Self-control and self-criticism, was, Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Note from List Moderator : Frequency of Posting

[Gary Richmond]

List,

This post began as my (hopefully) final note on the theme of reducing the
frequency of posts to the forum.

"To enjoy freedom we have to control ourselves." Virginia Woolf


This was the sum total of Gary Fuhrman's blog entry for today.
http://gnusystems.ca/wp/2018/02/of-course/

Of course each person has to decide what kinds of and how much self-control
she wants to develop in any particular context and for her life more
generally.

Woolf's words reminded me of Peirce's comment on the development of
"thoroughly deliberate" conduct.

“If conduct is to be thoroughly deliberate, the ideal must be a habit of
feeling which has grown up under the influence of a course of
self—criticism and of hetero— criticism” (CP 1.574, 1906),


So, interestingly, according to Peirce this ideal of conduct is the result
of *both* self- and other-criticism. Any thoughts on why Peirce included
the idea of "hetero-criticism" in the development of this ideal of conduct?
My own thought at the moment is that this comment prepares for his famously
non-standard definition of esthetics as "the theory of the deliberate
formation of such habits of feeling: (CP 1.574). Putting this in the
context of the normative sciences, in the 1903 Harvard Lectures Peirce had
written:

Supposing, however, that normative science divides into esthetics, ethics,
and logic, then it is easily perceived, from my standpoint, that this
division is governed by the three categories. For Normative Science in
general being the science of the laws of conformity of things to ends,
esthetics considers those things whose ends are to embody qualities of
feeling, ethics those things whose ends lie in action, and logic those
things whose end is to represent something.


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>*

On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 4:16 PM, Gary Richmond 
wrote:

> Kirsti, list,
>
> Thanks Kirsti for reminding us that in most cases it is probably best not
> to, say, reply to All but only to Peirce-L. The way my email is set up,
> even if I am Cc'd I only get the Peirce-L post, but I can imagine how
> irksome it must be to get 200 Peirce-L posts in a little over a week
> *plus* additional copies.
>
> What I do in responding is to click "Reply" and then omit the name of the
> sender and replace it with "Peirce-L.," a quick and easy solution.
>
> Again, I'd like to remind folk that it is also helpful to delete all but
> the message you are responding to. I don't always remember to do this
> myself, but posters not doing so results in my often needing to scroll down
> a great distance to get to the next message as the entire thread is copied
> in that message.
>
> In short, and as I wrote in an off-list exchange with a forum member today
> ". . . the list, while not a community (rather a forum, a place) still
> requires a consideration of *all* who gather here."
>
> Best,
>
> Gary (writing as list moderator)
>
> [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>*
>
> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 1:44 PM,  wrote:
>
>> List,
>>
>> I too second Gary Richmonds note. I'd like to add that multiple postings
>> seem to be adjunct to this problem.
>> People send to personal mailboxes in addtion to the list.
>>
>> If just that gets left out, the mass of mails would not look so awfull,
>> so hopeless.
>>
>> Best, Kirsti
>>
>>
>>
>> Ia mail is sent to the list,
>>
>>
>> Jon Awbrey kirjoitti 12.2.2018 16:40:
>>
>>> Peircers,
>>>
>>> I also have to unsubscribe periodically, as I don't have time
>>> even to scan for relevance, and many postings recently appear
>>> to move ever so agonizingly and asymptotically toward first
>>> principles without quite grasping them, much less applying
>>> them to non-trivial problems in any field beyond various
>>> folks' hermeneutically sealed bubbles -- but I digress --
>>> At any rate, one thing I find helpful, since I usually
>>> read posts first at the Web Interface, is to toggle
>>> the No Mail subscriber option on, allowing me to
>>> re-send only selected posts to my email inbox
>>> for archiving or reply.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Jon
>>>
>>> On 2/12/2018 9:01 AM, Everett, Daniel wrote:
>>>
 Deletion is always a possibility. So is unsubscribing. There are
 occasionally (rarely though) useful bits in these disputations about
 meaning. As I have tried to point out, they strike me as both unPeircean
 (no practical consequences, no problem solved) and not particularly
 well-connected to the vast literature on lexical meanings or cognizant of
 the kind of “essentialist disputes” that bothers many philosophers.

 I do look through them all, however. The reason is 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Note from List Moderator : Frequency of Posting

[Gary Richmond]

Kirsti, list,

Thanks Kirsti for reminding us that in most cases it is probably best not
to, say, reply to All but only to Peirce-L. The way my email is set up,
even if I am Cc'd I only get the Peirce-L post, but I can imagine how
irksome it must be to get 200 Peirce-L posts in a little over a week *plus*
additional copies.

What I do in responding is to click "Reply" and then omit the name of the
sender and replace it with "Peirce-L.," a quick and easy solution.

