Assume that the members of the list serve constitute a community
(individuals with a level of shared interest/concern) and
assume further that because there is a range of fluency with Piercean
terminology among members of the list, a degree of confusion exists and
assume further approximately equivalent motivation among members to adapt
their existing vocabularies to either more Piercean or less Piercean
terminology
on what basis, if any, do individuals in the community alter their
vocabularies?
Geoff C
From: "Frances Kelly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Peircean Wordy Terms
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 04:54:28 -0400
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.
