Mike, List,
Indeed you have as much right to say what you want to say here as the
moderator, and similarly, I have a right to disagree with you. As it turns
out, I can't say I disagree with much of anything you've* just* written
(except see further down).
I did disagree with several things you said in your last post (for example,
"I question whether this list should be used for "terminological proposals")
because how the list should or should not "be used" *greatly* concerns me
as moderator and so I spoke of my concerns at some length. I consider
speaking on such matters from time to time as my duty as moderator. Of
course, you can disagree with those remarks as well, but I "dropped"
everything to make them because I thought they were important for you and
other list members to consider as regards what is or is not appropriate to
post here. I thanked Jon for his contribution to the list discussion and to
you for your criticism, and I meant both sincerely.
For now just a few remarks regarding your last post.
MB: There are frequently topics that interest me greatly or with which I
agree or disagree with someone in part or in whole, but I choose not to
comment because I am focused on something else and can not take the time to
join in the discussion. And, maybe I also believe it is the rare argument
to be "won".
Silence is not consensus or disagreement, nor is not participating in a
given discussion any signal of consensus or disagreement.
[And a bit later] I went on the record as I did to just make sure, for me,
if I don't participate in a given thread that it implies nothing other than
I did not participate
I don't believe that I or any participant here suggested anything to the
effect that there is an obligation for any member to join any threaded
discussion. Quite the contrary, in my opinion. I have even recently pointed
to the fact that I agree with Joe Ransdell that often list members may have
an interest in a post or thread, but for a number of personal reasons, may
not--at least then--be able to join in. In my seven years as moderator I
believe I've made this point several times. There is no obligation here but
to try to keep ones remarks Peirce-related and respectful of others even,
and perhaps especially, when you disagree with them.
As for your comment about silence and not actively participating in list
discussions, again I agree with Ransdell that, for example, 'lurkers' are
valuable members of this forum, and I occasionally get off-list messages
telling me that some'silent' member is enjoying and/or learning from a
particular discussion. No one is required to join a discussion, nor once
they've joined it feel obligated to stay in a discussion. People here can
come and go at will.
MB: I chafe when there are suggestions that some form of consensus emerges
from these list discussions, other than between the participants of record.
Lists are not decision-making fora nor adjudication bodies.
Who suggested that this list was meant to be a "decision-making" forum or
"adjudicating" body? Certainly not I. And I argued against seeing Jon's
proposal as attempting such as he made it clear that all he sought to do
was to stimulate discussion.
MB: I encourage participants to agree or disagree as they see fit, come to
whatever agreements they may, but that interaction implies nothing else
other than what the direct participants state.
As I read Peirce, inquiry is dialogic so that of course there will be
agreements and disagreements and even within the individual as her thought
develops, is self-corrected, etc. And* sometimes there is a kind of
agreement which allows the discussion "to move forward." *What's wrong with
that? However, I still don't see why you think there is some desire for
consensus emerging here on *any* matter. {Peirce does argue against the
kind of thinker who never wants a discussion to come to even a tentative
conclusion, who sees philosophical discussion as a kind of never-ending
parlor game, and even offers the pragmatic maxim as part of the cure for
that.)
I would be very interested in why you think that anyone here is making such
an effort toward consensus building on Peirce-L, and examples are always
quite helpful.
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 Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 3:30 PM, Mike Bergman <m...@mkbergman.com> wrote:
> Hi Gary, List,
>
> No, I am not trying to stifle debate, just go on the record as to my own
> position. Gary, you imply it yourself, when you assume I have a *tout
> court* disagreement with what Jon has proposed. I never said such a thing.
>
> There are frequently topics that interest me greatly or with which I agree
> or disagree with someone in part or in whole, but I choose not to comment
> because I am focused on something else and can not take the time to join in
> the discussion. And, maybe I also believe it is the rare argument to be
> "won".
>
> Silence is not consensus or disagreement, nor is not participating in a
> given discussion any signal of consensus or disagreement.
