1956, her remark epitomized the feeling that females have always had about 
 me. My attempts to understand why females rejected me and to decide what 
diff --git a/essays/propositional_vibration.tex b/essays/propositional_vibration.tex
index 5750f8d..b0c72a7 100644
--- a/essays/propositional_vibration.tex
+++ b/essays/propositional_vibration.tex
@@ -1,5 +1,8 @@
 \chapter{Subjective Propositional Vibration (Work in Progress)}
 
+\fancyhead{} \fancyfoot{} \fancyfoot[LE,RO]{\thepage}
+\fancyhead[LE]{\textsc{Science (Logic)}} \fancyhead[RO]{\textit{Subjective Propositional Vibration (Work in Progress)}}
+
 Up until the present, the scientific study of language has treated 
 language as if it were reducible to the mechanical manipulation of counters 
 on a board. Scientists have avoided recognizing that language has a mental 
diff --git a/essays/social_recognition.tex b/essays/social_recognition.tex
index b3daa70..3ca8a2f 100644
--- a/essays/social_recognition.tex
+++ b/essays/social_recognition.tex
@@ -1,5 +1,8 @@
 \chapter{On Social Recognition}
 
+\fancyhead{} \fancyfoot{} \fancyfoot[LE,RO]{\thepage}
+\fancyhead[LE]{\textsc{Social Philosophy}} \fancyhead[RO]{\textit{On Social Recognition}}
+
 The most important tasks which the individual can undertake arise not 
 from personal considerations but from the general conditions of society. The 
 standards of accomplishment for these tasks are implicit in the tasks, and are 
diff --git a/essays/three_levels_of_politics.tex b/essays/three_levels_of_politics.tex
index e907dfa..2b45c27 100644
--- a/essays/three_levels_of_politics.tex
+++ b/essays/three_levels_of_politics.tex
@@ -1,5 +1,8 @@
 \chapter{The Three Levels of Politics}
 
+\fancyhead{} \fancyfoot{} \fancyfoot[LE,RO]{\thepage}
+\fancyhead[LE]{\textsc{Social Philosophy}} \fancyhead[RO]{\textit{On Social Recognition}}
+
 
 Political activity and its results can occur on three levels. The first level 
 is the personal one. An individual may vote to re-elect a local politician 
@@ -91,14 +94,14 @@ satisfaction of the bulk of people's needs depending on the number of
 currency tokens a person possesses." When it comes to the realities of 
 technical economics, virtually every leftist in the world accepts this 
 principle. So far as the third level is concerned, there is no such thing as a 
-non-capitalist polical tendency, and there is no point in hoping for one. A 
+non-capitalist political tendency, and there is no point in hoping for one. A 
 similar conclusion holds for virtually every aspect of third-level politics. 
 Leftists claim that Communism eliminates the causes of war; while at the 
-same time war breaks out beween China and the Soviet Union. 
+same time war breaks out between China and the Soviet Union. 
 
 We propose to draw a far-reaching conclusion from these 
 considerations. Returning to the example of first-level politics, it is rational 
-for the patronage-seeker to be in favor of the election of one focal politican 
+for the patronage-seeker to be in favor of the election of one focal politician 
 and against the election of his opponent. This is a matter which is within the 
 scope of human responsibility, and with respect to which individual action 
 can make a difference. But it is not rational to be either for against