Re: [PEIRCE-L] Should we start a new email list (was Peirce's contributions to the 21st c

[Margaretha Hendrickx]

List,

It behooves us to stop accusing people of being literalists as if it is
*their* problem that they are literalists.
Today, there is a wind blowing through the Academy demanding that all of us
become literalists when we encounter digital models of the human mind,
creating an unhealthy positive feedback loop preventing us from closely
examining the metaphors that we use while engaging with linguistic signs.
Literalism is a variant of the (very confusing) picture theory of language
that, in its latest incarnation, implies that we must think of texts as
digital photographs of something else.

Getting back to the digitalists -- the one who decide in favor of the
particle at the expense of the wave when making sense of the wave-particle
duality in quantum mechanics -- the reality is that the academy is working
with two different incommensurable models of the human brain that cannot be
reduced into one another: an analogous model and a purely digital model.

Mixed in in the debate whether the human mind must be studied from a
digital or analog point of view is a debate on how to work with metaphors:
(a) trivialize all of them, (b) privilege the machine metaphor and
trivialize every metaphor that does not prop up the machine metaphor, (c)
do a deep-dive into the study of our use of metaphor without blindly
privileging any of them.

I started studying the work on Peirce's implied theory of metaphor.  I
found the 1984 work of Anderson, Hausmann (1986), the 2007 work of Bent
Sørensen, Torkild Thellefsen, & Morten Moth. and Sørensen (2011).  The
general consensus seems to be that Peirce did not have a fully developed
theory of metaphor usage.

I look forward to learn from all the list members who are working in
filling this gap in Peircean scholarship.

My very best, Margaretha H.

On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 9:52 AM Claudio Guerri 
wrote:

> List,
> Of course, we are post-Peirceans! How could we be pre-Peirceans or even
> just Peirceans...!!!
> this pretentious behavior, the gratuitous aggression and the silence of
> others is the reason way I left writing to the List some years ago
> "Some *'literalists' *think we should leave the forest as it is.  Every
> time they get in the way, which keeps happening, there's a big problem."
> (RM; emphasis mine)
> And ET insists in this direction by pretentiously stating "I'm beginning
> to think that the Peirce-List is not equipped to handle the exploration
> of Peirce and his analytic framework in the 21st century", apparently *she
> *is...???
> Peirce himself was aware of the limits of his possibilities, like quoted
> by JS with CP 5.488 and CP 2.1.
> But apparently there are still some that want us to stick to the
> misconception that "the weather-wain is an index"... instead of a complex
> sign.
> Already after more than 150 years of the first writings by Peirce we are
> not able to move on... like it happens with the Bible... or with The
> Capital... and here we are!
>
> Hope that a creation of a new List will overcome this retrograde positions
> that don't help anyone... not even the sacred memory of Peirce himself.
> All the best
> Claudio
>
> sowa @bestweb.net escribió el 15/10/2021 a las 19:02:
>
> List,
>
> On Thursday, I sent the note below to Peirce-L.   I received some strong
> positive comments and suggestions offline, but complete silence from the
> people who send most of the notes to Peirce-L.For example:  "As for the
> natural extensions of Peirce's thought, even when they agree closely with
> his principles, they are rejected [on Peirce-L] as post-Peircean"
>
> I interpret those responses as evidence that we need n email list that is
> dedicated to the kinds of topics that dominated the Peirce Centennial
> Congress in 2014.  That was a very exciting conference on  research that
> builds on Peirce's work and relates it to developments in the century after
> Peirce.   As Peirce frequently emphasized, the meaning of any  sign is its
> implications for action in the future.  We live in Peirce's future, and our
> actions today depend critically on the developments in the century after
> Peirce.
>
> I don't believe that we should reject Peirce-l, but we should have another
> email list that relates Peirce's ideas to the issues of today.  I would
> encourage subscribers to Peirce-L to participate in both lists.  I'll send
> another note tomorrow..
>
> John
>
>
> --
> *From*: "sowa @bestweb.net"  
> *Sent*: Thursday, October 14, 2021 10:39 PM
> *To*: "Peirce-L"  
> *Subject*: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's contributions to the 21st century
>
> Robert, Edwina, List,
>
> The passages Robert quoted show that Peirce admitted that his system
> was a work in progress.  We could add his remark that phaneroscopy was
> still a "science egg".
>
> CSP:  I am, as far as I know, a pioneer, or rather a backwoodsman, in
> the work of clearing and opening up what I call semiotic, that is, the
> doctrine of the essential nature and fundamental varieties of 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Should we start a new email list (was Peirce's contributions to the 21st c

[Edwina Taborsky]

 

Claudio - I am equal to anyone else, and therefore, am as 'equipped'
[whatever does that mean?] to handle further exploration of Peirce's
work in the 21st century. What I expect from the List is that when I
post something that does such exploration, I would be met with: 'Yes,
that's an interesting use of the Categories to examine …" or,
'that's an interesting use but I don't think it works and here's why
I think so"...

But instead - I'm met with no comment on the actual attempt of
modern analysis..but such comments as 'Peirce never used those
words'.  Or..'Peirce never compared his X...to Y.  

That's not a constructive use of Peirce.

Edwina
 On Mon 18/10/21  9:52 AM , Claudio Guerri claudiogue...@gmail.com
sent:
List,
 Of course, we are   post-Peirceans! How could we be
pre-Peirceans or even just   Peirceans...!!!
 this pretentious behavior,   the gratuitous aggression and
the silence of others is the reason   way I left writing to the
List some years ago
 "Some 'literalists' think we should leave the forest as
it is.  Every time they get in the way, which keeps
happening, there's a big problem." (RM; emphasis mine)
  And ET insists in this direction by   pretentiously
stating "I'm   beginning to think that   the Peirce-List is
not equipped to handle the exploration of Peirce and his analytic
framework in the   21st century", apparently she is...???
 Peirce himself was aware of the limits of his possibilities,
like quoted by JS with CP 5.488 and CP 2.1.
 But apparently there are still some that want us to stick to
the misconception that "the weather-wain is an index"...
instead of a complex sign.
 Already after more than 150 years of the first writings by  
  Peirce we are not able to move on... like it happens with the   
 Bible... or with The Capital... and here we are!
 Hope that a creation of a new List will overcome this
retrograde positions that don't help anyone... not even the
sacred memory of Peirce himself.
 All the best
 Claudio
 sowa @bestweb.net escribió el 15/10/2021 a las 19:02:
 List,   On Thursday,
I sent the note below to Peirce-L.   I received some
strong positive comments and suggestions offline, but
complete silence from the people who send most of the
notes to Peirce-L.For example:  "As for the natural
extensions of Peirce's thought, even when they agree
closely with his principles, they are rejected [on
Peirce-L] as post-Peircean"  
I interpret those responses as evidence that
we need n email list that is dedicated to the kinds of
topics that dominated the Peirce Centennial Congress in
2014.  That was a very exciting conference on  research that 
   builds on Peirce's work and relates it to developments in  
  the century after Peirce.   As Peirce frequently emphasized,
the meaning of any  sign is its implications for action in
the future.  We live in Peirce's future, and our actions  
  today depend critically on the developments in the century  
  after Peirce.  
I don't believe that we should reject Peirce-l, but we
should have another email list that relates Peirce's
ideas to the issues of today.  I would encourage
subscribers to Peirce-L to participate in both lists.  I'll  
  send another note tomorrow..   John 

-
 From: "sowa @bestweb.net" 
 Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2021 10:39 PM
 To: "Peirce-L" 
 Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's contributions to the   
 21st centuryRobert,
Edwina, List,   The passages 
 Robert quoted show that Peirce admitted that his  
system
   was a work in progress.  We could add his remark
that   phaneroscopy was
   still a "science egg".
  CSP:  I am, as  
far as I know, a pioneer, or rather a backwoodsman, in
   the work of clearing and opening up what I call   
   semiotic, that is, the
   doctrine of the essential nature and fundamental  
varieties of possible
   semiosis; and I find the field too vast, the labor
too   great, for a
   first-comer.  I am, accordingly, obliged to
confine

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Should we start a new email list (was Peirce's contributions to the 21st c

[Claudio Guerri]

List,
Of course, we are post-Peirceans! How could we be pre-Peirceans or even 
just Peirceans...!!!
this pretentious behavior, the gratuitous aggression and the silence of 
others is the reason way I left writing to the List some years ago
"Some *'literalists' *think we should leave the forest as it is.Every 
time they get in the way, which keeps happening, there's a big problem." 
(RM; emphasis mine)
And ET insists in this direction by pretentiously stating "I'm beginning 
to think that the Peirce-List is not equipped to handle the exploration 
of Peirce and his analytic framework in the 21st century", apparently 
*she *is...???
Peirce himself was aware of the limits of his possibilities, like quoted 
by JS with CP 5.488 and CP 2.1.
But apparently there are still some that want us to stick to the 
misconception that "the weather-wain is an index"... instead of a 
complex sign.
Already after more than 150 years of the first writings by Peirce we are 
not able to move on... like it happens with the Bible... or with The 
Capital... and here we are!


Hope that a creation of a new List will overcome this retrograde 
positions that don't help anyone... not even the sacred memory of Peirce 
himself.

All the best
Claudio

sowa @bestweb.net escribió el 15/10/2021 a las 19:02:

List,
On Thursday, I sent the note below to Peirce-L.   I received some 
strong positive comments and suggestions offline, but complete silence 
from the people who send most of the notes to Peirce-L.    For 
example:  "As for the natural extensions of Peirce's thought, even 
when they agree closely with his principles, they are rejected [on 
Peirce-L] as post-Peircean"
I interpret those responses as evidence that we need n email list that 
is dedicated to the kinds of topics that dominated the Peirce 
Centennial Congress in 2014.  That was a very exciting conference on  
research that builds on Peirce's work and relates it to developments 
in the century after Peirce.   As Peirce frequently emphasized, the 
meaning of any  sign is its implications for action in the future.  We 
live in Peirce's future, and our actions today depend critically on 
the developments in the century after Peirce.
I don't believe that we should reject Peirce-l, but we should have 
another email list that relates Peirce's ideas to the issues of 
today.  I would encourage subscribers to Peirce-L to participate in 
both lists.  I'll send another note tomorrow..

