Gary, Robert, List,
for some reason I do not like the birds-metaphor too much. What about something like a soup-metaphor? Better a cook too many than a cuckoo. And finally, everybody should want to eat the soup. But how can a final interpretant derive from separate nests.
Best, Helmut
Gesendet: Freitag, 27. Juni 2025 um 00:45
Von: "Gary Richmond" <[email protected]>
An: "Peirce List" <[email protected]>
CC: "robert marty" <[email protected]>
Betreff: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Note on excessive posting
Robert, List,
Thank you for your thoughtful and measured response to my request to limit Peirce-L postings to no more than one in any given thread a day, and no more than two if the poster is writing in two different threads.
You wrote: Your recommendations are helpful and sensible.
GR: I am of course pleased to read that you feel limiting the number of daily posts is "helpful and sensible." However, you later seem to have reservations about my request.
RM: [W]hen you ask whether a text proposed for discussion has been “digested”, I must say that, personally, I wonder whether it has been read (because very often the answers to questions or doubts raised are in the text).
GR: In my view, this is all the more reason to limit postings.
RM: In this regard, I would like to point out that you can go much further in analyzing what is happening on Peirce-L by consulting this article by the Editor-in-Chief of Transactions [. . .] Cornelis de Waall, (2006), entitled “The importance of being earnest: A pragmatic approach to bullshitting.”
GR: I haven't read Kee's book, but have a great deal of respect for his scholarship, not to mention his wit! Indeed, a number of years back we had a valuable slow read of his book, Peirce: A Guide for the Perplexed in the forum in which he briefly participated along with several other scholars. I have not read “The importance of being earnest: A pragmatic approach to bullshitting,” but I'm sure it's a lively introduction to pragmatic bullshitting.
RM: [W]ith social media, bullshit has become a subject that philosophy has inevitably taken up.
GR: I believe that there are now perhaps a dozen or so books on the subject since 2000 in print, not to mention a slew of articles in several languages. There would appear to be much bullshit not only in philosophy, but in such disciplines as medicine. Perhaps some of that is the consequence of the "publish or perish" requirement in many fields. But some of it is just fabricating 'stuff' and lying. Sad.
RM: Quoting De Waall's conclusion: “A better understanding of bullshitting may be a first step, not only towards detecting and identifying bullshit, but also towards countering or preventing it when it is inappropriate.”
GR: If better understanding leads to such practices as your own, ". . .striving to produce only well-argued, carefully documented texts that are indexed with the citations I use to support my arguments," I would certainly whole-heartedly support your idea that members of this forum investigate this theme of bullshitting in the interest of a. recognizing and countering it in others and b. avoiding it in their own writing.
RM: [I]t seems to me that the rules you wish to impose as moderator are a little rigid.
GR: if my recommendations "are a little rigid" then apparently they aren't as "helpful and sensible" as you wrote.
RM: I take as an example the discussion thread I have just opened. I make it a point to respond as quickly as possible out of respect for those who took the initiative to ask the question. This means I end up writing as many responses as there are questions, which can cause me to exceed my quota by a wide margin, even if I spread my responses over two days.
GR: I would imagine that the situation you describe would be rather exceptional; that is, that in two or three days you couldn't respond to as many "questioners" as might post on a given day. Their patience, I would think, would be a virtue, at least to the forum. I have little doubt that anyone in this forum who knows your work, likely everyone, respects it and you and, so, would be more than willing to wait a day or two for a response from you.
RM: Furthermore, when I am confronted with the technique known as “cuckoo” (someone who uses a discussion thread to introduce their own topic that has little or no relevance to the text in question), what should I do? Refuse to respond even if this seriously discredits other personal writings or even those of Peirce himself? Respond at the risk of playing the cuckoo's game? I think these questions need to be asked...
GR: You ask, what should you do if you encounter a 'cuckoo' responding to a post of yours. If I believe that a respondent's comments have "little or not relevance to the text in question," I myself do not respond; and I do not believe that not responding in such a case "seriously discredits other personal writings or even those of Peirce himself." I don't see how not responding would do that (perhaps I am missing your meaning). I think that responding exactly runs the "risk of playing the cuckoo's game." Well that's the best I can answer your questions at this time.
Again, thank you for your thought-provoking post, Robert. However, it perhaps has had the opposite effect than that which you intended as it strengthens my sense that my request to limit posts is indeed both "helpful and sensible." If you care to respond to this post I am most certainly willing to wait a day or so.
Best,
Gary R (writing as moderator of Peirce-L)
Thank you for your thoughtful and measured response to my request to limit Peirce-L postings to no more than one in any given thread a day, and no more than two if the poster is writing in two different threads.
You wrote: Your recommendations are helpful and sensible.
GR: I am of course pleased to read that you feel limiting the number of daily posts is "helpful and sensible." However, you later seem to have reservations about my request.
RM: [W]hen you ask whether a text proposed for discussion has been “digested”, I must say that, personally, I wonder whether it has been read (because very often the answers to questions or doubts raised are in the text).
GR: In my view, this is all the more reason to limit postings.
RM: In this regard, I would like to point out that you can go much further in analyzing what is happening on Peirce-L by consulting this article by the Editor-in-Chief of Transactions [. . .] Cornelis de Waall, (2006), entitled “The importance of being earnest: A pragmatic approach to bullshitting.”
GR: I haven't read Kee's book, but have a great deal of respect for his scholarship, not to mention his wit! Indeed, a number of years back we had a valuable slow read of his book, Peirce: A Guide for the Perplexed in the forum in which he briefly participated along with several other scholars. I have not read “The importance of being earnest: A pragmatic approach to bullshitting,” but I'm sure it's a lively introduction to pragmatic bullshitting.
