Franklin, Gary f, list, You may be correct as most references to 'meliorism' I found were to James or Dewey.
Although I wouldn't make too much of it, Mats Bergman wrote a paper, "Improving Our Habits: Peirce and Meliorism," in which he includes a definition of 'meliorism' from the Century Dictionary which, he believes, may be by Peirce. (1) “[the] improvement of society by regulated practical means: opposed to the passive principle of both pessimism and optimism”; or (2) “[the] doctrine that the world is neither the worst nor the best possible, but that it is capable of improvement: a mean between theoretical pessimism and optimism” http://www.helsinki.fi/peirce/MC/papers/Bergman%20-%20Peirce%20and%20Meliorism.pdf In a footnote he remarks that Francoise Latraverse suggested to that the second definition especially seems altogether Peircean. I'm not sure where I got my sense that meliorism was a Peircean concept as searches of the CP, EP, etc. have not yielded any instances of the word. I haven't read much James, I must admit, but at one point I was reading a great deal of Dewey and may have gotten the notion from him Be that as it may, I think that there is a great deal in Peirce which is compatible with an attitude and philosophy of meliorism, that, for example, wherever it is up to us to put our shoulder to some task towards improving our human lot that we ought do that. Best, Gary R [image: Gary Richmond] *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* *718 482-5690* On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 6:44 AM, <g...@gnusystems.ca> wrote: > Franklin, I think you’re right about James; as for Peirce’s use of the > term, all I can find is this bit from the Robin Catalogue: > > 953. [First and Second Conversazione] > > A. MS., n.p., n.d., pp. 1-8, with variants. > > The three views of knowledge: Epicurean, pessimistic, and melioristic. > Second conversazione is on the idea of clearness. > > > > Gary f. > > > > *From:* pragmaticist.lo...@gmail.com [mailto:pragmaticist.lo...@gmail.com] > > *Sent:* 13-Dec-17 22:57 > > Gary, > > > > I thought meliorism was a term introduced by William James, not CSP. I > believe James discusses it in his latter Pragmatism lectures, and > references his son as providing the term to him. It appears to have the > same meaning that you say CSP ascribed to it. Did CSP also adopt this term? > Where does he mention it? > > > > — Franklin > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Dec 12, 2017, at 11:17 PM, Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Mary, list, > > > > Mary, if you're a clodhopper than I'm a bumpkin. But, of course, quite the > opposite is the case, so I'm spared for yokeldom! > > > > More and more I hope that this forum can find ways, as you wrote, to help > "newcomers to Peirce to feel welcome," and I personally am devising > strategies to do more of that in the new year. For example, I am working > with Laureano Battista (a NYC Semiotics Web member/organizer who is also a > member of this forum), and bouncing off Joe Ransdell's original > introduction on 'How the Forum Works' (which can be found on the Peirce-L > page of Arisbe http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/PEIRCE-L/PEIRCE-L.HTM ) to > develop a perhaps more "user friendly" introduction to the working of this > forum. I am also planning a few 'pragmaticist' games for the new year (I > won't say more on that topic yet, but I'll be soliciting help from you and > others on this idea early in the year). > > > > But more to the present point, recently, in other threads, several forum > members offered some very interesting questions which I thought were quite > promising for further list discussion. I hope that some of those folks will > start new threads with these questions, some of which I think ought appeal > to "newcomers to Peirce" as well as to "the usual suspects." I point to > this matter of creating new threads as it is possible for some very good > ideas to get 'lost' in a thread introduced for some other purpose. So I > hope those questions will yet be asked in threads with very specific > Subject lines. > > > > You wrote: > > ML: What attracts me to Peirce is the awe I feel and the depth and breadth > of his journey to understand and to believe in the movement of semiosis. It > is makes so much sense. . . > > > > I agree that a kind of belief "in the movement of semiosis" does make much > sense, and from my perspective, more sense than any other philosophical > work since the 19th century (although there's *much* to admire elsewhere, > including the work of Whitehead, Apel, some of the existentialists, Camus, > Wittgenstein, as well as much contemporary work.) This is why I think some > of the questions recently asked (but not answered) might provoke us to > deeper reflections on how this profound and original philosophy of > pragmaticism (and including all the cenoscopic sciences: phenomenology, > theoretical esthetics/ethics/semiotic, as well as scientific metaphysics) > might contribute something of substance to what Peirce refers to as > meliorism, which is nothing more nor less than the belief that the world we > live in can be made better by our very human, albeit, often sadly, "all too > human" (Nietzsche), efforts. Pragmatism ought to have some very important > to contribute to meliorism, and this was Peirce's belief. > > > > I see a commonality in your work relating Peircean perspectives to > literature to Gene Halton's, and I think literature, as well as art, and > music, etc., are all potentially fruitful directions for semiotics and > pragmatism to be moving into (Gene is also, and perhaps primarily, a > sociologist, and I recommend his books to everyone on this list, as > pragmatism has a great deal to offer that field as well). We have artists > and art theorists, architects, and practitioners and students of many > disciplines on this list, and I hope to find ways of encouraging more of > them to participate actively on the list in 2018. But, again, *lurkers > are prized!* > > > > Meanwhile, the extraordinary work that Gary f has been doing in presenting > the whole of the 1903 Lowell Lectures and, in my view, very useful > commentary (even if one doesn't necessarily agree with all of it) presently > remains my primary focus. > > > > Best, > > > > Gary R > > > > > > > > > [image: Gary Richmond] > > > > *Gary Richmond* > > *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* > > *Communication Studies* > > *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* > > *718 482-5690 <(718)%20482-5690>* > > > > > > ----------------------------- > PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON > PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to > peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L > but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the > BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