John

*From*: "sowa @bestweb.net" 
*Sent*: Thursday, October 14, 2021 10:39 PM
*To*: "Peirce-L" 
*Subject*: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's contributions to the 21st century
Robert, Edwina, List,
The passages Robert quoted show that Peirce admitted that his system
was a work in progress.  We could add his remark that phaneroscopy was
still a "science egg".
CSP:  I am, as far as I know, a pioneer, or rather a backwoodsman, in
the work of clearing and opening up what I call semiotic, that is, the
doctrine of the essential nature and fundamental varieties of possible
semiosis; and I find the field too vast, the labor too great, for a
first-comer.  I am, accordingly, obliged to confine myself to the most
important questions.  (CP 5.488)
CSP:  All that you can find in print of my work on logic are simply
scattered outcroppings here and there of a rich vein which remains
unpublished.  Most of it I suppose has been written down; but no human
being could ever put together the fragments.  I could not myself do
so.  (CP 2.1)
RM:  we must make, collectively and in the long run, a rational
representative construction of Peirce's work that is communicable with
a minimum of effort.  To reach this goal, we must not fall into a
dialogue of the deaf.  We are also backwoodsmen in the traces left by
Peirce; faithful to his spirit there are several of us on this list
who follow and develop some of these traces.  We find them
particularly relevant because we have new tools.  Some literalists
think we should leave the forest as it is.  Every time they get in the
way, which keeps happening, there's a big problem.
ET:  Thank you Robert, for this analysis.  But I'm beginning to think
that the Peirce-List is not equipped to handle the exploration of
Peirce and his analytic framework in the 21st century.  After all -
some of us have been trying for years to introduce current scientific
and other research areas [linguistic, AI, societal, economic] and
explore how the Peircean framework, in different terms, is being used
to examine these fields.  We've been met with a refusal to engage in
any discussion and/or, an open almost horror of such an approach.
That is an issue that should be considered.
John

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Should we start a new email list?

[Bernard Morand]

Le 17/10/2021 à 16:11, Robert Marty a écrit :

Cher Bernard, vous écrivez :
"I think that the content and purpose of Phaneroscopy needs to be 
cleared up independently of the question of classification of sciences.
On the contrary what has been suggested is to find a place for an 
unknown thing into a pretty trichotomy a priori derived from the logic 
of the categories."
then my question is: does this "a priori trichotomy derived from the 
logic of the categories" fall from the sky or rather from the 
mathematical repository with 1- the triadic reduction theorem of the 
relational structures; 2- a Poset 3-->2-->1 which is the form of the 
phaneroscopic categories incorporating their interdependence 
relationship; all in the well of the truth?

Bien cordialement,
RM


Thanks Robert,

You know that I think that the logic of the categories takes it reality 
into the very mathematical organization that defines it. So my answers 
to your question 1 and 2 are YES for both.


Yet I wrote the phrase you are quoting a little bit quickly.

I wanted to underline that to force the description of Phaneroscopy to 
obey a preconceived (and hypothetical) classification of sciences is 
taking the problem the wrong way round (like the discussion on the list 
seems to have shown)


To have ready at hand a formal structure is one thing but using it in 
situation is another one. If a metaphor is allowed here, having at 
disposal a skeleton is necessary but to transform it into Frankenstein 
is a challenge.


I always feel uneasy with the word "applied" even if it is used to 
qualify "semiotics" itself.


Amitiés

Bernard

Le dim. 17 oct. 2021 à 12:03, Bernard Morand > a écrit :


John, List,

Le 16/10/2021 à 23:58, sowa @bestweb.net  a
écrit :


I agree with ET.  Most of the complaints seem to be generated by
three people (GF, GR, and JAS) who object to people who introduce
topics for which they have no canned answer.  An example is my
note about phaneroscopy as a science egg.  ADT had no explanation
for Peirce's remark.  Somebody mentioned the attempt by Atkins to
broaden phaneroscopy..  But that attempt blurred the line between
phaneroscopy and normative science.  When I observed that the
combination of phaneroscopy and normative science would be
equivalent to semeiotic, they refused to answer. /*These are very
important questions that need to be asked.*/ I am not
complaining.  I am asking a question that gets to the heart of
Peirce's 1903 classification. (my emphasis)



I strongly agree with this statement from John.

I was surprised at first reading by the mixing of two topics in
the discussion about the ADT slides, a mix which he himself
posited in his presentation and which seemed to me as being
unnecessary.

I think that the content and purpose of Phaneroscopy needs to be
cleared up independently of the question of classification of
sciences.

On the contrary what has been suggested is to find a place for an
unknown thing into a pretty trichotomy a priori derived from the
logic of the categories.

This is too much putting the cart before the horse.

Furthermore I wonder whether the Peirce's aim after 1903 was not
to compare the logical reality of the categories with the
observable facts of living signs, hence his strong interest for
his correspondence with Lady Welby.

If this was the case, something we would call today experimental
method, then the observation of living signs (phanerons) needs to
be conducted out of the categories schema and not vice versa.

So the matter of classification of phaneroscopy would have to come
after.

Coming back to the reading of ADT slides, what have we learned
from it on the List ? None of the initiators of the topic has
offered any insight into concluding remarks (at least as it
appears to me).

Regards

Bernard

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE
PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the
body.  More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html
 .
► 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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . 
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 
with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Should we start a new email list?

[Robert Marty]

Cher Bernard, vous écrivez :
"I think that the content and purpose of Phaneroscopy needs to be cleared
up independently of the question of classification of sciences.
On the contrary what has been suggested is to find a place for an unknown
thing into a pretty trichotomy a priori derived from the logic of the
categories."
then my question is: does this "a priori trichotomy derived from the logic
of the categories" fall from the sky or rather from the mathematical
repository with 1- the triadic reduction theorem of the relational
structures; 2- a Poset 3-->2-->1 which is the form of the phaneroscopic
categories incorporating their interdependence relationship; all in the
well of the truth?
Bien cordialement,
RM
Le dim. 17 oct. 2021 à 12:03, Bernard Morand  a
écrit :

> John, List,
> Le 16/10/2021 à 23:58, sowa @bestweb.net a écrit :
>
> I agree with ET.  Most of the complaints seem to be generated by three
> people (GF, GR, and JAS) who object to people who introduce topics for
> which they have no canned answer.  An example is my note about phaneroscopy
> as a science egg.  ADT had no explanation for Peirce's remark.  Somebody
> mentioned the attempt by Atkins to broaden phaneroscopy..  But that attempt
> blurred the line between phaneroscopy and normative science.  When I
> observed that the combination of phaneroscopy and normative science would
> be equivalent to semeiotic, they refused to answer.  *These are very
> important questions that need to be asked.*  I am not complaining.  I am
> asking a question that gets to the heart of Peirce's 1903 classification.
> (my emphasis)
>
> I strongly agree with this statement from John.
>
> I was surprised at first reading by the mixing of two topics in the
> discussion about the ADT slides, a mix which he himself posited in his
> presentation and which seemed to me as being unnecessary.
>
> I think that the content and purpose of Phaneroscopy needs to be cleared
> up independently of the question of classification of sciences.
>
> On the contrary what has been suggested is to find a place for an unknown
> thing into a pretty trichotomy a priori derived from the logic of the
> categories.
>
> This is too much putting the cart before the horse.
>
> Furthermore I wonder whether the Peirce's aim after 1903 was not to
> compare the logical reality of the categories with the observable facts of
> living signs, hence his strong interest for his correspondence with Lady
> Welby.
>
> If this was the case, something we would call today experimental method,
> then the observation of living signs (phanerons) needs to be conducted out
> of the categories schema and not vice versa.
>
> So the matter of classification of phaneroscopy would have to come after.
>
> Coming back to the reading of ADT slides, what have we learned from it on
> the List ? None of the initiators of the topic has offered any insight into
> concluding remarks (at least as it appears to me).
>
> Regards
>
> Bernard
> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
> ► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the
> message and nothing in the body.  More at
> https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html .
> ► 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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . 
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 
with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the 
body.  More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP;  moderated by Gary Richmond;  and 
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Should we start a new email list?

[Bernard Morand]

John, List,

Le 16/10/2021 à 23:58, sowa @bestweb.net a écrit :


I agree with ET.  Most of the complaints seem to be generated by three 
people (GF, GR, and JAS) who object to people who introduce topics for 
which they have no canned answer. An example is my note about 
phaneroscopy as a science egg.  ADT had no explanation for Peirce's 
remark. Somebody mentioned the attempt by Atkins to broaden 
phaneroscopy..  But that attempt blurred the line between phaneroscopy 
and normative science.  When I observed that the combination of 
phaneroscopy and normative science would be equivalent to semeiotic, 
they refused to answer. /*These are very important questions that need 
to be asked.*/  I am not complaining.  I am asking a question that 
gets to the heart of Peirce's 1903 classification. (my emphasis)




I strongly agree with this statement from John.

I was surprised at first reading by the mixing of two topics in the 
discussion about the ADT slides, a mix which he himself posited in his 
presentation and which seemed to me as being unnecessary.


I think that the content and purpose of Phaneroscopy needs to be cleared 
up independently of the question of classification of sciences.


On the contrary what has been suggested is to find a place for an 
unknown thing into a pretty trichotomy a priori derived from the logic 
of the categories.


This is too much putting the cart before the horse.