>
> I went on the record as I did to just make sure, for me, if I don't
> participate in a given thread that it implies nothing other than I did not
> participate. I chafe when there are suggestions that some form of consensus
> emerges from these list discussions, other than between the participants of
> record. Lists are not decision-making fora nor adjudication bodies.
>
> I encourage participants to agree or disagree as they see fit, come to
> whatever agreements they may, but that interaction implies nothing else
> other than what the direct participants state. And, I have just as much
> right to make these statements as a list moderator.
>
> All of this, of course, should be obvious. But clearly I did feel
> obligated to state the obvious.
>
> Mike
>
> On 12/8/2017 2:02 PM, Gary Richmond wrote:
>
> Mike, Jon S, list,
>
> MB: I question whether this list should be used for "terminological
> proposals" or attempts to create some sort of faux consensus on various
> points of Peircean scholarship.
>
> While I think that attempting to reach consensus on matters of Peircean
> scholarship in this forum is likely to be an exercise in futility, as list
> moderator I see no reason why participant members shouldn't offer
> "terminological proposals"--or really *anything* so long as it is
> Peirce-related--especially when this is offered in the interest of
> stimulating discussion on some given point. *That* Jon explicitly does
> from the get go. He initially prefaced his proposal with "For the sake of
> spurring further discussion, here is a proposal for parsing out Peirce's
> philosophical terminology"
> He concluded this initial post urging "Criticize away!" That I and several
> others here have done *just* that is obvious. More recently Jon has
> commented.
>
> JAS: Again, my proposal is not intended to capture accurately *Peirce's *usage
> of the various terms throughout his writings, but to suggest how *we *might
> employ them today in a way that more clearly distinguishes the three
> branches of philosophy. Of course, *whether such an objective is
> achievable and worthwhile is open to debate* (emphasis added*).*
>
>
> Whether or not "such an objective" as Jon's "is achievable and worthwhile"
> here or in the Peirce community more generally is indeed open to debate,
> and that debate has clearly begun here. I have found it worthwhile to
> consider it on its own merits as well as on several other levels including
> the meta-level that this message is concerned with (so the 'it' here is
> really both Jon's proposal and the discussion of it).
>
> However, as I see it as list moderator, to stipulate "no terminological
> proposals!" on Peirce-L would constitute a kind of censorship on the list
> which I am not at all willing to support. As for the other part of your
> critique, Mike, you wrote:
>
> MB: Through the years my observation has been there is rarely consensus on
> most any matter raised on this list, and the participants on the list are
> only a subset of those with insight and informed views of Peirce.
>
>
> As I have observed the activity of this forum for over a couple of decades
> now, not only is there, as you wrote, "rarely consensus on most any matter
> raised on this list," but the seeming consensus here has typically--I mean
> nearly always if not in fact always--been short-lived and has quickly
> evanesced. (I would be interested if anyone here can find in the archives
> any sustained consensus on any matter.)
>
> That the Peirce-L participant list members represent "only a subset" of
> Peirce scholars is patent. On the other hand, it is not unusual for forum
> members to refer to other Peirce scholars and their work, to quote them,
> etc. In short, some of the best discussions here are done with an awareness
> of the work not only of Peirce himself, but of the greater community of
> Peirce scholars. You continued:
>
> MB: That is not to say that the list should not be a source of discovery
> and lively debate, for which I enjoy it very much and get personal value,
> but I think what can actually be achieved via the list needs to be tempered
> with a bit of realism. I think what especially concerns me is that some
> apparent agreement between just a few list participants may be taken as
> consensus of the community, which often, in my humble view, it is decidedly
> not.
>
> Still, as noted by both of us, consensus is rarely if ever "achieved via
> the list," while the "apparent agreement between just a few list
> participants" is also, in my experience and as just remarked, not only rare
> but rarely sustained. And while I agree that when such fleeting* seeming*
> consensus occurs it ought not "be taken as consensus of the community," I
> see no scientific or democratic reason, or really *any *reason, to try to
> stifle the attempt at agreement on matters Peircean. It seems to me that
> science and scholarship generally advance when there is at least the
> attempt at some general agreement in principle, that Peirce's theory of
> inquiry would have us act as if such (albeit, fallibilistic) agreement were
> not only possible but. moreover, desirable (not, however, that we can
> expect much if any of that to happen here).
