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.