Furthermore I wonder whether the Peirce's aim after 1903 was not to 
compare the logical reality of the categories with the observable facts 
of living signs, hence his strong interest for his correspondence with 
Lady Welby.


If this was the case, something we would call today experimental method, 
then the observation of living signs (phanerons) needs to be conducted 
out of the categories schema and not vice versa.


So the matter of classification of phaneroscopy would have to come after.

Coming back to the reading of ADT slides, what have we learned from it 
on the List ? None of the initiators of the topic has offered any 
insight into concluding remarks (at least as it appears to me).


Regards

Bernard

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the 
body.  More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP;  moderated by Gary Richmond;  and 
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Should we start a new email list (was Peirce's contributions to the 21st c

[robert marty]

Dear Margaretha,

Your conception of attitude is in interpersonal relations, very
psychological. But it is not about that... it is about epistemology ...
Here is for example a very vertical "*epistemological attitude*" of Peirce :

*""Every systematic philosopher must provide himself a classification of
the sciences. Comte first proposed to arrange the sciences in a series of
steps, each leading another. This general idea may be adopted, and we may
adapt our phraseology to the image of the well of truth with flights of
stairs leading down into it:*

*We divide the whole into three great parts:*



* - mathematics, the study of ideal constructions without reference to
their real existence,- empirics, the study of phenomena with the
purpose of identifying their forms with those mathematics has studied,*

* - pragmatics, the study of how we ought to behave in the light of the
truths of empirics."*

(C.S. Peirce, MS 1345, undated, transcription 1976: NEM, vol III.2 1122)"

And now try to get a horizontal comment on Peirce-L (*on the sociological
axis*) that takes into account this question of identification of forms ...
and if you are answered "OK" then ask where and when your interlocutors
tried to give content to their agreement "in the flights of stairs within
of well of truth"

NB: this classification of sciences is the simplest he provided ... but the
most detailed ones are consistent with this matrix.

Best regards,

Robert Marty
Honorary Professor ; PhD Mathematics ; PhD Philosophy
fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Marty
*https://martyrobert.academia.edu/ <https://martyrobert.academia.edu/>*



Le sam. 16 oct. 2021 à 18:51, Margaretha Hendrickx  a
écrit :

> What about taking this conversation off list, as in literally off list?
> For example, to a Skype or ZOOM session that we treat as a
> drink/juice-in-a-bar happening where no one is allowed to talk about
> serious stuff for the first half hour?  Something like an international
> Peirce Meet 'n Greet?
>
> Or who knows?  Some list members may be living in driving distance from
> one another.  I live in Ithaca, NY, USA.
>
> What I am trying to say is that it does not make sense to slice and dice
> Peirce.  A lot can be learned from engaging in non-judgmental listening;
> that is, thinking without a judgmental sucking-up/talking-down attitude
> (spatial metaphor).  Face-to-face interaction makes it easier to switch
> into a horizontal attitude (spatial metaphor).
>
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 16, 2021 at 12:33 PM Edwina Taborsky 
> wrote:
>
>> Exactly!! That's the spirit!
>>
>> And it shows, clearly, how different subject matters are treated on this
>> list.
>>
>> Edwina
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat 16/10/21 12:23 PM , g...@gnusystems.ca sent:
>>
>> I think it could be helpful for the group that has been complaining about
>> the subject matter of postings on this list to create a new one that would
>> be more to their liking. At least we (subscribers to peirce-l) wouldn’t
>> have to read all those complaints any more.
>>
>>
>>
>> Gary f.
>>
>>
>>
>> } Truth is truth, whether it is opposed to the interests of society to
>> admit it or not. [Peirce, CP 8.143, EP2:61] {
>>
>> https://gnusystems.ca/wp/ }{ living the time
>>
>>
>>
>> From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu On Behalf Of Margaretha Hendrickx
>> Sent: 16-Oct-21 11:22
>> To: s...@bestweb.net
>> Cc: Peirce-L
>> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Should we start a new email list (was Peirce's
>> contributions to the 21st c
>>
>>
>>
>> List,
>>
>>
>>
>> I think it is absurd to start a separate mailing list.
>>
>>
>>
>> Especially since its purpose would be to use Peirce's work as a mirror to
>> see what is going on in society today.
>>
>>
>>
>> If people feel perturbed or unvalidated after reading the emails
>> distributed by this list, well, have you ever had a discussion about the
>> possibility that this has to do more with what is going on in society today
>> and that one's feelings about society are being projected on the emails
>> distributed by this list?
>>
>>
>>
>> My very best, Margaretha H.
>>
>>
>>
>> PS.  I also find it unreasonable to expect people to reply to list emails
>> within 24-48 hrs.  I cannot operate in that way.  I am juggling many other
>> balls.  There are many interesting emails on this list, but I am simply not
>> in the right place to reply to them immediately. I hope to reply to them in
>> the future once my schedule is less hectic.  The reason I replied to this
>> email imm

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Should we start a new email list?

[Gary Richmond]

John, Margaretha, Gary F, Edwina, Jon A S, List,

I am in the process of exploring the future direction of Peirce-L with
Nathan Houser, who heads The Peirce Group (TPG), and Peter Skagestaad, a
member of TPG who was charged with overseeing the functioning of Peirce-L
when over a decade ago I was appointed moderator of the List in accordance
with Joseph Ransdell's express wishes. I suggested that Ben Udell, who
immediately agreed to take on the duties of webmaster (which Joe had also
requested), also serve as co-manager with me of Peirce-L and Arisbe; he is
also now involved in these discussions.

It was a great honor to have been handed Joe's torch, and while
challenging, the first 7 or so years -- when besides taking up threads
introduced by participants, we had several excellent slow reads, first of
all of Joe's papers on Arisbe, then of books by notable authors -- were a
joy. However, the last several years have been the opposite of joy for
reasons which will be discussed here in the future but which will require
further communication with Nathan, Peter, and Ben.

I had wanted to postpone my remarks regarding 'all this' until the four of
us had thoroughly explored the possibilities for moving forward, but I
cannot let this inflammatory post by John Sowa remain unanswered. For now,
however, I will only offer perfunctory inter-paragraphical comments in
addition to those already posted by Gary Fuhrman and Jon Alan Schmidt, with
much more to come, hopefully *soon* as I am expecting to speak with Nathan
by phone early next week. So, some remarks spliced into John's.


JFS: Before saying anything else, I'll repeat my previous remark:  "both
and", not "either or".  I would not drop my subscription to Peirce-L, but I
hope to discuss topics about Cognitive Science, which do not seem to be
welcome on this list.

GR: "Both-and" may or may not be a possibility, but I won't speak further
of that just yet. As for John's remark that "topics about Cognitive
Science. . .do not seem to be welcome on this list," that is simply
nonsense. No Peirce-related topics are unwelcome here, a principle of
Ransdell's which I cleave to. Anyone is free to introduce and discuss any
topic related to Peirce's work. Equally, those who are not interested in or
do not have the time to give to a given topic are free *not* to discuss it.
Personally, since I have recently completed a collaboration on a chapter in
a book on the topic of Peirce and cognitive mathematics, I have some
interest in cognitive science, but being an exceedingly busy person, I
currently haven't the time to actively participate (at least much) in any
thread at the moment.

MH:  What I am trying to say is that it does not make sense to slice and
dice Peirce.  A lot can be learned from engaging in non-judgmental
listening; that is, thinking without a judgmental sucking-up/talking-down
attitude (spatial metaphor).  Face-to-face interaction makes it easier to
switch into a horizontal attitude (spatial metaphor).


JFS: I strongly agree.  The Peirce Centennial Congress was an excellent
place, but it was so huge that it was hard to have more than a few offline
sessions.   In any case, I like the term "nonjudgmental listening".


GR: I too like the idea of non-judgmental listening and non-judgmental
reading. But Peirce also advocates critical commonsensism which includes
both "homo- and hetero-criticism" as he puts it. Besides, some of the
people hurling accusations are guilty of the very offenses with which they
are charging others.


JFS: . . . *Stop.  Count to 10.  Reread the note.  And state any objection
as a question.. *There is only one kind of disagreement that can be stated
as matter of fact:  a correction of an error in mathematics or formal
logic.  No mathematician would ever object to a correction of an error in a
mathematical statement.

GR: Would that every objection *could *be stated as a question, and
*would* that
JFS himself practice what he preaches here.

Further, the idea that "there is only one kind of disagreement that can be
stated as matter of fact:  a correction of an error in mathematics or
formal logic" is John's opinion and is not shared by all. To be fair, this
is likely an example of an "unconscious bias," in this case, one by a
logician . Those who would disagree would include some historians,
philologists, grammarians, even some philosophers, etc.

ET:  That [following note] shows, clearly, how different subject matters
are treated on this list:



GF:  I think it could be helpful for the group that has been complaining
about the subject matter of postings on this list to create a new one that
would be more to their liking. At least we (subscribers to peirce-l)
wouldn’t have to read all those complaints any more.

JFS: I agree with ET.  Most of the complaints seem to be generated by three
people (GF, GR, and JAS) who object to people who introduce topics for
which they have no canned answer.

GR: An extraordinary and incorrect assertion made 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Should we start a new email list?

[Jon Alan Schmidt]

John, List:

JFS: Most of the complaints seem to be generated by three people (GF, GR,
and JAS) who object to people who introduce topics for which they have no
canned answer.


Like Gary F., I cannot recall a single instance when one of us objected to
the introduction of any particular *topic*. What routinely prompts
complaints by others is when we point out the inconsistency of their claims
with *Peirce's *explicit statements.

JFS: When I observed that the combination of phaneroscopy and normative
science would be equivalent to semeiotic, they refused to answer.