>
> (I just thought that an interesting and perhaps useful exercise would be
> to see if fok here could identify any Peircean principle on which consensus
> has been reached in the Peirce community taken more generally. I might
> quickly offer 'fallibilism'.)
>
> Finally, in the present matter, even while I am tending to disagree with
> at least facets of Jon's proposal (although not the whole *tout court* as
> you and perhaps some others here apparently do, Mike), I have been
> personally stimulated to do some thinking I might otherwise not have done
> had he not made it, and I personally thank him for that.
>
> And I thank you also for your criticism, Mike, as it too has stimulated my
> thinking in quite this other meta-matter.
>
> Gary Richmond (writing as list moderator)
>
>
> [image: Gary Richmond]
>
> *Gary Richmond*
> *Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
> *Communication Studies*
> *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*
> *718 482-5690 <%28718%29%20482-5690>*
>
> On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 10:31 AM, Mike Bergman <m...@mkbergman.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Jon, List,
>>
>> I always appreciate the points and commentary on this list, but I
>> question whether this list should be used for "terminological proposals" or
>> attempts to create some sort of faux consensus on various points of
>> Peircean scholarship.
>>
>> Through the years my observation has been there is rarely consensus on
>> most any matter raised on this list, and the participants on the list are
>> only a subset of those with insight and informed views of Peirce. That is
>> not to say that the list should not be a source of discovery and lively
>> debate, for which I enjoy it very much and get personal value, but I think
>> what can actually be achieved via the list needs to be tempered with a bit
>> of realism. I think what especially concerns me is that some apparent
>> agreement between just a few list participants may be taken as consensus of
>> the community, which often, in my humble view, it is decidedly not.
>>
>> Just saying . . .
>>
>> Mike
>>
>> On 12/8/2017 9:22 AM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote:
>>
>> Jeff, List:
>>
>> Once more, I am not making an interpretative claim, but a terminological
>> proposal. Indeed, there are other senses of "possibility" besides the one
>> that I have articulated, but I am suggesting that--at least in some
>> circumstances--it would be better for the sake of clarity if we only use
>> the word "possibility" when referring to the metaphysical mode of Being
>> that is distinct from actuality and regularity.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
>> Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
>> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 11:31 PM, Jeffrey Brian Downard <
>> jeffrey.down...@nau.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> Jon S, Gary, R, List,
>>>
>>> Jon S: Possibility is not a matter of "seeming," but of speculating
>>> (in the sense of theorizing) on the mode of Being of what it was that
>>> seemed or might have seemed, based on collateral experience rather than
>>> only that which is immediately present to the mind.
>>>
>>> Are there other senses of "possibility" in addition to the one you have
>>> articulated?
>>>
>>> For aspects of our experience involving vagueness, are there a range of
>>> possibilities lurking in the bushes? How about the experience of what has
>>> potentiality--such as is involved in the experience of the growth of our
>>> understanding? How about the experience of something that is continuous,
>>> such as the experience of things being at a place in space and at a
>>> time?
>>>
>>> In each of these sorts of cases, I take Peirce to be claiming that our
>>> experience involves a range of possibilities. I would think that each of
>>> these sorts of cases involves an experience of possibilities that is
>>> different, in important respects, from the sense that you've articulated.
>>>
>>> Am I missing something about what it is that you are trying to suggest
>>> in making your interpretative claim?
>>>
>>> --Jeff
>>> Jeffrey Downard
>>> Associate Professor
>>> Department of Philosophy
>>> Northern Arizona University
>>> (o) 928 523-8354 <%28928%29%20523-8354>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----------------------------
>> 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 .
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> __________________________________________
>
> Michael K. Bergman
> Cognonto Corporation319.621.5225
> <(319)%20621-5225>skype:michaelkbergmanhttp://cognonto.comhttp://mkbergman.comhttp://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 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 .
