Peircian terminology is well-known to be all but opaque -- which helps to account for his dwindled influence. Aside from the necessity for technical language in the fully specialized strata of any field, good philosophy can be clear and useful to most reasonably well-educated people. In my summarized view, Peirce was entangled in his own desire to be very rational and still accomodate his religious conviction and that led to more and more abstract syntax and terminology. Nevertheless, some people, already tongue-tied by some contemporary philosophers, are rediscovering Peirce and want to restore his influence. Perhaps that is a good thing. WC
--- On Mon, 9/29/08, GEOFF CREALOCK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: GEOFF CREALOCK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: RE: Community Vocabulary > To: [email protected] > Date: Monday, September 29, 2008, 10:28 AM > 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.