No one on the List is *obligated *to respond to anyone else. In this case,
I could have pointed out the inconsistency of this claim with Peirce's
classification of the sciences, in which semeiotic is the third branch of
normative science and thus *depends on* phaneroscopy, esthetics, and ethics
for principles rather than somehow *encompassing *them. The predictable
result would have been more complaints by others, so I chose not to waste
my time.

JFS: I hereby request permission to broaden the list of permissible topics
on Peirce-L.


What a bizarre request. The only current *restriction *on topics is that
they be related in some way to Peirce.

JFS: There are other subscribers on this list who have a PhD in philosophy,
mathematics, and other subjects and who have long lists of publications on
topics related to Peirce and related topics


One really nice thing about Peirce-L is that no specific academic
credentials are required to participate. After all, Peirce himself did not
have a PhD in *any *field. Accordingly, every post should be evaluated on
its own substantive merits rather than the perceived qualifications of its
author.

Regards,

Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt

On Sat, Oct 16, 2021 at 4:59 PM sowa @bestweb.net  wrote:

> Margartha, Gary F, Ediwna, Jerry R, List,
>
> Before saying anything else, I'll repeat my previous remark:  "both and",
> not "either or".  I would not drop my subscription to Peirce-L, but I hope
> to discuss topics about Cognitive Science, which do not seem to be welcome
> on this list.  For an example of those topics, please see
> http://jfsowa.com/pubs/csp21st.pdf
>
> MH:  What I am trying to say is that it does not make sense to slice and
> dice Peirce.  A lot can be learned from engaging in non-judgmental
> listening; that is, thinking without a judgmental sucking-up/talking-down
> attitude (spatial metaphor).  Face-to-face interaction makes it easier to
> switch into a horizontal attitude (spatial metaphor).
>
> I strongly agree.  The Peirce Centennial Congress was an excellent place,
> but it was so huge that it was hard to have more than a few offline
> sessions.   In any case, I like the term "nonjudgmental listening".
>
> Since it would be difficult for all of us to meet face-to-face, I suggest
> that we should practice "non-judgmental reading" of any note about which we
> may disagree: * Stop.  Count to 10.  Reread the note.  And state any
> objection as a question.. *There is only one kind of disagreement that
> can be stated as matter of fact:  a correction of an error in mathematics
> or formal logic.  No mathematician would ever object to a correction of an
> error in a mathematical statement.
>
> ET:  That [following note] shows, clearly, how different subject matters
> are treated on this list:
>
> GF:  I think it could be helpful for the group that has been complaining
> about the subject matter of postings on this list to create a new one that
> would be more to their liking. At least we (subscribers to peirce-l)
> wouldn’t have to read all those complaints any more.
>
> I agree with ET.  Most of the complaints seem to be generated by three
> people (GF, GR, and JAS) who object to people who introduce topics for
> which they have no canned answer.  An example is my note about phaneroscopy
> as a science egg.  ADT had no explanation for Peirce's remark.  Somebody
> mentioned the attempt by Atkins to broaden phaneroscopy..  But that attempt
> blurred the line between phaneroscopy and normative science.  When I
> observed that the combination of phaneroscopy and normative science would
> be equivalent to semeiotic, they refused to answer.  These are very
> important questions that need to be asked.  I am not complaining.  I am
> asking a question that gets to the heart of Peirce's 1903 classification.
>
> Request:  I hereby request permission to broaden the list of permissible
> topics on Peirce-L.  I respectfully disagree with GR and GF that Jon AS is
> the one who has the most profound understanding of phanerosocpy or any
> other aspect of Peirce's work.  There are other subscribers on this list
> who have a PhD in philosophy, mathematics, and other subjects and who have
> long lists of publications on topics related to Peirce and related topics
> -- Robert 

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Should we start a new email list?

[gnox]

John, I was puzzled by Edwina's response to my note in support of your (and
her) proposal of starting a new list. The context of your proposal was a
series of complaints about the subject matter of postings on the list; the
gist of it seems to be that there's too much posting about Peirce's actual
texts and not enough about the topics of current interest to you. So I
assumed (naturally enough, I think) that your idea was to start a new list
where you could post about anything you like, applying your established
expertise in Peirce's thought, without having to show any connections
between what Peirce wrote and what you're posting. And as I said, I think
that could be helpful, especially for you.

So I am doubly surprised to read that "Most of the complaints seem to be
generated by three people (GF, GR, and JAS) who object to people who
introduce topics for which they have no canned answer." People who introduce
new topics on the list are usually people who are still learning from or
about Peirce and are interested in exploring some of his more original ideas
- people like Margaretha and Jack Kelly. Or they have unearthed Peirce texts
which throw some new light on those ideas. I have yet to see any complaints
from GR or JAS or me which object to the introduction of such new topics. I
would be grateful if you could point to one or two in the archives.

The complaints I was referring to in my note of support have mostly come
from you, ET and a few others, the common thread being that there's too much
close attention to what Peirce actually wrote, especially to Peirce texts
that the complainers are not familiar with. I understand that such subject
matter is of little use to experts like yourselves, but those of us who are
still discovering the depth and relevance of Peirce's ideas really need to
read (and re-read!) what Peirce wrote, without thinking that we have it down
pat already. So I for one don't find those complaints helpful, and would be
genuinely pleased if you, ET and the others had a better place to air your
expert thoughts about Cognitive Science or whatever. And I certainly
wouldn't miss your frequent attacks (in recent years) on peirce-l members
who would rather learn from Peirce than defer to your authority.

Gary f.

 

From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu  On
Behalf Of sowa @bestweb.net
Sent: 16-Oct-21 17:59
To: tabor...@primus.ca; Margaretha Hendrickx 
Cc: Peirce-L ; g...@gnusystems.ca
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Should we start a new email list?

 

Margartha, Gary F, Ediwna, Jerry R, List,

 

Before saying anything else, I'll repeat my previous remark:  "both and",
not "either or".  I would not drop my subscription to Peirce-L, but I hope
to discuss topics about Cognitive Science, which do not seem to be welcome
on this list.  For an example of those topics, please see
http://jfsowa.com/pubs/csp21st.pdf

 

MH:  What I am trying to say is that it does not make sense to slice and
dice Peirce.  A lot can be learned from engaging in non-judgmental
listening; that is, thinking without a judgmental sucking-up/talking-down
attitude (spatial metaphor).  Face-to-face interaction makes it easier to
switch into a horizontal attitude (spatial metaphor). 

 

I strongly agree.  The Peirce Centennial Congress was an excellent place,
but it was so huge that it was hard to have more than a few offline
sessions.   In any case, I like the term "nonjudgmental listening".

 

Since it would be difficult for all of us to meet face-to-face, I suggest
that we should practice "non-judgmental reading" of any note about which we
may disagree:  Stop.  Count to 10.  Reread the note.  And state any
objection as a question.. There is only one kind of disagreement that can be
stated as matter of fact:  a correction of an error in mathematics or formal
logic.  No mathematician would ever object to a correction of an error in a
mathematical statement.

  

ET:  That [following note] shows, clearly, how different subject matters are
treated on this list:

 

GF:  I think it could be helpful for the group that has been complaining
about the subject matter of postings on this list to create a new one that
would be more to their liking. At least we (subscribers to peirce-l)
wouldn't have to read all those complaints any more. 

I agree with ET.  Most of the complaints seem to be generated by three
people (GF, GR, and JAS) who object to people who introduce topics for which
they have no canned answer.  An example is my note about phaneroscopy as a
science egg.  ADT had no explanation for Peirce's remark.  Somebody
mentioned the attempt by Atkins to broaden phaneroscopy..  But that attempt
blurred the line between phaneroscopy and normative science.  When I
observed that the combination of phaneroscopy and normative science would be
equivalent to semeiotic, they refused to answer.  These are very important
questions that need to be asked.  I am not complaining.  I am asking 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Should we start a new email list?

[sowa @bestweb.net]

Margartha, Gary F, Ediwna, Jerry R, List,

 Before saying anything else, I'll repeat my previous remark:  "both and", not 
"either or".  I would not drop my subscription to Peirce-L, but I hope to 
discuss topics about Cognitive Science, which do not seem to be welcome on this 
list.  For an example of those topics, please see 
http://jfsowa.com/pubs/csp21st.pdf

  MH:  What I am trying to say is that it does not make sense to slice and dice 
Peirce.  A lot can be learned from engaging in non-judgmental listening; that 
is, thinking without a judgmental sucking-up/talking-down attitude (spatial 
metaphor).  Face-to-face interaction makes it easier to switch into a 
horizontal attitude (spatial metaphor).
 I strongly agree.  The Peirce Centennial Congress was an excellent place, but 
it was so huge that it was hard to have more than a few offline sessions.   In 
any case, I like the term "nonjudgmental listening".

 Since it would be difficult for all of us to meet face-to-face, I suggest that 
we should practice "non-judgmental reading" of any note about which we may 
disagree:  Stop.  Count to 10.  Reread the note.  And state any objection as a 
question.. There is only one kind of disagreement that can be stated as matter 
of fact:  a correction of an error in mathematics or formal logic.  No 
mathematician would ever object to a correction of an error in a mathematical 
statement.

ET:  That [following note] shows, clearly, how different subject matters 
are treated on this list:

 GF:  I think it could be helpful for the group that has been complaining about 
the subject matter of postings on this list to create a new one that would be 
more to their liking. At least we (subscribers to peirce-l) wouldn't have to 
read all those complaints any more.

I agree with ET.  Most of the complaints seem to be generated by three people 
(GF, GR, and JAS) who object to people who introduce topics for which they have 
no canned answer.  An example is my note about phaneroscopy as a science egg.  
ADT had no explanation for Peirce's remark.  Somebody mentioned the attempt by 
Atkins to broaden phaneroscopy..  But that attempt blurred the line between 
phaneroscopy and normative science.  When I observed that the combination of 
phaneroscopy and normative science would be equivalent to semeiotic, they 
refused to answer.  These are very important questions that need to be asked.  
I am not complaining.  I am asking a question that gets to the heart of 
Peirce's 1903 classification.

