List, This post began as my (hopefully) final note on the theme of reducing the frequency of posts to the forum.
"To enjoy freedom we have to control ourselves." Virginia Woolf This was the sum total of Gary Fuhrman's blog entry for today. http://gnusystems.ca/wp/2018/02/of-course/ Of course each person has to decide what kinds of and how much self-control she wants to develop in any particular context and for her life more generally. Woolf's words reminded me of Peirce's comment on the development of "thoroughly deliberate" conduct. “If conduct is to be thoroughly deliberate, the ideal must be a habit of feeling which has grown up under the influence of a course of self—criticism and of hetero— criticism” (CP 1.574, 1906), So, interestingly, according to Peirce this ideal of conduct is the result of *both* self- and other-criticism. Any thoughts on why Peirce included the idea of "hetero-criticism" in the development of this ideal of conduct? My own thought at the moment is that this comment prepares for his famously non-standard definition of esthetics as "the theory of the deliberate formation of such habits of feeling: (CP 1.574). Putting this in the context of the normative sciences, in the 1903 Harvard Lectures Peirce had written: Supposing, however, that normative science divides into esthetics, ethics, and logic, then it is easily perceived, from my standpoint, that this division is governed by the three categories. For Normative Science in general being the science of the laws of conformity of things to ends, esthetics considers those things whose ends are to embody qualities of feeling, ethics those things whose ends lie in action, and logic those things whose end is to represent something. Best, Gary R [image: Gary Richmond] *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* *718 482-5690 <(718)%20482-5690>* On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 4:16 PM, Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> wrote: > Kirsti, list, > > Thanks Kirsti for reminding us that in most cases it is probably best not > to, say, reply to All but only to Peirce-L. The way my email is set up, > even if I am Cc'd I only get the Peirce-L post, but I can imagine how > irksome it must be to get 200 Peirce-L posts in a little over a week > *plus* additional copies. > > What I do in responding is to click "Reply" and then omit the name of the > sender and replace it with "Peirce-L.," a quick and easy solution. > > Again, I'd like to remind folk that it is also helpful to delete all but > the message you are responding to. I don't always remember to do this > myself, but posters not doing so results in my often needing to scroll down > a great distance to get to the next message as the entire thread is copied > in that message. > > In short, and as I wrote in an off-list exchange with a forum member today > ". . . the list, while not a community (rather a forum, a place) still > requires a consideration of *all* who gather here." > > Best, > > Gary (writing as list moderator) > > [image: Gary Richmond] > > *Gary Richmond* > *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* > *Communication Studies* > *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* > *718 482-5690 <(718)%20482-5690>* > > On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 1:44 PM, <kirst...@saunalahti.fi> wrote: > >> List, >> >> I too second Gary Richmonds note. I'd like to add that multiple postings >> seem to be adjunct to this problem. >> People send to personal mailboxes in addtion to the list. >> >> If just that gets left out, the mass of mails would not look so awfull, >> so hopeless. >> >> Best, Kirsti >> >> >> >> Ia mail is sent to the list, >> >> >> Jon Awbrey kirjoitti 12.2.2018 16:40: >> >>> Peircers, >>> >>> I also have to unsubscribe periodically, as I don't have time >>> even to scan for relevance, and many postings recently appear >>> to move ever so agonizingly and asymptotically toward first >>> principles without quite grasping them, much less applying >>> them to non-trivial problems in any field beyond various >>> folks' hermeneutically sealed bubbles -- but I digress -- >>> At any rate, one thing I find helpful, since I usually >>> read posts first at the Web Interface, is to toggle >>> the No Mail subscriber option on, allowing me to >>> re-send only selected posts to my email inbox >>> for archiving or reply. >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Jon >>> >>> On 2/12/2018 9:01 AM, Everett, Daniel wrote: >>> >>>> Deletion is always a possibility. So is unsubscribing. There are >>>> occasionally (rarely though) useful bits in these disputations about >>>> meaning. As I have tried to point out, they strike me as both unPeircean >>>> (no practical consequences, no problem solved) and not particularly >>>> well-connected to the vast literature on lexical meanings or cognizant of >>>> the kind of “essentialist disputes” that bothers many philosophers. >>>> >>>> I do look through them all, however. The reason is that I am a novice >>>> to Peircean studies and am writing a book (Oxford U P) on the consequences >>>> of his epistemology for modern linguistics (which has been deeply Cartesian >>>> in the main for decades). So when more experienced Peirce scholars discuss >>>> his terms, it can be educational. >>>> >>>> I think that the suggestion of taking a few deep breaths before >>>> responding and perhaps responding once a day instead of several times >>>> would/could lead to better responses of more benefit to others. >>>> >>>> To delete the messages would require me to know in advance that there >>>> is nothing in them that I want to know. So I look through them and then >>>> delete them if I am going to. Time-consuming. >>>> >>>> At the same time, let a hundred flowers bloom. If folks want to keep >>>> shooting out their messages this frequently, so be it. But many of us will >>>> be more likely to read them if they come less frequently. If these are just >>>> personal quibbles, though, perhaps they don’t need to be on the list. If >>>> they are felt worthy for the entire list, frequency reduction would be >>>> useful. But if not, I won’t say another word on the subject. >>>> >>>> Dan >>>> >>>> >> >> >> ----------------------------- >> PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON >> PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to >> peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L >> but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the >> BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce >> -l/peirce-l.htm . >> >> >> >> >> >> >
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
