List,
[Author's Note: this is a continuation of the prior 'Concerning List
Trends <https://list.iu.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2025-08/msg00024.html>'
thread. I have changed the title because we have been having issues with
our listserv that has sometimes prevented Gmail accounts from receiving
posts, plus the focus of the thread is changing as indicated in the new
title. Starting fresh should help negate these issues.]
I think the data shows that as measured by number of posts, the
diversity of authors, number of active participants, or numbers of
active subscribers, there has been a decline in the use of Peirce-L. We
have heard some reasons floated, from how the list is used, dominated or
managed to a decline in the interest in Peirce, or perhaps other secular
or technological reasons. I do think continued discussion of these
factors is useful, but with this new subject I want to change focus to
what I think is a more important topic.
If there is a decline in participation and diversity of the Peirce-L
list, why should we care? In point, perhaps more broadly, what is even
the purpose ('mission') of the Peirce-L list? If we have no ideas or
consensus around such questions then we have no basis for even deciding
what the problem is, if there is one, nor what to do about it.
As these general issues have arisen, some due to my own promptings, we
are sometimes directed back to the governing document for this forum,
namely Joe Ransdell's https://cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm, first
written I believe in 1993 and later updated in perhaps some meaningful
ways in 2000 and 2011 (aside from minor edits, I assume). I really had
not looked at this page aside from a short glance until recently. I
don't believe I really studied or read it closely before becoming a
member of this list in (as I recall) early 2014.
Now, reading it closely, this document strikes me as saying much about
the what and the how regarding the list, but actually nothing about the
why. It further has the flavor of the early days of the Web and
listservs, things I was well acquainted with from the inception of the
Internet. The advice and guidance on this page smacks of the tenor of
the Wild Wild West of the World Wide Web, fairly typical in the early
days when everyone was trying to get bearings about how to deal with
this new medium. Still, that being said, the guidance on this page,
though long-winded, strikes me as logical and still appropriate. Again,
however, there is nothing about the why of the list.
If there is no why, no purpose or mission, then who the heck cares if
our list is slowly dying? Perhaps it served its initial purpose as an
electronic hangout for Peirce aficionados to shoot the breeze and argue
and share, but if it dies or declines to a stagnate shell, so what? Will
anyone miss it?
One can claim that other forums may form, but we all also know that
establishing and creating a living, dynamic forum is not a trivial task.
Like the BBS systems of old, or MySpace, or GeoCities or Orkut or the
many others replaced by walled gardens like Facebook over time, these
were creatures of an earlier era. Is Peirce-L destined for the same?
I hope not. So, if it is not explicitly stated somewhere, what is the
implicit purpose of Peirce-L? If we can't first answer this question, it
is hard to know what we need to do to resurrect it and move it forward.
Is the purpose of Peirce-L to be a:
a. Open discussion forum for scholars/adherents on any topic Peircean?
b. Destination for those questing about meanings and philosophy to be
exposed to Peirce's unique perspectives?
c. Launch point for applying Peircean perspectives to modern questions
about science, culture, language, and representation?
d. Place for new possible adherents to learn about Peirce and his writings?
e. Forum for scholars to debate and possibly reconcile areas of
disagreement about Peircean interpretations?
f. Crucible for hammering consensus on the literal interpretation of
Peircean texts?
Actually, of course, I think it is all of these. I'm sure others have
their own views about what our purposes should be and can explain them
more artfully than what I have provided.
My personal issue is that the forum has become overly focused on f, a
topic I will subsequently address more fully in its own thread. Further,
rather than humbly accepting alternative interpretations and embracing
fallibility, there has been too much 'crucible' and 'hammering' in these
f purposes. I do not believe the intent has been to block the way of
inquiry, but how f has been conducted has, in my opinion, done just
that. I fear we have allowed other purposes of this forum to be
overwhelmed by literal and pedantic discussions. We are losing, in my
opinion, the very excitement and dynamism to be gained from Peirce that
would lead to growth and activity on this forum. Whatever our missions
may prove to be, a successful accomplishment of them would demonstrate
themselves, again in my opinion, in growth and growing diversity on our
list. The evidence points to just the opposite.
This kind of growth does not just happen from thin air. It comes from
purposeful action, outreach, and openness to new and broad applications
of Peircean perspectives to modern questions and challenges. It tries to
steer discussion from literalness to that of fallibility, context, and
interpretation. We hear little about any of the grand challenges facing
humanity's intellectual future on this forum because we have not chosen
to give them their proper priority. The recent discussions of Peirce and
quantum mechanics is a breath of fresh air. I hope we see more of it.
By raising these topics I have been questioned offlist as to motives or
of trying to destroy the list. (I have also gotten many nice comments;
thanks!) Don't worry; I am not done speaking about these matters, and my
motives are to see growth, diversity, and fewer dominant voices. We are
failing ourselves as advocates and adherents of Peirce, and we are
failing broader human questing to not be more active and attentive to
how Peirce applies to the questions of today. My personal belief is that
Peirce is more relevant today than he ever has been. Those of us who
feel similarly have a collective responsibility to promote that vision.
What kind of purpose and list do you want Peirce-L to be?
Best, Mike
--
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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] .
► <a href="mailto:[email protected]?subject=SIG%20peirce-l";>UNSUBSCRIBE FROM
PEIRCE-L</a> . But, if your subscribed email account is not your default email
account, then go to
https://list.iu.edu/sympa/signoff/peirce-l .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