Request:  I hereby request permission to broaden the list of permissible topics 
on Peirce-L.  I respectfully disagree with GR and GF that Jon AS is the one who 
has the most profound understanding of phanerosocpy or any other aspect of 
Peirce's work.  There are other subscribers on this list who have a PhD in 
philosophy, mathematics, and other subjects and who have long lists of 
publications on topics related to Peirce and related topics -- Robert Marty, 
for example.

I have also known GR for many years and always on a friendly basis.  But as 
moderator of this list, he has an obligation to treat every subscriber on an 
equal basis.  As a subscriber, he may express his own opinion on any topic.  
But he does not have the right to show favoritism to any subscriber or to any 
Peirce-related topic.

Any issues about what subjects are appropriate for discussion on Peirce-L 
should be decided by a consensus of all subscribers, not by the moderator.

John


_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the 
body.  More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP;  moderated by Gary Richmond;  and 
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.

Aw: [PEIRCE-L] Should we start a new email list (was Peirce's contributions to the 21st c

[Helmut Raulien]

east we (subscribers to peirce-l) wouldn’t have to read all those complaints any more.  

 

Gary f.

 

} Truth is truth, whether it is opposed to the interests of society to admit it or not. [Peirce, CP 8.143, EP2:61] { 

https://gnusystems.ca/wp/ }{ living the time

 


From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu  On Behalf Of Margaretha Hendrickx
Sent: 16-Oct-21 11:22
To: s...@bestweb.net
Cc: Peirce-L
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Should we start a new email list (was Peirce's contributions to the 21st c


 


List,


 



I think it is absurd to start a separate mailing list. 



 



Especially since its purpose would be to use Peirce's work as a mirror to see what is going on in society today.  



 



If people feel perturbed or unvalidated after reading the emails distributed by this list, well, have you ever had a discussion about the possibility that this has to do more with what is going on in society today and that one's feelings about society are being projected on the emails distributed by this list? 



 



My very best, Margaretha H.



 



PS.  I also find it unreasonable to expect people to reply to list emails within 24-48 hrs.  I cannot operate in that way.  I am juggling many other balls.  There are many interesting emails on this list, but I am simply not in the right place to reply to them immediately. I hope to reply to them in the future once my schedule is less hectic.  The reason I replied to this email immediately before other ones, well, it caught my attention and it kept on bothering me.  Its divisive rhetoric mirrors the divisive rhetoric in society at large.   



 



Let me end with a question.  Popper is known for warning against the manipulative use of language and logic. Did Peirce do something similar?  If my question shows a lack of understanding of Peirce's work, I apologize.  I am still in the learning stages.  



 



 



On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 6:02 PM sowa @bestweb.net <s...@bestweb.net> wrote:




List,



 



On Thursday, I sent the note below to Peirce-L.   I received some strong positive comments and suggestions offline, but complete silence from the people who send most of the notes to Peirce-L.    For example:  "As for the natural extensions of Peirce's thought, even when they agree closely with his principles, they are rejected [on Peirce-L] as post-Peircean"  



 



I interpret those responses as evidence that we need n email list that is dedicated to the kinds of topics that dominated the Peirce Centennial Congress in 2014.  That was a very exciting conference on  research that builds on Peirce's work and relates it to developments in the century after Peirce.   As Peirce frequently emphasized, the meaning of any  sign is its implications for action in the future.  We live in Peirce's future, and our actions today depend critically on the developments in the century after Peirce.  



 



I don't believe that we should reject Peirce-l, but we should have another email list that relates Peirce's ideas to the issues of today.  I would encourage subscribers to Peirce-L to participate in both lists.  I'll send another note tomorrow..  



 



John 






_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body.  More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html .
► 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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► 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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . 
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 
with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the 
body.  More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP;  moderated by Gary Richmond;  and 
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.

[PEIRCE-L] Should we start a new email list

[Edwina Taborsky]

y, and the rejection of individual
freedom of thought. Well, the Peirce-L list, in my view, has become
closed. I think a separate list, which ensures the tribal purity of
the Peirce-L list...and yet, enables freedom [aka 1ns] to explore the
Peircean framework as operative in other areas than Peirce used
[though he DID refer to the biological, the societal]….. is a
constructive action. 

Edwina
 On Sat 16/10/21 12:50 PM , Margaretha Hendrickx mahe3...@gmail.com
[2] sent:
 What about taking this conversation off list, as in literally off
list?  For example, to a Skype or ZOOM session that we treat as a
drink/juice-in-a-bar happening where no one is allowed to talk about
serious stuff for the first half hour?  Something like an
international Peirce Meet 'n Greet? 
 Or who knows?  Some list members may be living in driving distance
from one another.  I live in Ithaca, NY, USA.
 What I am trying to say is that it does not make sense to slice and
dice Peirce.  A lot can be learned from engaging in non-judgmental
listening; that is, thinking without a judgmental
sucking-up/talking-down attitude (spatial metaphor).  Face-to-face
interaction makes it easier to switch into a horizontal attitude
(spatial metaphor). 
 On Sat, Oct 16, 2021 at 12:33 PM Edwina Taborsky  wrote:
Exactly!! That's the spirit!

And it shows, clearly, how different subject matters are treated on
this list.

Edwina
 On Sat 16/10/21 12:23 PM , g...@gnusystems.ca sent:
I think it could be helpful for the group that has been complaining
about the subject matter of postings on this list to create a new one
that would be more to their liking. At least we (subscribers to
peirce-l) wouldn’t have to read all those complaints any more.  
Gary f.
} Truth is truth, whether it is opposed to the interests of society
to admit it or not. [Peirce, CP 8.143, EP2:61] {  

https://gnusystems.ca/wp/ [3] }{ living the time
 From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu   On Behalf Of Margaretha
Hendrickx
 Sent: 16-Oct-21 11:22
 To: s...@bestweb.net
 Cc: Peirce-L 
 Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Should we start a new email list (was
Peirce's contributions to the 21st c
 List,
 I think it is absurd to start a separate mailing list. 
Especially since its purpose would be to use Peirce's work as a
mirror to see what is going on in society today.   
If people feel perturbed or unvalidated after reading the emails
distributed by this list, well, have you ever had a discussion about
the possibility that this has to do more with what is going on in
society today and that one's feelings about society are being
projected on the emails distributed by this list?  
My very best, Margaretha H.
PS.  I also find it unreasonable to expect people to reply to list
emails within 24-48 hrs.  I cannot operate in that way.  I am
juggling many other balls.  There are many interesting emails on this
list, but I am simply not in the right place to reply to them
immediately. I hope to reply to them in the future once my schedule
is less hectic.  The reason I replied to this email immediately
before other ones, well, it caught my attention and it kept on
bothering me.  Its divisive rhetoric mirrors the divisive rhetoric in
society at large.
Let me end with a question.  Popper is known for warning against the
manipulative use of language and logic. Did Peirce do something
similar?  If my question shows a lack of understanding of Peirce's
work, I apologize.  I am still in the learning stages.   
On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 6:02 PM sowa @bestweb.net [4]  wrote:  

 List,
 On Thursday, I sent the note below to Peirce-L.   I received some
strong positive comments and suggestions offline, but complete
silence from the people who send most of the notes to Peirce-L.   
For example:  "As for the natural extensions of Peirce's thought,
even when they agree closely with his principles, they are rejected
[on Peirce-L] as post-Peircean"  
I interpret those responses as evidence that we need n email list
that is dedicated to the kinds of topics that dominated the Peirce
Centennial Congress in 2014.  That was a very exciting conference on 
research that builds on Peirce's work and relates it to developments
in the century after Peirce.   As Peirce frequently emphasized, the
meaning of any  sign is its implications for action in the future. 
We live in Peirce's future, and our actions today depend critically
on the developments in the century after Peirce.  
I don't believe that we should reject Peirce-l, but we should have
another email list that relates Peirce's ideas to the issues of
today.  I would encourage subscribers to Peirce-L to participate in
both lists.  I'll send another note tomorrow..  
John   
 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
 ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to
REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. P

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Should we start a new email list (was Peirce's contributions to the 21st c

[Margaretha Hendrickx]

Hi Edwina,

I respect your decision to not interact with people with ZOOM or SKYPE.
But what about the phone then?  Hopefully, you will consider joining us via
the phone if  this ZOOM/SKYPE gathering were ever to happen.

Talking about Popper's *Open Society and Its Enemies*, the real enemy is
inside each one of us when we flip into a subtly intolerant attitude.  That
is, recall Popper's aphorism, "You may be right; I may be wrong; together
we get closer to the truth." I got the most out of Popper when I used his
writings as a mirror to reflect on what I was doing.

The great insight that I got from it was about the dangers of the picture
theory of language.  That theory is among us in the form of the causal
theory of meaning and the various representational theories of knowledge.
When we as readers think of a text as an indubitable picture of the content
of the mind of the author.  Or, alternatively, a picture of reality.

That is, what is that incontrovertible evidence that the Peirce list is
closed as in the Germany of the 1930s?

I am not denying the reality of your frustrations.  I am simply wondering
whether the creation of a new list will solve whatever the problems are
on this list.

