Mike, List, Regarding my "announced plans," I gave myself the deadline of the end of this year to prepare a survey template and get a committee together. Below my signature I've copied a rough draft of the survey I've been working on. Its purpose is to 'get the ball rolling', certainly to be developed further once a committee is in place. I have omitted the names of possible committee members which I'll discuss with Ben Udell, co-manager of the List.
As for your comments specifically about Jon, the List guidelines in cases like this are unambiguous: "If you feel that some messages being posted are not to the purpose of the list or that there is something someone is doing which should be discouraged, do NOT attempt to rectify that yourself by posting a message to that effect to the list in general. . . Contact me instead off-list." Anyone who persists in violating this simple rule by sending such complaints about other List members to the entire List will be immediately removed from the List. As for your insulting comments directed at me, well they aren't worth repeating or commenting on except to say that they are entirely false. As for the "significant off-list discussion about the "cabal" steering the dialog on this list," Peirce-L experienced an actual cabal a few years ago led by John Sowa, one which threatened the very continuance of the List. The 'cabal' that you are suggesting is entirely in your head(s). As for the frequency of posting, when I put in place a daily posting limit I was met with push-back from some forum members and support from others. I suppose if I were to put a weekly posting limit in place I would receive the same sort of push-back and support. Still, I'll discuss the possibility of doing so with my co-manager, Ben Udell. For now, all I'll add is that no one is precluded from posting anything at all, as long as it is Peirce-related, and that includes responses to what others have posted. And as I've noted many times, if you do not want to read a post on the List, don't; delete it. Better to participate in the Peirce forum than to complain about those who do. Best, Gary Richmond (writing as Peirce-L moderator and co-manager of it and Arisbe with Ben Udell) ***** [DRAFT] Survey of Peirce-L Forum Members (2026) What do you consider to be the primary purpose of the List? a. To discuss the philosophy of Peirce and Peirce-related matters with others b. To present Peircean and Peirce-related ideas to those who may not (or be less) familiar with them c. To present ideas to get feedback that might be helpful to my own Peirce or Peirce-related work d. To take Peirce's and Peirce-related ideas x b. c. d. e. other (if other, comment below) e. To x How successful has the List been recently in achieving what you consider to be its primary purpose? a. not at all b. not very much c. fairly successful d. very successful What do you consider to be a secondary purpose of the List? a. To discuss the philosophy of Peirce and Peirce-related matters with others b. To present Peircean and Peirce-related ideas to those who may not (or be less) familiar with them c. To present ideas to get feedback that might be helpful to my own Peirce or Peirce-related work d. To take Peirce's and Peirce-related ideas x b. c. d. e. other (if other, comment below) e. To x How successful has the List been recently in achieving what you consider to be its secondary purpose? a. not at all b. not very much c. fairly successful d. very successful What is your favorite thing about the List? a. exchanging ideas with others b. learning about Peirce's work and Peirce-related work c. x What is your least favorite thing about the List? a. that a few members dominate the discussions b. aspects of the [directive] that Joseph Ransdell developed on the Peirce-L page of Arisbe c. new rules set by the current moderator d. the current moderation and management of the List What are some specific ways in which you have benefited from the List? a. b. c. etc. How often do you read through the messages posted to the List? a. every day b. often c. occasionally d. rarely How often do you post messages of your own to the List? a. often b. occasionally d. rarely e. never (I'm a 'lurker') What (if anything) would encourage you to post to the List more often? a. a loosening of the rules b. a way to constrain frequent posters from posting to often c. x If it were entirely up to you, what one thing would you change about the List? What are some specific ways in which you believe that this would improve the List? What would you miss most if the List were to be discontinued? Would you be interested in a 'slow read' of a manuscript by Peirce or something from the secondary literature, as the List has done in the past? a. yes b. maybe (depending on the topic) c. no If so, do you have any specific suggestions for a possible 'slow read'? Would you be interested in helping to develop a 'slow read'? ***** Possible members of the committee: [omitted for now] What survey creating tool should be used? (Survey Monkey, etc.) Who will be in charge of creating the electronic survey document? The final decision on the content of the survey will include Ben U, Peter S (as member of TPG). The completed surveys will be directed to me, Ben, and Peter S. On Mon, 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]> 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]";>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.
