Mike, List, Mike, thank you for your kind words of support and, even more so, for your encouraging other List members to support me in what has indeed proved to be, as you wrote, a "demanding position."
I have reflected on your suggestions and criticisms, many of which I fully agree with, one of which I adamantly do not. Although it may appear to some that I have played favorites, I would hold to my dying breath that that has never been my intention. As I have written here on several occasions, and even recently, I will with all my strength and ability always defend anyone on Peirce-L whom I see as being unfairly treated on the List. Others may perceive this differently, but I know in my heart of hearts that I have -- and always will -- strive for fairness. I think it is one of the principal reasons that Joseph Ransdell designated me his successor as moderator of Peirce-L. Another reason, which he made clear to me, was that I was ever willing to apologize when I felt I'd wronged someone. It is no doubt possible and, indeed, it is quite likely that I have not always seen when I have in fact wronged someone here. You wrote that you have recently turned 73 and are hoping that your "strength and intellect will hold up" so that you may complete the worthy tasks that you have set for yourself. I sincerely hope that you will complete your book in good time and that it will meet with your full satisfaction. In a few weeks I will turn 80, still of sound mind, I believe, while my body is beginning to seriously show its age in various chronic illnesses. But I too still have much to accomplish. So, for one non-philosophical example, today I began playing piano again after well over two decades of almost completely abandoning it, and on a new piano which arrived just a few days ago. There's some musical composing which I also intend on doing. It is true that for a few years now I've been thinking about passing the torch of Peirce-L moderator to someone with the temperament and Peircean academic background who would qualify in my eyes and those of Nathan Houser as well as the members of The Peirce Group. I must admit that it has not been easy to find someone both qualified and willing to take on the "clearly demanding role" as moderator. But I am still hoping to find that person. Over the past 15 years the rewards have outweighed the difficulties (although I must admit that the last five years have seen the most painful challenges). Finally, and in a word, I share all your hopes for the growth and success of Peirce-L, Mike. I'll conclude this post with the words with which you concluded yours to which I am responding as it represents my most fervent hope. "With good faith and good will, I think we can see the list move forward to new heights of influence." So may it be! Best, Gary Richmond (writing as Peirce-L moderator and co-manager of it and Arisbe with Ben Udell) On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 11:08 PM Mike Bergman <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Jerry, > > Thanks for the nice comments. I think we owe a deep debt of gratitude to > Gary for his efforts to keep Peirce-L active and moving forward and in > keeping with Ransdell's vision in setting up the list in the first place. I > think the list is an invaluable resource for all things Peirce and I would > like to see it used more aggressively to spread the word and encourage > diversity of thought and input. I clearly think some aspects can be handled > differently, and I have said my piece about such. > > I have a major knowledge graph that I am in the midst of updating based on > Peircean concepts (KBpedia <https://kbpedia.org/>) that is one focus of > my efforts, and another is a book I have been working on for years > attempting to relate Peirce to modern scientific questions. I just turned > 73 and my concerns are more to whether my strength and intellect will hold > up to complete these two main life tasks. Further, as I have stated before, > I am too opinionated to be an effective moderator, which I think requires a > coolness and dispassionate demeanor, for which I am surely lacking. > > If Gary can take my criticisms to heart and tone down his favoritisms (as > I see them), I have no issue in his continuing on as moderator. I do know, > based on some conversations with him some years back, that he is thinking > of stepping back from what is clearly a demanding position. Perhaps some of > this new survey stuff has as a bit of underlying agenda trying to figure > out how and to whom to pass the baton. As I stated before, I do not believe > I am the right choice if that is the direction. > > I encourage everyone on the list to support Gary and the initiative he has > announced. There is so much the Peirce-L list can do and achieve. With good > faith and good will, I think we can see the list move forward to new > heights of influence. > > Thanks again, Jerry. > > Best, Mike > On 8/20/2025 12:17 AM, Jerry LR Chandler wrote: > > Hi Mike: > > You writing style is very polished! > > May I ask a personal question? > > Do you have any interest in becoming list moderator? > You would have my support… > > Cheers > Jerry > > On Aug 19, 2025, at 7:57 PM, Mike Bergman <[email protected]> > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Gary R, List, > > I am pleased to hear of your intent to survey the list about its purpose. > I also thank you for the tone expressed in responding to my list concerns. > Since this now appears to be a formal initiative going forward, I want to > add detail to my concerns, details that I was planning on sharing in any > case prior to your announcement. I will also take this response to address > specific points you raised. > > Your opening statement notes I have not been as active on the list in > recent years compared to earlier. But do you know why? My reasons are that > it has to do both with the moderation of this list and how some post > responses have been allowed to 'hijack' (IMO) new posts. My criticisms are > real to me even if not shared by others. I do not ascribe negative motives > to what I refer; I do not think they are the results of ill will or > anything personal; rather they are honest positions that may not appreciate > how others (such as me) may receive them. My assessment is that some simple > guidelines can be introduced to the list to blunt possible 'hijacks'. > > My experience that caused me to reduce list activity resulted from having > some threads 'hijacked', and then in the ensuing discussions, which were > peripheral to my intended discussion in the thread, sides were taken often > represented by one dominant tribe (JAS, GR, GF) versus others, with > sometimes the added boost of playing the moderator card. > > As for thread 'hijacking' or dominance, I would simply suggest that anyone > who introduces a new thread topic (the 'poster') can intervene back into > the thread and tell a respondent that