On Sat, Oct 16, 2021 at 1:15 PM Edwina Taborsky  wrote:

> I'm fine with and would love a real coffee house chat - but I'm not into
> Skype or Zoom. Won't even do it with my kids.
>
> I think that Robert Marty's post is correct - where he agreed with Gary F
> - that a separate list means that the Peirce-L list members won't be
> 'bothered' by the 'sacrilege' of reading 'post-Peirce' analysis or reading
> our complaints that the Peirce-L response is to fling dozens of quotations
> against such a focus..
>
> I don't see that a separate list is 'divisive'. After all - you mentioned
> Popper. You must know his 'Open Society and Its Enemies', where Popper
> specifically warns against a closed society, ie, a tribal society, . a
> closed ideology, and the rejection of individual freedom of thought. Well,
> the Peirce-L list, in my view, has become closed. I think a separate list,
> which ensures the tribal purity of the Peirce-L list...and yet, enables
> freedom [aka 1ns] to explore the Peircean framework as operative in other
> areas than Peirce used [though he DID refer to the biological, the
> societal]….. is a constructive action.
>
> Edwina
>
>
>
> On Sat 16/10/21 12:50 PM , Margaretha Hendrickx mahe3...@gmail.com sent:
>
> What about taking this conversation off list, as in literally off list?
> For example, to a Skype or ZOOM session that we treat as a
> drink/juice-in-a-bar happening where no one is allowed to talk about
> serious stuff for the first half hour?  Something like an international
> Peirce Meet 'n Greet?
>
> Or who knows?  Some list members may be living in driving distance from
> one another.  I live in Ithaca, NY, USA.
>
> What I am trying to say is that it does not make sense to slice and dice
> Peirce.  A lot can be learned from engaging in non-judgmental listening;
> that is, thinking without a judgmental sucking-up/talking-down attitude
> (spatial metaphor).  Face-to-face interaction makes it easier to switch
> into a horizontal attitude (spatial metaphor).
>
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 16, 2021 at 12:33 PM Edwina Taborsky 
> wrote:
>
>> Exactly!! That's the spirit!
>>
>> And it shows, clearly, how different subject matters are treated on this
>> list.
>>
>> Edwina
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat 16/10/21 12:23 PM , g...@gnusystems.ca sent:
>>
>> I think it could be helpful for the group that has been complaining about
>> the subject matter of postings on this list to create a new one that would
>> be more to their liking. At least we (subscribers to peirce-l) wouldn’t
>> have to read all those complaints any more.
>>
>>
>>
>> Gary f.
>>
>>
>>
>> } Truth is truth, whether it is opposed to the interests of society to
>> admit it or not. [Peirce, CP 8.143, EP2:61] {
>>
>> https://gnusystems.ca/wp/ }{ living the time
>>
>>
>>
>> From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu On Behalf Of Margaretha Hendrickx
>> Sent: 16-Oct-21 11:22
>> To: s...@bestweb.net
>> Cc: Peirce-L
>> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Should we start a new email list (was Peirce's
>> contributions to the 21st c
>>
>>
>>
>> List,
>>
>>
>>
>> I think it is absurd to start a separate mailing list.
>>
>>
>>
>> Especially since its purpose would be to use Peirce's work as a mirror to
>> see what is going on in society today.
>>
>>
>>
>> If people feel perturbed or unvalidated after reading the emails
>> distr

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Should we start a new email list (was Peirce's contributions to the 21st c

[Edwina Taborsky]

 

 BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}I'm fine with and would love a real coffee house chat - but I'm not
into Skype or Zoom. Won't even do it with my kids.

I think that Robert Marty's post is correct - where he agreed with
Gary F - that a separate list means that the Peirce-L list members
won't be 'bothered' by the 'sacrilege' of reading 'post-Peirce'
analysis or reading our complaints that the Peirce-L response is to
fling dozens of quotations against such a focus..

I don't see that a separate list is 'divisive'. After all - you
mentioned Popper. You must know his 'Open Society and Its Enemies',
where Popper specifically warns against a closed society, ie, a
tribal society, . a closed ideology, and the rejection of individual
freedom of thought. Well, the Peirce-L list, in my view, has become
closed. I think a separate list, which ensures the tribal purity of
the Peirce-L list...and yet, enables freedom [aka 1ns] to explore the
Peircean framework as operative in other areas than Peirce used
[though he DID refer to the biological, the societal]….. is a
constructive action.

Edwina
 On Sat 16/10/21 12:50 PM , Margaretha Hendrickx mahe3...@gmail.com
sent:
 What about taking this conversation off list, as in literally off
list?  For example, to a Skype or ZOOM session that we treat as a
drink/juice-in-a-bar happening where no one is allowed to talk about
serious stuff for the first half hour?  Something like an
international Peirce Meet 'n Greet? 
 Or who knows?  Some list members may be living in driving distance
from one another.  I live in Ithaca, NY, USA.
 What I am trying to say is that it does not make sense to slice and
dice Peirce.  A lot can be learned from engaging in non-judgmental
listening; that is, thinking without a judgmental
sucking-up/talking-down attitude (spatial metaphor).  Face-to-face
interaction makes it easier to switch into a horizontal attitude
(spatial metaphor). 
 On Sat, Oct 16, 2021 at 12:33 PM Edwina Taborsky  wrote:
Exactly!! That's the spirit!

And it shows, clearly, how different subject matters are treated on
this list.

Edwina
 On Sat 16/10/21 12:23 PM , g...@gnusystems.ca [2] sent:
I think it could be helpful for the group that has been complaining
about the subject matter of postings on this list to create a new one
that would be more to their liking. At least we (subscribers to
peirce-l) wouldn’t have to read all those complaints any more.  
Gary f.
} Truth is truth, whether it is opposed to the interests of society
to admit it or not. [Peirce, CP 8.143, EP2:61] {  

https://gnusystems.ca/wp/ [3] }{ living the time
 From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu [4]   On Behalf Of Margaretha
Hendrickx
 Sent: 16-Oct-21 11:22
 To: s...@bestweb.net [5]
 Cc: Peirce-L 
 Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Should we start a new email list (was
Peirce's contributions to the 21st c
List,
 I think it is absurd to start a separate mailing list. 
Especially since its purpose would be to use Peirce's work as a
mirror to see what is going on in society today.  
If people feel perturbed or unvalidated after reading the emails
distributed by this list, well, have you ever had a discussion about
the possibility that this has to do more with what is going on in
society today and that one's feelings about society are being
projected on the emails distributed by this list?  
My very best, Margaretha H.
PS.  I also find it unreasonable to expect people to reply to list
emails within 24-48 hrs.  I cannot operate in that way.  I am
juggling many other balls.  There are many interesting emails on this
list, but I am simply not in the right place to reply to them
immediately. I hope to reply to them in the future once my schedule
is less hectic.  The reason I replied to this email immediately
before other ones, well, it caught my attention and it kept on
bothering me.  Its divisive rhetoric mirrors the divisive rhetoric in
society at large.
Let me end with a question.  Popper is known for warning against the
manipulative use of language and logic. Did Peirce do something
similar?  If my question shows a lack of understanding of Peirce's
work, I apologize.  I am still in the learning stages.  
On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 6:02 PM sowa @bestweb.net [6]  wrote: 

 List,
On Thursday, I sent the note below to Peirce-L.   I received some
strong positive comments and suggestions offline, but complete
silence from the people who send most of the notes to Peirce-L.   
For example:  "As for the natural extensions of Peirce's thought,
even when they agree closely with his principles, they are rejected
[on Peirce-L] as post-Peircean"  
I interpret those responses as evidence that we need n email list
that is dedicated to the kinds of topics that dominated the Peirce
Centennial Congress in 2014.  That 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Should we start a new email list (was Peirce's contributions to the 21st c

[Margaretha Hendrickx]

What about taking this conversation off list, as in literally off list?
For example, to a Skype or ZOOM session that we treat as a
drink/juice-in-a-bar happening where no one is allowed to talk about
serious stuff for the first half hour?  Something like an international
Peirce Meet 'n Greet?

Or who knows?  Some list members may be living in driving distance from one
another.  I live in Ithaca, NY, USA.

What I am trying to say is that it does not make sense to slice and dice
Peirce.  A lot can be learned from engaging in non-judgmental listening;
that is, thinking without a judgmental sucking-up/talking-down attitude
(spatial metaphor).  Face-to-face interaction makes it easier to switch
into a horizontal attitude (spatial metaphor).



On Sat, Oct 16, 2021 at 12:33 PM Edwina Taborsky  wrote:

> Exactly!! That's the spirit!
>
> And it shows, clearly, how different subject matters are treated on this
> list.
>
> Edwina
>
>
>
> On Sat 16/10/21 12:23 PM , g...@gnusystems.ca sent:
>
> I think it could be helpful for the group that has been complaining about
> the subject matter of postings on this list to create a new one that would
> be more to their liking. At least we (subscribers to peirce-l) wouldn’t
> have to read all those complaints any more.
>
>
>
> Gary f.
>
>
>
> } Truth is truth, whether it is opposed to the interests of society to
> admit it or not. [Peirce, CP 8.143, EP2:61] {
>
> https://gnusystems.ca/wp/ }{ living the time
>
>
>
> From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu On Behalf Of Margaretha Hendrickx
> Sent: 16-Oct-21 11:22
> To: s...@bestweb.net
> Cc: Peirce-L
> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Should we start a new email list (was Peirce's
> contributions to the 21st c
>
>
>
> List,
>
>
>
> I think it is absurd to start a separate mailing list.
>
>
>
> Especially since its purpose would be to use Peirce's work as a mirror to
> see what is going on in society today.
>
>
>
> If people feel perturbed or unvalidated after reading the emails
> distributed by this list, well, have you ever had a discussion about the
> possibility that this has to do more with what is going on in society today
> and that one's feelings about society are being projected on the emails
> distributed by this list?
>
>
>
> My very best, Margaretha H.
>
>
>
> PS.  I also find it unreasonable to expect people to reply to list emails
> within 24-48 hrs.  I cannot operate in that way.  I am juggling many other
> balls.  There are many interesting emails on this list, but I am simply not
> in the right place to reply to them immediately. I hope to reply to them in
> the future once my schedule is less hectic.  The reason I replied to this
> email immediately before other ones, well, it caught my attention and it
> kept on bothering me.  Its divisive rhetoric mirrors the divisive
> rhetoric in society at large.
>
>
>
> Let me end with a question.  Popper is known for warning against the
> manipulative use of language and logic. Did Peirce do something similar?
> If my question shows a lack of understanding of Peirce's work, I
> apologize.  I am still in the learning stages.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 6:02 PM sowa @bestweb.net 
> wrote:
>
> List,
>
>
>
> On Thursday, I sent the note below to Peirce-L.   I received some strong
> positive comments and suggestions offline, but complete silence from the
> people who send most of the notes to Peirce-L.For example:  "As for the
> natural extensions of Peirce's thought, even when they agree closely with
> his principles, they are rejected [on Peirce-L] as post-Peircean"
>
>
>
> I interpret those responses as evidence that we need n email list that is
> dedicated to the kinds of topics that dominated the Peirce Centennial
> Congress in 2014.  That was a very exciting conference on  research that
> builds on Peirce's work and relates it to developments in the century after
> Peirce.   As Peirce frequently emphasized, the meaning of any  sign is its
> implications for action in the future.  We live in Peirce's future, and our
> actions today depend critically on the developments in the century after
> Peirce.
>
>
>
> I don't believe that we should reject Peirce-l, but we should have another
> email list that relates Peirce's ideas to the issues of today.  I would
> encourage subscribers to Peirce-L to participate in both lists.  I'll send
> another note tomorrow..
>
>
>
> John
>
>
> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
> ► 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

