JAS, list
You write ‘accurately summarizing and concurring with Peirce’s own views as
clearly expressed in his writings’ - but I consider that this is an assumption
that is fraught with difficulties.
Who is to conclude that your outline is indeed an ‘accurate summary’? You
self-assert that it is so - but- in my view, we are each of us interpreters of
Peirce and cannot self-define ourselves as ‘accurate in that interpretation’.
Indeed, as you know, I disagree with many of your interpretations and do not
view them as ‘concurring with Peirce’s own views’.
As an example - your view that Peirce sees the universe as ‘one immense sign’
is, in my view, contrary to his statement “that all this universe is perfused
with signs if it is not composed exclusively of signs” {Note: Signs are
plural!] 5.449. And since I also hold that the Sign is a triad [whereas you
refer to the sign only as the mediative correlate] and that the semiosic
process is dynamic, evolving, adaptive - which is different from your view -
then, I think we remain as, each of us, interpreters of Peirce - but - again,
who is to say that we are ‘accurate’?
Edwina
> On Aug 7, 2025, at 12:42 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> Mike, List:
>
> I am as guilty as anyone of posting multiple times in the same thread on the
> same day over the years, but I recognize that (a) Gary R. is the List
> moderator--the only List moderator--and thus has the sole right to establish
> participation rules that in his judgment will enhance the culture of the
> List; and (b) limiting myself in accordance with his request has turned out
> to be beneficial, forcing me to slow down and think through what I want to
> say before posting it. Admittedly, I am still working on reducing the length
> of my posts.
>
> When I say "Peirce and I," it is merely shorthand for "according to Peirce,
> and I agree." For example, Peirce and I maintain that the entire universe is
> one immense sign, although I go on to identify some implications of this that
> he did not. Accurately summarizing and concurring with Peirce's own views as
> clearly expressed in his writings is not an appeal to authority, pseudo or
> otherwise.
>
> As I see it, this is still very much a forum for "open give-and-take," but
> obviously all such contributions are entirely voluntary. The only way to see
> more participation is for more people to participate, so withdrawing--for
> whatever reason--is counterproductive to that desire.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
> Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
> <http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt>
> On Thu, Aug 7, 2025 at 11:21 AM Mike Bergman <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>> I have changed the title of this post.
>>
>> Since it was requested, I here go on the record as fully supporting Edwina's
>> points about 1) disagreeing with arbitrary one post per day restrictions;
>> and 2) objecting to pseudo appeals to authority when using phrases such as
>> "Peirce and I" blah, blah, blah.
>>
>> In case none of have noticed, we have seen a marked decline in activity on
>> Peirce-L accompanied by a marked decline in the number and diversity of
>> posters. Further, we (I) have seen frequent posters in essence drummed off
>> the list or banned. In my 15 years on the list there have been many frequent
>> posters who no longer participate due to these causes. If pressed, I could
>> name names, but it is probably best to keep such neutral for now.
>>
>> As I mentioned about 5 years ago, approximately the time when I ceased
>> myself to be active on this list, I chalk up these problems to the
>> leadership of the list and the allowance of some posters to dominate the
>> conversation. Since the forum no longer has an open give-and-take, I prefer
>> to devote my efforts studying Peirce, which continue to be nearly full time,
>> in other venues and for other purposes. Until these list problems are fixed,
>> I will retain that posture. Edwina, bless her heart, has continued to labor
>> on in the hopes of some improvement. For that I applaud her, but I lack
>> similar patience myself.
>>
>> Here are some data points about the decline in the number of postings on
>> this list over time. Note that 2011 and 2025, as partial years, have been
>> prorated based on adjacent year monthly trends in order to complete the
>> annual totals. Note, as well, that a few of the postings are administrative
>> in nature. They have been retained since it was too time consuming to review
>> each post in detail:
>>

>> Depending on the baseline, it appears that list activity has declined from
>> 4x to 7x over the past decade. Artificial restrictions on postings hardly
>> helps this trend.
>>
>> I would ask the list moderators to look over their records and post trends
>> in the number of subscribers -- and active ones -- over this similar period.
>> I suspect the number of subscribers has also declined. If not, they have
>> gone mostly silent, as have I.
>>
>> I have hesitated to comment on this topic because if one is to be critical,
>> one should be willing to step forward and work to fix it. My own commitments
>> prevent me from doing so and I do not have either the grace or balance to be
>> an effective moderator. My belief, however, is that Peirce is needed now
>> more than ever as we go through massive changes in thinking in science and
>> knowledge representation as conventional wisdom and approaches prove
>> wanting. Peirce-L in the best of all possible worlds would be a dynamic,
>> broad discussion forum that attracts new adherents and lively speculation as
>> to Peirce's applicability to our modern -- and rapidly changing -- world.
>> Sadly, today, in my view, it is not.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>> On 8/7/2025 3:20 AM, Gary Richmond wrote:
>>> List, Edwina, Jon, Jack,
>>>
>>> Edwina wrote: As for the one-post-per-day- I’m against it, because I think
>>> it transforms an interactive discussion into a site of polemical sermons.
>>> GR: As I wrote on List and to you, Edwina, off List, so far you are the
>>> only List member who appears to see it this way; on and off List,
>>> participants have tended to find this approach reasonable. This is not to
>>> say that you are the only one who is 'against it'. But, at least for now, I
>>> see no reason to change that rule.
>>>
>>> ET: . . . I really don’t applaud the use of such phrases as ‘Peirce and I’
>>> or 'Kant and I’… The ‘best buddies' analogy only works, I suggest, for
>>> existential reality and since neither gentleman is around..then....
>>> GR: I would tend to agree except when someone posts something which is a
>>> paraphrase of Peirce's own words, especially when that is supported by a
>>> Peirce quotation demonstrating that the paraphrase does indeed accurately
>>> express Peirce's idea. There is nothing 'novel' about that in scholarly
>>> scientific discussion.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Gary R
>>> On Wed, Aug 6, 2025 at 2:33 PM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]
>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>>> List
>>>>
>>>> As for the one-post-per-day- I’m against it, because I think it transforms
>>>> an interactive discussion into a site of polemical sermons.
>>>>
>>>> And as an addition to this - I also suggest that posters should be careful
>>>> to differentiate themselves from their ‘mentors’, so to speak. That is - I
>>>> really don’t applaud the use of such phrases as ‘Peirce and I’ or 'Kant
>>>> and I’… The ‘best buddies' analogy only works, I suggest, for existential
>>>> reality and since neither gentleman is around..then....
>>>>
>>>> Edwina
>> __________________________________________
>>
>> Michael K. Bergman
>> 319.621.5225
>> http://mkbergman.com <http://mkbergman.com/>
>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/mkbergman
>> __________________________________________
> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
> 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.
