Hi Peirce-l, I agree with Mike and others who believe we need to move on from the manner in which the list has been managing our precious time and our need to explore Peircean ideas in a current, prospective manner.
Before I read his post, I was reading an abstract and preview pages of Arthur C. Schwaniger's newly published book, Cognitive Metaphysics. I was alerted to the book’s publication through Google Scholar alert, which I use to get the latest on Berkeley, Peirce, James Joyce, and others. I get updates on current publications about Berkeley, Peirce, James Joyce, and other material from Google Scholar. When I read such new material, I wonder what Peirceans would say. I was wondering that about Cognitive Metaphysics. Can’t we snap out of this current fixation, as has been well described? What would Peirce recommend? Respectfully submitted, Mary Libertin > On Nov 3, 2025, at 10:49 AM, Mike Bergman <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Gary R, > > I backed off of this topic because of your announced plans to take some > actions to address my (and others') list concerns. Your response here is > nearly three months old and there has been total radio silence. Do you indeed > plan on moving forward with your announced plans and if so when? > > I am prompted to provide this reminder because we seem, again, to be slipping > into some of the same behaviors that caused me to initiate this thread in the > first place. Let me mention two specific behaviors and, to be clear, to > identify whom I see as the protagonists. > > First, Jon (JAS) is again posting replies to virtually every poster on every > topic instructing the poster as to what is proper "Peircean interpretation" > and what is not. I find his gatekeeping both irritating and a turn off to > want to post anything on my own to the list. Further, I often disagree with > his take, but do not want to engage in his interminable replies. No one (at > least, me) likes having such dominant voices on any and all topics. Some > restraint and humility is in order, I suggest. > > Second, your constant commentary on how insightful and brilliant JAS is about > his points is syncophantist, biased, and distorting the list in what some of > us have called "literalist" directions. Are you aware there is significant > off-list discussion about the "cabal" steering the dialog on this list? Let > me quote Nathan Houser on this one: > > "We must be careful not to surrender too much to our words. Peirce dealt > with, and made contributions to, many of the foundational questions that have > occupied the greatest mathematical logicians. He frequently did this work for > the sake of mathematics, just as mathematical logicians do. He even sometimes > called this work logic, though strictly speaking his system seems to require > that we regard his foundational work as mathematics, not logic. But whether > mathematics or logic, he did the work all the same, which surely is what > ought to matter. Sometimes terminology counts more than it should."* > > Houser's point does not undercut Peirce's ethics of terminology, but it does > reflect the balance of his fallibilism, own changing (and sometimes confusing > or conflicting) writings, and the standard problem all of us face in making > our ideas clear. > > From my standpoint, if more open guardrails are not established for this list > I will cease to participate (as I surely think we have seen with most other > scholars). I regret needing to get specific in this post about where I see > some of the problems residing, but I, too, want to make my objections clear. > > Best, Mike > > * Nathan Houser, "Introduction", Houser, Roberts, and Van Evra, eds., Studies > in the Logic of Charles Sanders Peirce, p 16, 1997, Indiana University Press. > > 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] >> <mailto:[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] >>> <mailto:[email protected]> . >>> ► <a href="mailto:[email protected] >>> <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 > 319.621.5225 > http://mkbergman.com <http://mkbergman.com/> > http://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]";>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]";>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.