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Should we start a new email list (was Peirce's contributions to the 21st c

[Edwina Taborsky]

 

Exactly!! That's the spirit!

And it shows, clearly, how different subject matters are treated on
this list.

Edwina
 On Sat 16/10/21 12:23 PM , g...@gnusystems.ca sent:
I think it could be helpful for the group that has been complaining
about the subject matter of postings on this list to create a new one
that would be more to their liking. At least we (subscribers to
peirce-l) wouldn’t have to read all those complaints any more. 
Gary f.
} Truth is truth, whether it is opposed to the interests of society
to admit it or not. [Peirce, CP 8.143, EP2:61] { 

https://gnusystems.ca/wp/ [1] }{ living the time
From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu 

  On Behalf Of Margaretha Hendrickx
 Sent: 16-Oct-21 11:22
 To: s...@bestweb.net
 Cc: Peirce-L 
 Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Should we start a new email list (was
Peirce's contributions to the 21st c
List,
 I think it is absurd to start a separate mailing list. 
Especially since its purpose would be to use Peirce's work as a
mirror to see what is going on in society today.  
If people feel perturbed or unvalidated after reading the emails
distributed by this list, well, have you ever had a discussion about
the possibility that this has to do more with what is going on in
society today and that one's feelings about society are being
projected on the emails distributed by this list? 
My very best, Margaretha H.
PS.  I also find it unreasonable to expect people to reply to list
emails within 24-48 hrs.  I cannot operate in that way.  I am
juggling many other balls.  There are many interesting emails on this
list, but I am simply not in the right place to reply to them
immediately. I hope to reply to them in the future once my schedule
is less hectic.  The reason I replied to this email immediately
before other ones, well, it caught my attention and it kept on
bothering me.  Its divisive rhetoric mirrors the divisive rhetoric in
society at large.   
Let me end with a question.  Popper is known for warning against the
manipulative use of language and logic. Did Peirce do something
similar?  If my question shows a lack of understanding of Peirce's
work, I apologize.  I am still in the learning stages.  
On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 6:02 PM sowa @bestweb.net [2]  wrote:

 List,
On Thursday, I sent the note below to Peirce-L.   I received some
strong positive comments and suggestions offline, but complete
silence from the people who send most of the notes to Peirce-L.   
For example:  "As for the natural extensions of Peirce's thought,
even when they agree closely with his principles, they are rejected
[on Peirce-L] as post-Peircean" 
I interpret those responses as evidence that we need n email list
that is dedicated to the kinds of topics that dominated the Peirce
Centennial Congress in 2014.  That was a very exciting conference on 
research that builds on Peirce's work and relates it to developments
in the century after Peirce.   As Peirce frequently emphasized, the
meaning of any  sign is its implications for action in the future. 
We live in Peirce's future, and our actions today depend critically
on the developments in the century after Peirce. 
I don't believe that we should reject Peirce-l, but we should have
another email list that relates Peirce's ideas to the issues of
today.  I would encourage subscribers to Peirce-L to participate in
both lists.  I'll send another note tomorrow.. 
John  


Links:
--
[1] https://gnusystems.ca/wp/
[2] http://bestweb.net
[3]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'s...@bestweb.net\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the 
body.  More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP;  moderated by Gary Richmond;  and 
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Should we start a new email list (was Peirce's contributions to the 21st c

[gnox]

I think it could be helpful for the group that has been complaining about the 
subject matter of postings on this list to create a new one that would be more 
to their liking. At least we (subscribers to peirce-l) wouldn’t have to read 
all those complaints any more.

 

Gary f.

 

} Truth is truth, whether it is opposed to the interests of society to admit it 
or not. [Peirce, CP 8.143, EP2:61] {

 <https://gnusystems.ca/wp/> https://gnusystems.ca/wp/ }{ living the time

 

From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu  On 
Behalf Of Margaretha Hendrickx
Sent: 16-Oct-21 11:22
To: s...@bestweb.net
Cc: Peirce-L 
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Should we start a new email list (was Peirce's 
contributions to the 21st c

 

List,

 

I think it is absurd to start a separate mailing list. 

 

Especially since its purpose would be to use Peirce's work as a mirror to see 
what is going on in society today.  

 

If people feel perturbed or unvalidated after reading the emails distributed by 
this list, well, have you ever had a discussion about the possibility that this 
has to do more with what is going on in society today and that one's feelings 
about society are being projected on the emails distributed by this list?

 

My very best, Margaretha H.

 

PS.  I also find it unreasonable to expect people to reply to list emails 
within 24-48 hrs.  I cannot operate in that way.  I am juggling many other 
balls.  There are many interesting emails on this list, but I am simply not in 
the right place to reply to them immediately. I hope to reply to them in the 
future once my schedule is less hectic.  The reason I replied to this email 
immediately before other ones, well, it caught my attention and it kept on 
bothering me.  Its divisive rhetoric mirrors the divisive rhetoric in society 
at large.  

 

Let me end with a question.  Popper is known for warning against the 
manipulative use of language and logic. Did Peirce do something similar?  If my 
question shows a lack of understanding of Peirce's work, I apologize.  I am 
still in the learning stages.  

 

 

On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 6:02 PM sowa @bestweb.net <http://bestweb.net>  
mailto:s...@bestweb.net> > wrote:

List,

 

On Thursday, I sent the note below to Peirce-L.   I received some strong 
positive comments and suggestions offline, but complete silence from the people 
who send most of the notes to Peirce-L.For example:  "As for the natural 
extensions of Peirce's thought, even when they agree closely with his 
principles, they are rejected [on Peirce-L] as post-Peircean"

 

I interpret those responses as evidence that we need n email list that is 
dedicated to the kinds of topics that dominated the Peirce Centennial Congress 
in 2014.  That was a very exciting conference on  research that builds on 
Peirce's work and relates it to developments in the century after Peirce.   As 
Peirce frequently emphasized, the meaning of any  sign is its implications for 
action in the future.  We live in Peirce's future, and our actions today depend 
critically on the developments in the century after Peirce.

 

I don't believe that we should reject Peirce-l, but we should have another 
email list that relates Peirce's ideas to the issues of today.  I would 
encourage subscribers to Peirce-L to participate in both lists.  I'll send 
another note tomorrow..

 

John 

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the 
body.  More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP;  moderated by Gary Richmond;  and 
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Should we start a new email list (was Peirce's contributions to the 21st c

[Jerry Rhee]

Dear Margaretha, John, Edwina, list,


I concur about the absurdity of beginning a separate list and very much
appreciate the manner in which you have put it.


As for Popper and Peirce, warnings are everywhere.

Proceeding with good judgment about them is harder to find.


With best wishes,
Jerry R

On Sat, Oct 16, 2021 at 10:22 AM Margaretha Hendrickx 
wrote:

