This header notice is an attempt to appease gmail, msn, and outlook filters:
<a href="mailto:[email protected]?subject=SIG%20peirce-l";>Unsubscribe from
PEIRCE-L</a> .
Or go to https://list.iu.edu/sympa/signoff/peirce-l if your subscribed email
account is not your default email account.
Mike, List,
For someone who, by his own admission, has rarely participated in the List
over the last several years and who has stated that you're not currently in
a position to take over as its moderator, you certainly have strong
opinions about it. Let me address them.
You assert that the linked guidelines say "nothing about the why of the
list," but that is not at all true. Its purpose is stated plainly at the
very top of the linked guidelines page: "PEIRCE-L is a public forum . . .
open to the discussion of all topics pertaining to the life and work of the
American philosopher, scientist, and humanist Charles Sanders Peirce, *with
a central focus maintained on his philosophical work in particular"* (emphasis
added).
The second paragraph under "How the Forum Works" begins, "A forum is not
the same as a discussion group with a more or less definite agenda.* Forums
are essentially places where communication occurs rather
than organizations of persons for special discussion purposes*" (emphasis
added).
Under "What Is Relevant to Post and Discuss Here?" it states: "There is no
standing agenda *except the promotion of philosophical conversation of the
sort which one would expect from people with a special interest in Peirce* and
of other communication in support of that. Thus discussion should be
Peirce-related but not necessarily on Peirce" (emphasis added).
You are right, Mike, that Peirce-L fits all six descriptions that you
presented as (a) through (f). Your claim that "the forum has become overly
focused on (f)" appears odd to me since achieving "consensus" on what
Peirce means would seem to be a prerequisite to employing it in 21st
century science. Further, it seems to me that Peirce's own words rather
plainly say what they say and mean what they mean. For example, his
unambiguous definitions of *objective idealism* is a current (and, I should
note, recurring) example, along with his use of "sign". So, I have no
problem with (a) through (e), but what should be obvious, I reiterate, is
that a prerequisite for "applying Peircean perspectives" is establishing
what *his own* relevant views actually were.
Meanwhile, anyone is free to introduce virtually any Peirce-related, or
Peirce-developed, or Peirce-refuted topic that they wish to.
I especially appreciate your closing question, "What kind of purpose and
list do you want Peirce-L to be?" reminds me that several years ago I
considered conducting a survey of List members to discover just that. I
have decided to create that survey with the help of Ben, the Advisory
Committee, members of the Peirce Group, and other Peirce savvy consultants.
Thank you, Mike, for prompting me to initiate what I hope will be a helpful
survey leading to a productive on List discussion.
Best,
Gary Richmond (writing as Peirce-L moderator and co-manager of it and
Arisbe with Ben Udell)
On Sat, Aug 16, 2025 at 12:28 PM Mike Bergman <[email protected]> wrote:
> List,
>
> [Author's Note: this is a continuation of the prior 'Concerning List
> Trends <https://list.iu.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2025-08/msg00024.html>'
> thread. I have changed the title because we have been having issues with
> our listserv that has sometimes prevented Gmail accounts from receiving
> posts, plus the focus of the thread is changing as indicated in the new
> title. Starting fresh should help negate these issues.]
>
> I think the data shows that as measured by number of posts, the diversity
> of authors, number of active participants, or numbers of active
> subscribers, there has been a decline in the use of Peirce-L. We have heard
> some reasons floated, from how the list is used, dominated or managed to a
> decline in the interest in Peirce, or perhaps other secular or
> technological reasons. I do think continued discussion of these factors is
> useful, but with this new subject I want to change focus to what I think is
> a more important topic.
>
> If there is a decline in participation and diversity of the Peirce-L list,
> why should we care? In point, perhaps more broadly, what is even the
> purpose ('mission') of the Peirce-L list? If we have no ideas or consensus
> around such questions then we have no basis for even deciding what the
> problem is, if there is one, nor what to do about it.
>
> As these general issues have arisen, some due to my own promptings, we are
> sometimes directed back to the governing document for this forum, namely
> Joe Ransdell's https://cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm
> <https://cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm#correction-caveat>, first
> written I believe in 1993 and later updated in perhaps some meaningful ways
> in 2000 and 2011 (aside from minor edits, I assume). I really had not
> looked at this page aside from a short glance until recently. I don't
> believe I really studied or read it closely before becoming a member of
> this list in (as I recall) early 2014.