Again, I'd like to remind folk that it is also helpful to delete all but
the message you are responding to. I don't always remember to do this
myself, but posters not doing so results in my often needing to scroll down
a great distance to get to the next message as the entire thread is copied
in that message.

In short, and as I wrote in an off-list exchange with a forum member today
". . . the list, while not a community (rather a forum, a place) still
requires a consideration of *all* who gather here."

Best,

Gary (writing as list moderator)

[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>*

On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 1:44 PM,  wrote:

> List,
>
> I too second Gary Richmonds note. I'd like to add that multiple postings
> seem to be adjunct to this problem.
> People send to personal mailboxes in addtion to the list.
>
> If just that gets left out, the mass of mails would not look so awfull, so
> hopeless.
>
> Best, Kirsti
>
>
>
> Ia mail is sent to the list,
>
>
> Jon Awbrey kirjoitti 12.2.2018 16:40:
>
>> Peircers,
>>
>> I also have to unsubscribe periodically, as I don't have time
>> even to scan for relevance, and many postings recently appear
>> to move ever so agonizingly and asymptotically toward first
>> principles without quite grasping them, much less applying
>> them to non-trivial problems in any field beyond various
>> folks' hermeneutically sealed bubbles -- but I digress --
>> At any rate, one thing I find helpful, since I usually
>> read posts first at the Web Interface, is to toggle
>> the No Mail subscriber option on, allowing me to
>> re-send only selected posts to my email inbox
>> for archiving or reply.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Jon
>>
>> On 2/12/2018 9:01 AM, Everett, Daniel wrote:
>>
>>> Deletion is always a possibility. So is unsubscribing. There are
>>> occasionally (rarely though) useful bits in these disputations about
>>> meaning. As I have tried to point out, they strike me as both unPeircean
>>> (no practical consequences, no problem solved) and not particularly
>>> well-connected to the vast literature on lexical meanings or cognizant of
>>> the kind of “essentialist disputes” that bothers many philosophers.
>>>
>>> I do look through them all, however. The reason is that I am a novice to
>>> Peircean studies and am writing a book (Oxford U P) on the consequences of
>>> his epistemology for modern linguistics (which has been deeply Cartesian in
>>> the main for decades). So when more experienced Peirce scholars discuss his
>>> terms, it can be educational.
>>>
>>> I think that the suggestion of taking a few deep breaths before
>>> responding and perhaps responding once a day instead of several times
>>> would/could lead to better responses of more benefit to others.
>>>
>>> To delete the messages would require me to know in advance that there is
>>> nothing in them that I want to know. So I look through them and then delete
>>> them if I am going to. Time-consuming.
>>>
>>> At the same time, let a hundred flowers bloom. If folks want to keep
>>> shooting out their messages this frequently, so be it. But many of us will
>>> be more likely to read them if they come less frequently. If these are just
>>> personal quibbles, though, perhaps they don’t need to be on the list. If
>>> they are felt worthy for the entire list, frequency reduction would be
>>> useful. But if not, I won’t say another word on the subject.
>>>
>>> Dan
>>>
>>>
>
>
> -
> 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 .

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Note from List Moderator : Frequency of Posting

[kirstima]

List,

I too second Gary Richmonds note. I'd like to add that multiple postings 
seem to be adjunct to this problem.

People send to personal mailboxes in addtion to the list.

If just that gets left out, the mass of mails would not look so awfull, 
so hopeless.


Best, Kirsti



Ia mail is sent to the list,

Jon Awbrey kirjoitti 12.2.2018 16:40:

Peircers,

I also have to unsubscribe periodically, as I don't have time
even to scan for relevance, and many postings recently appear
to move ever so agonizingly and asymptotically toward first
principles without quite grasping them, much less applying
them to non-trivial problems in any field beyond various
folks' hermeneutically sealed bubbles -- but I digress --
At any rate, one thing I find helpful, since I usually
read posts first at the Web Interface, is to toggle
the No Mail subscriber option on, allowing me to
re-send only selected posts to my email inbox
for archiving or reply.

Regards,

Jon

On 2/12/2018 9:01 AM, Everett, Daniel wrote:
Deletion is always a possibility. So is unsubscribing. There are 
occasionally (rarely though) useful bits in these disputations about 
meaning. As I have tried to point out, they strike me as both 
unPeircean (no practical consequences, no problem solved) and not 
particularly well-connected to the vast literature on lexical meanings 
or cognizant of the kind of “essentialist disputes” that bothers many 
philosophers.


I do look through them all, however. The reason is that I am a novice 
to Peircean studies and am writing a book (Oxford U P) on the 
consequences of his epistemology for modern linguistics (which has 
been deeply Cartesian in the main for decades). So when more 
experienced Peirce scholars discuss his terms, it can be educational.