RM: [W]ith social media, bullshit has become a subject that philosophy has inevitably taken up.
GR: I believe that there are now perhaps a dozen or so books on the subject since 2000 in print, not to mention a slew of articles in several languages. There would appear to be much bullshit not only in philosophy, but in such disciplines as medicine. Perhaps some of that is the consequence of the "publish or perish" requirement in many fields. But some of it is just fabricating 'stuff' and lying. Sad.
RM: Quoting De Waall's conclusion: “A better understanding of bullshitting may be a first step, not only towards detecting and identifying bullshit, but also towards countering or preventing it when it is inappropriate.”
GR: If better understanding leads to such practices as your own, ". . .striving to produce only well-argued, carefully documented texts that are indexed with the citations I use to support my arguments," I would certainly whole-heartedly support your idea that members of this forum investigate this theme of bullshitting in the interest of a. recognizing and countering it in others and b. avoiding it in their own writing.
RM: [I]t seems to me that the rules you wish to impose as moderator are a little rigid.
GR: if my recommendations "are a little rigid" then apparently they aren't as "helpful and sensible" as you wrote.
RM: I take as an example the discussion thread I have just opened. I make it a point to respond as quickly as possible out of respect for those who took the initiative to ask the question. This means I end up writing as many responses as there are questions, which can cause me to exceed my quota by a wide margin, even if I spread my responses over two days.
GR: I would imagine that the situation you describe would be rather exceptional; that is, that in two or three days you couldn't respond to as many "questioners" as might post on a given day. Their patience, I would think, would be a virtue, at least to the forum. I have little doubt that anyone in this forum who knows your work, likely everyone, respects it and you and, so, would be more than willing to wait a day or two for a response from you.
RM: Furthermore, when I am confronted with the technique known as “cuckoo” (someone who uses a discussion thread to introduce their own topic that has little or no relevance to the text in question), what should I do? Refuse to respond even if this seriously discredits other personal writings or even those of Peirce himself? Respond at the risk of playing the cuckoo's game? I think these questions need to be asked...
GR: You ask, what should you do if you encounter a 'cuckoo' responding to a post of yours. If I believe that a respondent's comments have "little or not relevance to the text in question," I myself do not respond; and I do not believe that not responding in such a case "seriously discredits other personal writings or even those of Peirce himself." I don't see how not responding would do that (perhaps I am missing your meaning). I think that responding exactly runs the "risk of playing the cuckoo's game." Well that's the best I can answer your questions at this time.
Again, thank you for your thought-provoking post, Robert. However, it perhaps has had the opposite effect than that which you intended as it strengthens my sense that my request to limit posts is indeed both "helpful and sensible." If you care to respond to this post I am most certainly willing to wait a day or so.
Best,
Gary R (writing as moderator of Peirce-L)
On Thu, Jun 26, 2025 at 4:22 AM robert marty <[email protected]> wrote:
Gary, List,Your recommendations are helpful and sensible. However, when you ask whether a text proposed for discussion has been “digested”, I must say that, personally, I wonder whether it has been read (because very often the answers to questions or doubts raised are in the text). In this regard, I would like to point out that you can go much further in analyzing what is happening on Peirce-L by consulting this article by the Editor-in-Chief of Transactions (the Charles S. Peirce Society), Cornelis de Waall, (2006), entitled “The importance of being earnest: A pragmatic approach to bullshitting,” in Hardcastle Reisch, Bullshit and Philosophy. Open Court. Indeed, with social media, bullshit has become a subject that philosophy has inevitably taken up.De Waall's conclusion, after a very detailed and enriching study in which Peirce's inquiry is extensively discussed, is as follows: “A better understanding of bullshitting may be a first step, not only towards detecting and identifying bullshit, but also towards countering or preventing it when it is inappropriate.” I invite everyone to question their own practice of Peirce-L in light of this text. Personally, I comply with this by striving to produce only well-argued, carefully documented texts that are indexed with the citations I use to support my arguments.
However, it seems to me that the rules you wish to impose as moderator are a little rigid. I take as an example the discussion thread I have just opened. I make it a point to respond as quickly as possible out of respect for those who took the initiative to ask the question. This means I end up writing as many responses as there are questions, which can cause me to exceed my quota by a wide margin, even if I spread my responses over two days. Furthermore, when I am confronted with the technique known as “cuckoo” (someone who uses a discussion thread to introduce their own topic that has little or no relevance to the text in question), what should I do? Refuse to respond even if this seriously discredits other personal writings or even those of Peirce himself? Respond at the risk of playing the cuckoo's game? I think these questions need to be asked...Sincerely yours,Robert MartyHonorary Professor ; PhD Mathematics ; PhD Philosophy
Le jeu. 26 juin 2025 à 02:53, Gary Richmond <[email protected]> a écrit :_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _List,Responses to some posts in recent days have come so speedily that one wonders if the post being responded to could possibly have been fully 'digested'. Whether or not that is the case for the responder, having several list members posting several times a day makes it difficult for those following the argumentations to keep up. For example, I like to look up at least some of the internal quotations and/or Peirce references in some posts.So as List moderator I am requesting that Peirce-L members post no more than a single post a day in a given thread, and no more than twice a day if they are participating in two threads. My hope is that this discipline might prove beneficial to both posters, responders, and those following a threaded conversation.Gary Richmond (writing as Peirce-L moderator)
ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at
https://cspeirce.com and, just as well, at
https://www.cspeirce.com . It'll take a while to repair / update all the links!
► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] .
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iu.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at https://cspeirce.com and, just as well, at https://www.cspeirce.com . It'll take a while to repair / update all the links! ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iu.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