>
> Now, reading it closely, this document strikes me as saying much about the
> what and the how regarding the list, but actually nothing about the why. It
> further has the flavor of the early days of the Web and listservs, things I
> was well acquainted with from the inception of the Internet. The advice and
> guidance on this page smacks of the tenor of the Wild Wild West of the
> World Wide Web, fairly typical in the early days when everyone was trying
> to get bearings about how to deal with this new medium. Still, that being
> said, the guidance on this page, though long-winded, strikes me as logical
> and still appropriate. Again, however, there is nothing about the why of
> the list.
>
> If there is no why, no purpose or mission, then who the heck cares if our
> list is slowly dying? Perhaps it served its initial purpose as an
> electronic hangout for Peirce aficionados to shoot the breeze and argue and
> share, but if it dies or declines to a stagnate shell, so what? Will anyone
> miss it?
>
> One can claim that other forums may form, but we all also know that
> establishing and creating a living, dynamic forum is not a trivial task.
> Like the BBS systems of old, or MySpace, or GeoCities or Orkut or the many
> others replaced by walled gardens like Facebook over time, these were
> creatures of an earlier era. Is Peirce-L destined for the same?
>
> I hope not. So, if it is not explicitly stated somewhere, what is the
> implicit purpose of Peirce-L? If we can't first answer this question, it is
> hard to know what we need to do to resurrect it and move it forward. Is the
> purpose of Peirce-L to be a:
>
> a. Open discussion forum for scholars/adherents on any topic Peircean?
> b. Destination for those questing about meanings and philosophy to be
> exposed to Peirce's unique perspectives?
> c. Launch point for applying Peircean perspectives to modern questions
> about science, culture, language, and representation?
> d. Place for new possible adherents to learn about Peirce and his
> writings?
> e. Forum for scholars to debate and possibly reconcile areas of
> disagreement about Peircean interpretations?
> f. Crucible for hammering consensus on the literal interpretation of
> Peircean texts?
>
> Actually, of course, I think it is all of these. I'm sure others have
> their own views about what our purposes should be and can explain them more
> artfully than what I have provided.
>
> My personal issue is that the forum has become overly focused on f, a
> topic I will subsequently address more fully in its own thread. Further,
> rather than humbly accepting alternative interpretations and embracing
> fallibility, there has been too much 'crucible' and 'hammering' in these f
> purposes. I do not believe the intent has been to block the way of inquiry,
> but how f has been conducted has, in my opinion, done just that. I fear we
> have allowed other purposes of this forum to be overwhelmed by literal and
> pedantic discussions. We are losing, in my opinion, the very excitement and
> dynamism to be gained from Peirce that would lead to growth and activity on
> this forum. Whatever our missions may prove to be, a successful
> accomplishment of them would demonstrate themselves, again in my opinion,
> in growth and growing diversity on our list. The evidence points to just
> the opposite.
>
> This kind of growth does not just happen from thin air. It comes from
> purposeful action, outreach, and openness to new and broad applications of
> Peircean perspectives to modern questions and challenges. It tries to steer
> discussion from literalness to that of fallibility, context, and
> interpretation. We hear little about any of the grand challenges facing
> humanity's intellectual future on this forum because we have not chosen to
> give them their proper priority. The recent discussions of Peirce and
> quantum mechanics is a breath of fresh air. I hope we see more of it.
>
> By raising these topics I have been questioned offlist as to motives or of
> trying to destroy the list. (I have also gotten many nice comments;
> thanks!) Don't worry; I am not done speaking about these matters, and my
> motives are to see growth, diversity, and fewer dominant voices. We are
> failing ourselves as advocates and adherents of Peirce, and we are failing
> broader human questing to not be more active and attentive to how Peirce
> applies to the questions of today. My personal belief is that Peirce is
> more relevant today than he ever has been. Those of us who feel similarly
> have a collective responsibility to promote that vision.
>
> What kind of purpose and list do you want Peirce-L to be?
>
> Best, Mike
>
> --
>
> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
> ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON
> PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected]
> .
> ► <a href="mailto:[email protected]?subject=SIG%20peirce-l";>UNSUBSCRIBE
> FROM PEIRCE-L</a> . But, if your subscribed email account is not your
> default email account, then go to
> https://list.iu.edu/sympa/signoff/peirce-l .
> ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and
> co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON
PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] .
► <a href="mailto:[email protected]?subject=SIG%20peirce-l";>UNSUBSCRIBE FROM
PEIRCE-L</a> . But, if your subscribed email account is not your default email
account, then go to
https://list.iu.edu/sympa/signoff/peirce-l .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