I think that the suggestion of taking a few deep breaths before 
responding and perhaps responding once a day instead of several times 
would/could lead to better responses of more benefit to others.


To delete the messages would require me to know in advance that there 
is nothing in them that I want to know. So I look through them and 
then delete them if I am going to. Time-consuming.


At the same time, let a hundred flowers bloom. If folks want to keep 
shooting out their messages this frequently, so be it. But many of us 
will be more likely to read them if they come less frequently. If 
these are just personal quibbles, though, perhaps they don’t need to 
be on the list. If they are felt worthy for the entire list, frequency 
reduction would be useful. But if not, I won’t say another word on the 
subject.


Dan




-
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] Re: Note from List Moderator : Frequency of Posting

[Jon Awbrey]

Peircers,

I also have to unsubscribe periodically, as I don't have time
even to scan for relevance, and many postings recently appear
to move ever so agonizingly and asymptotically toward first
principles without quite grasping them, much less applying
them to non-trivial problems in any field beyond various
folks' hermeneutically sealed bubbles -- but I digress --
At any rate, one thing I find helpful, since I usually
read posts first at the Web Interface, is to toggle
the No Mail subscriber option on, allowing me to
re-send only selected posts to my email inbox
for archiving or reply.

Regards,

Jon

On 2/12/2018 9:01 AM, Everett, Daniel wrote:

Deletion is always a possibility. So is unsubscribing. There are occasionally 
(rarely though) useful bits in these disputations about meaning. As I have 
tried to point out, they strike me as both unPeircean (no practical 
consequences, no problem solved) and not particularly well-connected to the 
vast literature on lexical meanings or cognizant of the kind of “essentialist 
disputes” that bothers many philosophers.

I do look through them all, however. The reason is that I am a novice to 
Peircean studies and am writing a book (Oxford U P) on the consequences of his 
epistemology for modern linguistics (which has been deeply Cartesian in the 
main for decades). So when more experienced Peirce scholars discuss his terms, 
it can be educational.

I think that the suggestion of taking a few deep breaths before responding and 
perhaps responding once a day instead of several times would/could lead to 
better responses of more benefit to others.

To delete the messages would require me to know in advance that there is 
nothing in them that I want to know. So I look through them and then delete 
them if I am going to. Time-consuming.

At the same time, let a hundred flowers bloom. If folks want to keep shooting 
out their messages this frequently, so be it. But many of us will be more 
likely to read them if they come less frequently. If these are just personal 
quibbles, though, perhaps they don’t need to be on the list. If they are felt 
worthy for the entire list, frequency reduction would be useful. But if not, I 
won’t say another word on the subject.

Dan



--

inquiry into inquiry: https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/
academia: https://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey
oeiswiki: https://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA
facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache

-
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] Re: Note from List Moderator: Frequency of posting

[Gary Richmond]

List,

I've gotten several off-list responses to my post on frequency of posting
which messages move me to reiterate "please post as you see fit!" and to
add what I've written here several times in the past, namely, that the best
approach to dealing with posts that you're not interested in is to *just
delete them!*

Of course I would always encourage *more* participation on the list
including more participants. So, lurkers on the list, feel free to chime in
even if you don't want to get involved in an extended discussion. In this
forum "the more the merrier!" But initiate, join in, or leave a discussion
at will!

And thanks to those of you who occasionally (including today) write
off-list in support of my efforts in this sometimes challenging job of
acting as list moderator. It is I who should thank all of you for keeping
Peirce-L alive--both as active participants and observers--when so many
other philosophy and semiotics fora have floundered.

Best,

Gary R (writing, again, as list moderator)


[image: Gary Richmond]

*Gary Richmond*
*Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
*Communication Studies*
*LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*
*718 482-5690*

On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 2:05 PM, Gary Richmond 
wrote:

> List,
>
> It has always been the 'policy' here that there is no limit on frequency
> or length of posts to Peirce-L and I continue to believe that that's a good
> policy. Certainly the recent flurry of exchanges have been valuable in
> bringing about for some on the list a better understanding of several
> difficult semeiotic issues. One can only approve and applaud that.
>
> Still, I must note that I have recently received a few complaints and two
> requests to be removed from the list (I'm not certain if or how many have
> unsubscribed themselves) because of "too many emails," and as list
> moderator that naturally concerns me.
>
> So, I would like to suggest that frequent contributors to discussions
> *consider* holding off on at least some responses (especially when they
> are but a sentence or three), posting fewer but perhaps somewhat longer
> messages. The benefit--besides there being fewer postings--could be that
> such an approach might allow for more time for additional thoughtful
> reflection on the matter(s) under consideration (and not only for active
> contributors) .
>
> But, again, please post as you see fit!
>
> Best,
>
> Gary Richmond (writing as list moderator)
>
>
> [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 .