Frances to Cheerskep and others... There are problems of course for Peircean philosophy in regard to wordy terms of reference. While the field justly wants special jargon that is precise for its experts, it must also use common jargon to reach promising novices, if it seeks to encourage their participation. One of the tasks imposed on myself in regard to this very problem is in attempting to tailor the terms of pragmatist ideas in order to reach different audiences. My varied targets often include academic scholars or executive officers or collegiate students, and each group clearly is at a different level and has a different need. The logical must therefore be made technical or profitable, and this must then be made entertaining or applicable. There is also a difficulty in using the same terms that are spoken in a lecture and written in a publication, and also that are debated in a forum, because after all these venues are of different media. The adequate communication of this learned information is nonetheless important, so that the least of its users will understand it, and perhaps be influenced to lean in its direction or to enter some field of study relevant to it.
Most internet websites present further problems of their own. Learned experts usually want to covet their cherished theories, and so resist placing them in an open and free list. The alternative is a closed list that is rigorously policed, but this also has its limitations. The flexible balance clearly would be a list that is fixed and firm, yet also free and fluid. Even finding a list on the web with a search engine using some key terms is furthermore difficult. Any referrals on old lists to new lists would help seekers, but this is often avoided by old lists.