they are not in keeping with the > intended thread topic. The respondent can introduce a new branch if they so > desire, but should refrain in the current thread to continue the 'hijacked' > line of argumentation. I know, there is nothing now preventing any list > member from doing just as I said, but asking for keeping to the thread > intent is also not a countenanced activity. I think thread authors should > be able to manage their own threads. A general acknowledgement of this > principle would empower thread initiators to keep discussions on track > without opprobrium. > > On the moderator side, we have evidence of: picking sides when groups of > members are maintaining different positions; touting some members as > scholars or qualified to comment; repeated syncophantic expressions for > some member or viewpoints; taking criticism personally when it is intended > as systemic; dismissing viewpoints because the proponents are not > 'scholars'; naming the names of specific members when arguing support or > not for various positions (in other words, personalizing the argument); > forcing or advocating members off the list. > > As for moderator questions, I would request that the moderator be > cognizant of the possible reasons for a perception of bias or favoritism, > and be careful to avoid. Use a light touch. If necessary, use the > moderator's unique position in offline communications with what might be > the offending actor, as opposed to bringing such cases to the full forum. > That does not mean the moderator is prevented from speaking and presenting > as any other list member, but just it be done so in that explicit role and > not as moderator. > > Simply because these behaviors have occurred is not grounds to disqualify > a moderator. I presume these behaviors were the result of good intentions > and not ill will. But, they have chilled my own interest in being active on > the list. I know others on the list feel similarly because they have told > me so. I will let them comment directly on these questions if they so > choose. > > In light of these comments, I would encourage you to make outreach to > unfavored or banned former list members to include in your group advising > as to what goes into a list survey. (More generally, who the august group > is that you seek advice from is also helpful to share with the list.) Those > disagreements arose from legitimate grounds and perceptions, in my opinion. > My perception is that management and conduct of the list has unduly > weighted the scales of balance at times. If we can avoid that in how the > survey is constructed, overseen or conducted, that will be a good sign of > restoring balance. > > Until your formal survey gets underway, my intent is to not comment > further on these matters. Once the survey is active, I will then > participate again. > > Best, Mike > On 8/17/2025 10:34 AM, Gary Richmond wrote: > > Mike, List, > > For someone who, by his own admission, has rarely participated in the List > over the last several years and who has stated that you're not currently in > a position to take over as its moderator, you certainly have strong > opinions about it. Let me address them. > > You assert that the linked guidelines say "nothing about the why of the > list," but that is not at all true. Its purpose is stated plainly at the > very top of the linked guidelines page: "PEIRCE-L is a public forum . . . > open to the discussion of all topics pertaining to the life and work of the > American philosopher, scientist, and humanist Charles Sanders Peirce, *with > a central focus maintained on his philosophical work in particular"* (emphasis > added). > > The second paragraph under "How the Forum Works" begins, "A forum is not > the same as a discussion group with a more or less definite agenda.* Forums > are essentially places where communication occurs rather > than organizations of persons for special discussion purposes*" (emphasis > added). > > Under "What Is Relevant to Post and Discuss Here?" it states: "There is no > standing agenda *except the promotion of philosophical conversation of > the sort which one would expect from people with a special interest in > Peirce* and of other communication in support of that. Thus discussion > should be Peirce-related but not necessarily on Peirce" (emphasis added). > > You are right, Mike, that Peirce-L fits all six descriptions that you > presented as (a) through (f). Your claim that "the forum has become overly > focused on (f)" appears odd to me since achieving "consensus" on what > Peirce means would seem to be a prerequisite to employing it in 21st > century science. Further, it seems to me that Peirce's own words rather > plainly say what they say and mean what they mean. For example, his > unambiguous definitions of *objective idealism* is a current (and, I > should note, recurring) example, along with his use of "sign". So, I have > no problem with (a) through (e), but what should be obvious, I reiterate, > is that a prerequisite for "applying Peircean perspectives" is establishing > what *his own* relevant views actually were. > > Meanwhile, anyone is free to introduce virtually any Peirce-related, or > Peirce-developed, or Peirce-refuted topic that they wish to. > > I especially appreciate your closing question, "What kind of purpose and > list do you want Peirce-L to be?" reminds me that several years ago I > considered conducting a survey of List members to discover just that. I > have decided to create that survey with the help of Ben, the Advisory > Committee, members of the Peirce Group, and other Peirce savvy consultants. > > Thank you, Mike, for prompting me to initiate what I hope will be a > helpful survey leading to a productive on List discussion. > > Best, > > Gary Richmond (writing as Peirce-L moderator and co-manager of it and > Arisbe with Ben Udell) > > On Sat, Aug 16, 2025 at 12:28 PM Mike Bergman <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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 >> <https://cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm#correction-caveat>, 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. > > -- > __________________________________________ > > Michael K. Bergman > 319.621.5225http://mkbergman.comhttp://www.linkedin.com/in/mkbergman > __________________________________________ > > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > ► 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"; > <[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. > > > -- > __________________________________________ > > Michael K. Bergman > 319.621.5225http://mkbergman.comhttp://www.linkedin.com/in/mkbergman > __________________________________________ > > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > ► 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.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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.