> List,
>
> I think it is absurd to start a separate mailing list.
>
> Especially since its purpose would be to use Peirce's work as a mirror to
> see what is going on in society today.
>
> If people feel perturbed or unvalidated after reading the emails
> distributed by this list, well, have you ever had a discussion about the
> possibility that this has to do more with what is going on in society today
> and that one's feelings about society are being projected on the emails
> distributed by this list?
>
> My very best, Margaretha H.
>
> PS.  I also find it unreasonable to expect people to reply to list emails
> within 24-48 hrs.  I cannot operate in that way.  I am juggling many other
> balls.  There are many interesting emails on this list, but I am simply not
> in the right place to reply to them immediately. I hope to reply to them in
> the future once my schedule is less hectic.  The reason I replied to this
> email immediately before other ones, well, it caught my attention and it
> kept on bothering me.  Its divisive rhetoric mirrors the divisive
> rhetoric in society at large.
>
> Let me end with a question.  Popper is known for warning against the
> manipulative use of language and logic. Did Peirce do something similar?
> If my question shows a lack of understanding of Peirce's work, I
> apologize.  I am still in the learning stages.
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 6:02 PM sowa @bestweb.net 
> wrote:
>
>> List,
>>
>> On Thursday, I sent the note below to Peirce-L.   I received some strong
>> positive comments and suggestions offline, but complete silence from the
>> people who send most of the notes to Peirce-L.For example:  "As for the
>> natural extensions of Peirce's thought, even when they agree closely with
>> his principles, they are rejected [on Peirce-L] as post-Peircean"
>>
>> I interpret those responses as evidence that we need n email list that is
>> dedicated to the kinds of topics that dominated the Peirce Centennial
>> Congress in 2014.  That was a very exciting conference on  research that
>> builds on Peirce's work and relates it to developments in the century after
>> Peirce.   As Peirce frequently emphasized, the meaning of any  sign is its
>> implications for action in the future.  We live in Peirce's future, and our
>> actions today depend critically on the developments in the century after
>> Peirce.
>>
>> I don't believe that we should reject Peirce-l, but we should have
>> another email list that relates Peirce's ideas to the issues of today.  I
>> would encourage subscribers to Peirce-L to participate in both lists.  I'll
>> send another note tomorrow..
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>> --
>> *From*: "sowa @bestweb.net" 
>> *Sent*: Thursday, October 14, 2021 10:39 PM
>> *To*: "Peirce-L" 
>> *Subject*: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's contributions to the 21st century
>>
>> Robert, Edwina, List,
>>
>> The passages Robert quoted show that Peirce admitted that his system
>> was a work in progress.  We could add his remark that phaneroscopy was
>> still a "science egg".
>>
>> CSP:  I am, as far as I know, a pioneer, or rather a backwoodsman, in
>> the work of clearing and opening up what I call semiotic, that is, the
>> doctrine of the essential nature and fundamental varieties of possible
>> semiosis; and I find the field too vast, the labor too great, for a
>> first-comer.  I am, accordingly, obliged to confine myself to the most
>> important questions.  (CP 5.488)
>>
>> CSP:  All that you can find in print of my work on logic are simply
>> scattered outcroppings here and there of a rich vein which remains
>> unpublished.  Most of it I suppose has been written down; but no human
>> being could ever put together the fragments.  I could not myself do
>> so.  (CP 2.1)
>>
>> RM:  we must make, collectively and in the long run, a rational
>> representative construction of Peirce's work that is communicable with
>> a minimum of effort.  To reach this goal, we must not fall into a
>> dialogue of the deaf.  We are also backwoodsmen in the traces left by
>> Peirce; faithful to his spirit there are several of us on this list
>> who follow and develop some of these traces.  We find them
>> particularly relevant because we have new tools.  Some literalists
>> think we should leave the forest as it is.  Every time they get in the
>> way, which keeps happening, there's a big problem.
>>
>> ET:  Thank you Robert, for this analysis.  But I'm beginning to think
>> that the Peirce-List is not equipped to handle the exploration of
>> Peirce and his analytic framework in the 21st century.  After all -
>> some of us have been 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Should we start a new email list (was Peirce's contributions to the 21st c

[Margaretha Hendrickx]

List,

I think it is absurd to start a separate mailing list.

Especially since its purpose would be to use Peirce's work as a mirror to
see what is going on in society today.

If people feel perturbed or unvalidated after reading the emails
distributed by this list, well, have you ever had a discussion about the
possibility that this has to do more with what is going on in society today
and that one's feelings about society are being projected on the emails
distributed by this list?

My very best, Margaretha H.

PS.  I also find it unreasonable to expect people to reply to list emails
within 24-48 hrs.  I cannot operate in that way.  I am juggling many other
balls.  There are many interesting emails on this list, but I am simply not
in the right place to reply to them immediately. I hope to reply to them in
the future once my schedule is less hectic.  The reason I replied to this
email immediately before other ones, well, it caught my attention and it
kept on bothering me.  Its divisive rhetoric mirrors the divisive
rhetoric in society at large.

Let me end with a question.  Popper is known for warning against the
manipulative use of language and logic. Did Peirce do something similar?
If my question shows a lack of understanding of Peirce's work, I
apologize.  I am still in the learning stages.


On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 6:02 PM sowa @bestweb.net  wrote:

> List,
>
> On Thursday, I sent the note below to Peirce-L.   I received some strong
> positive comments and suggestions offline, but complete silence from the
> people who send most of the notes to Peirce-L.For example:  "As for the
> natural extensions of Peirce's thought, even when they agree closely with
> his principles, they are rejected [on Peirce-L] as post-Peircean"
>
> I interpret those responses as evidence that we need n email list that is
> dedicated to the kinds of topics that dominated the Peirce Centennial
> Congress in 2014.  That was a very exciting conference on  research that
> builds on Peirce's work and relates it to developments in the century after
> Peirce.   As Peirce frequently emphasized, the meaning of any  sign is its
> implications for action in the future.  We live in Peirce's future, and our
> actions today depend critically on the developments in the century after
> Peirce.
>
> I don't believe that we should reject Peirce-l, but we should have another
> email list that relates Peirce's ideas to the issues of today.  I would
> encourage subscribers to Peirce-L to participate in both lists.  I'll send
> another note tomorrow..
>
> John
>
>
> --
> *From*: "sowa @bestweb.net" 
> *Sent*: Thursday, October 14, 2021 10:39 PM
> *To*: "Peirce-L" 
> *Subject*: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's contributions to the 21st century
>
> Robert, Edwina, List,
>
> The passages Robert quoted show that Peirce admitted that his system
> was a work in progress.  We could add his remark that phaneroscopy was
> still a "science egg".
>
> CSP:  I am, as far as I know, a pioneer, or rather a backwoodsman, in
> the work of clearing and opening up what I call semiotic, that is, the
> doctrine of the essential nature and fundamental varieties of possible
> semiosis; and I find the field too vast, the labor too great, for a
> first-comer.  I am, accordingly, obliged to confine myself to the most
> important questions.  (CP 5.488)
>
> CSP:  All that you can find in print of my work on logic are simply
> scattered outcroppings here and there of a rich vein which remains
> unpublished.  Most of it I suppose has been written down; but no human
> being could ever put together the fragments.  I could not myself do
> so.  (CP 2.1)
>
> RM:  we must make, collectively and in the long run, a rational
> representative construction of Peirce's work that is communicable with
> a minimum of effort.  To reach this goal, we must not fall into a
> dialogue of the deaf.  We are also backwoodsmen in the traces left by
> Peirce; faithful to his spirit there are several of us on this list
> who follow and develop some of these traces.  We find them
> particularly relevant because we have new tools.  Some literalists
> think we should leave the forest as it is.  Every time they get in the
> way, which keeps happening, there's a big problem.
>
> ET:  Thank you Robert, for this analysis.  But I'm beginning to think
> that the Peirce-List is not equipped to handle the exploration of
> Peirce and his analytic framework in the 21st century.  After all -
> some of us have been trying for years to introduce current scientific
> and other research areas [linguistic, AI, societal, economic] and
> explore how the Peircean framework, in different terms, is being used
> to examine these fields.  We've been met with a refusal to engage in
> any discussion and/or, an open almost horror of such an approach.
>
> That is an issue that should be considered.
>
> John
>
>
>
> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
> ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON

[PEIRCE-L] Should we start a new email list (was Peirce's contributions to the 21st c

[sowa @bestweb.net]

List,
  
 On Thursday, I sent the note below to Peirce-L.   I received some strong 
positive comments and suggestions offline, but complete silence from the 
people who send most of the notes to Peirce-L.For example:  "As for the 
natural extensions of Peirce's thought, even when they agree closely with 
his principles, they are rejected [on Peirce-L] as post-Peircean"
  
 I interpret those responses as evidence that we need n email list that is 
dedicated to the kinds of topics that dominated the Peirce Centennial 
Congress in 2014.  That was a very exciting conference on  research that 
builds on Peirce's work and relates it to developments in the century after 
Peirce.   As Peirce frequently emphasized, the meaning of any  sign is its 
implications for action in the future.  We live in Peirce's future, and our 
actions today depend critically on the developments in the century after 
Peirce.
  
 I don't believe that we should reject Peirce-l, but we should have another 
email list that relates Peirce's ideas to the issues of today.  I would 
encourage subscribers to Peirce-L to participate in both lists.  I'll send 
another note tomorrow..
  
 John 
  
  


 From: "sowa @bestweb.net" 
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2021 10:39 PM
To: "Peirce-L" 
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's contributions to the 21st century   
  Robert, Edwina, List,
  
 The passages Robert quoted show that Peirce admitted that his system
was a work in progress.  We could add his remark that phaneroscopy was
still a "science egg".
  
 CSP:  I am, as far as I know, a pioneer, or rather a backwoodsman, in
the work of clearing and opening up what I call semiotic, that is, the
doctrine of the essential nature and fundamental varieties of possible
semiosis; and I find the field too vast, the labor too great, for a
first-comer.  I am, accordingly, obliged to confine myself to the most
important questions.  (CP 5.488)
  
 CSP:  All that you can find in print of my work on logic are simply
scattered outcroppings here and there of a rich vein which remains
unpublished.  Most of it I suppose has been written down; but no human
being could ever put together the fragments.  I could not myself do
so.  (CP 2.1)
  
 RM:  we must make, collectively and in the long run, a rational
representative construction of Peirce's work that is communicable with
a minimum of effort.  To reach this goal, we must not fall into a
dialogue of the deaf.  We are also backwoodsmen in the traces left by
Peirce; faithful to his spirit there are several of us on this list
who follow and develop some of these traces.  We find them
particularly relevant because we have new tools.  Some literalists
think we should leave the forest as it is.  Every time they get in the
way, which keeps happening, there's a big problem.
  
 ET:  Thank you Robert, for this analysis.  But I'm beginning to think
that the Peirce-List is not equipped to handle the exploration of
Peirce and his analytic framework in the 21st century.  After all -
some of us have been trying for years to introduce current scientific
and other research areas [linguistic, AI, societal, economic] and
explore how the Peircean framework, in different terms, is being used
to examine these fields.  We've been met with a refusal to engage in
any discussion and/or, an open almost horror of such an approach.
  
 That is an issue that should be considered.
  
 John
  





_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the 
body.  More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP;  moderated by Gary Richmond;  and 
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.