Hi Mike: You writing style is very polished!
May I ask a personal question? Do you have any interest in becoming list moderator? You would have my support… Cheers Jerry > On Aug 19, 2025, at 7:57 PM, Mike Bergman <[email protected]> wrote: > > Gary R, List, > > I am pleased to hear of your intent to survey the list about its purpose. I > also thank you for the tone expressed in responding to my list concerns. > Since this now appears to be a formal initiative going forward, I want to add > detail to my concerns, details that I was planning on sharing in any case > prior to your announcement. I will also take this response to address > specific points you raised. > > Your opening statement notes I have not been as active on the list in recent > years compared to earlier. But do you know why? My reasons are that it has to > do both with the moderation of this list and how some post responses have > been allowed to 'hijack' (IMO) new posts. My criticisms are real to me even > if not shared by others. I do not ascribe negative motives to what I refer; I > do not think they are the results of ill will or anything personal; rather > they are honest positions that may not appreciate how others (such as me) may > receive them. My assessment is that some simple guidelines can be introduced > to the list to blunt possible 'hijacks'. > > My experience that caused me to reduce list activity resulted from having > some threads 'hijacked', and then in the ensuing discussions, which were > peripheral to my intended discussion in the thread, sides were taken often > represented by one dominant tribe (JAS, GR, GF) versus others, with sometimes > the added boost of playing the moderator card. > > As for thread 'hijacking' or dominance, I would simply suggest that anyone > who introduces a new thread topic (the 'poster') can intervene back into the > thread and tell a respondent that they are not in keeping with the intended > thread topic. The respondent can introduce a new branch if they so desire, > but should refrain in the current thread to continue the 'hijacked' line of > argumentation. I know, there is nothing now preventing any list member from > doing just as I said, but asking for keeping to the thread intent is also not > a countenanced activity. I think thread authors should be able to manage > their own threads. A general acknowledgement of this principle would empower > thread initiators to keep discussions on track without opprobrium. > > On the moderator side, we have evidence of: picking sides when groups of > members are maintaining different positions; touting some members as scholars > or qualified to comment; repeated syncophantic expressions for some member or > viewpoints; taking criticism personally when it is intended as systemic; > dismissing viewpoints because the proponents are not 'scholars'; naming the > names of specific members when arguing support or not for various positions > (in other words, personalizing the argument); forcing or advocating members > off the list. > > As for moderator questions, I would request that the moderator be cognizant > of the possible reasons for a perception of bias or favoritism, and be > careful to avoid. Use a light touch. If necessary, use the moderator's unique > position in offline communications with what might be the offending actor, as > opposed to bringing such cases to the full forum. That does not mean the > moderator is prevented from speaking and presenting as any other list member, > but just it be done so in that explicit role and not as moderator. > > Simply because these behaviors have occurred is not grounds to disqualify a > moderator. I presume these behaviors were the result of good intentions and > not ill will. But, they have chilled my own interest in being active on the > list. I know others on the list feel similarly because they have told me so. > I will let them comment directly on these questions if they so choose. > > In light of these comments, I would encourage you to make outreach to > unfavored or banned former list members to include in your group advising as > to what goes into a list survey. (More generally, who the august group is > that you seek advice from is also helpful to share with the list.) Those > disagreements arose from legitimate grounds and perceptions, in my opinion. > My perception is that management and conduct of the list has unduly weighted > the scales of balance at times. If we can avoid that in how the survey is > constructed, overseen or conducted, that will be a good sign of restoring > balance. > > Until your formal survey gets underway, my intent is to not comment further > on these matters. Once the survey is active, I will then participate again. > > Best, Mike > > On 8/17/2025 10:34 AM, Gary Richmond wrote: >> 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] >> <mailto:[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] >>> <mailto:[email protected]> . >>> ► <a href="mailto:[email protected] >>> <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. > -- > __________________________________________ > > Michael K. Bergman > 319.621.5225 > http://mkbergman.com <http://mkbergman.com/> > http://www.linkedin.com/in/mkbergman > __________________________________________ > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > ► 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.
