Mike, List, MB: To, specifically, John, JAS, Gary R, Edwina,
GR: You have singled-out the most apposite list members, Mike. MB: Please stop. Does anyone think this continued harangue is either: 1) attracting new individuals to be interested in Peirce?; or 2) resolving anything? GR: a.Yes! please stop. I have for months now been asking that this 'harangue' stop. GR: b. No! for sure this endless harangue is neither attracting new individuals nor resolving anything. Indeed, I was excited that several new and returning forum members were offering most intriguing, substantive posts recently, delighted with the prospect that we might return to the consideration of matters Peircean with some fresh and even delightful new insights. Now I fear that if this problem continues that the forum may not only lose them, but any potential new members who may happen upon Peirce-L. GR: To be perfectly clear, in my estimation this horrible 'harangue' began about a year ago, shortly after John Sowa joined the list and began harassing Jon Alan Schmidt, not on any *substance* of any of his post, but on his *methodology*. He has been relentless in this and, frequently seconded in it by Edwina Taborsky, it has indeed been very destructive of list culture. JAS, I know, is not about to be intimidated by this harassment, but it has kept him and others (including me) from having more substantive and productive exchanges in Peirce-L. For example, I had begun a post to addressed to our newest member, Michael Mitchell, but found myself distracted, as I not infrequently have been this past year, by this nonsense. MB I wish I knew where there was a forum, as I first encountered years ago with this list, where I could learn and sometimes contribute to an inspection of Peirce's fecund writings. No longer. If, based on the evidence of these interchanges GR: This forum, which I've moderated for a little over 10 years now, approaching nearly 1/3 of the time it's been in existence, and at the request of Joe Ransdell as conveyed to *The Peirce Group* before his death, has this past year become as disturbingly problematic as your message suggests, Mike. Indeed, in the years in which I have moderated it, it has never been in such crisis as it is now, as it has *become* during the past year. MB:. . . Please stop this destructive behavior. GR: I agree that it is well past time to "stop this destructive behavior." For in truth, and I repeat myself for emphasis: *if it continues much longer it could very well undermine the viability of this forum.* MB: Despite Gary R telling me offline to resign from the list, I will continue to monitor. GR: Let's get this straight, Mike. It is *you* who *first* asked me to resign as moderator of the list. You wrote me off-list, after, as moderator, I'd made several requests to John Sowa that this near endless destructive behavior cease, and especially as it pertained to the outrageous and nearly constant attacks on Jon Alan Schmidt by him. So, Mike, it was *you* who originally wrote me off list to say that it was "perhaps time for [me] to resign as moderator." And why? Because I was striving to do exactly what you are asking in this post, that is requesting, imploring, that this madness stop. I responded that if you thought that my fervent desire and repeated attempt to stop this ugly behavior on list was reason for me to resign as moderator, then perhaps you'd misunderstood the purpose, culture, and ethics of the Peirce forum. If *that* was the case, then it was *you *who should consider leaving the forum. For I would continue to assert the right of every member of the forum to participate without being harassed. MB: I am curious to see if the human animal has the capacity to learn and grow. Evidence based on the way this list is going does not instill optimism. GR: If we were not impeded to pursue inquiry in this forum as we have been for nearly thirty years (save this last year), I think that the "capacity to learn and grow," especially informed by the work of Peirce, can and would grow. How much potential intellectual creative energy has been lost here this past year. After Joe Ransdell's death over 10 years ago, I was contacted by *The Peirce Group* (TPG). I was told that Joe had requested that I be asked to succeed him as moderator of Peirce-L I was, well, dumbfounded and awed and, frankly, more than a little intimidated by the prospect. After all, Joe was a Peirce scholar of international renown, while I had then written very little on Peirce that had been published. But I was assured that Joe completely trusted (from our on and off-list discussions, etc.) that I would be fair and generous in my dealings with list members, that I was humble enough, willing to see when I was wrong, to apologize when necessary, but strong enough to assert the values of Peirce-L as he established them. And I fully agreed with his *democratic approach to inquiry* in this forum as he well knew. I cannot tell you how shocking and what an inestimable loss it was to me personally to suffer Joe's death, how much I admired him as a scholar and a person; and, so, how very much I wanted to honor his work and more fully establish his scholarly legacy. Therefore, with great trepidation, I took on the task of moderating this list. Joe had also requested that Ben Udell, my brilliant, personable, and most ethical Peirce-L/Arisbe partner (and friend) over this past decade, should oversee Arisbe, not only by being its webmaster, but to help it grow: Arisbe as a *place* (an e-house of learning with many rooms where, ideally in Joe's vision, scholars could meet and exchange their philosophical ideas). So, when Nathan Houser suggested less than a month following Joe's death, that I manage both Peirce-L and Arisbe, I offered the alternative suggestion that I Ben and I both manage both Peirce-L and Arisbe. Nathan agreed that that was an excellent idea, and the rest is history: we have had an extraordinary collaboration. Ben will affirm that in that first month I struggled to find what might both keep Peirce-L viable, but which would also honor Joe. I decided on a slow read of all of Joe's papers posted at Arisbe, and I spent the next few weeks contacting Peirce scholars who might be willing to lead individual paper discussion (with an associate leader). Ben will tell that putting together that first slow read nearly killed me--I mean, literally sent me to my grave as I was working many more than 12 hours a day on the project for several weeks. But, to cut to the chase, we had a very successful slow read of those papers, followed over the years by several other slow reads of books, including one by Cornelis de Waal, and another, organized by Gary Fuhrman, of Frederik Stjernfelt's very influential book, *Natural Propositions*, both authors participating in the slow read discussions. I was also asked by the excellent Peirce scholar, that charming Aussie, Cathy Legg (who has become my great good friend), to co-edit a special *Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society* edition on Joseph Ransdell. It was a three year labor of love with extraordinary contributions by a number of excellent Peirce scholars, some well-known, others less so. Fortuitously, the special edition came out just as the conference on the centenary of Peirce's death took place at UMass, Lowell. I can immodestly suggest that it was a great success! Those were among the halcyon years of my moderation of this forum. The last year has been deeply troubled. I wish that the trouble would go away. So, I would like to suggest that those who are unhappy with the culture of this list go off and create their own list serve based on whatever principles they imagine are better than the ones which Joseph Ransdell established and that I intend to support for as long as I am able to, God help me. Best, Gary Richmond (writing as moderator of peirce-l) "Time is not a renewable resource." gnox *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> Virus-free. www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> <#m_9096631262413729917_m_-2196777822106231397_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 11:52 PM Mike Bergman <m...@mkbergman.com> wrote: > To, specifically, John, JAS, Gary R, Edwina, > > Please stop. Does anyone think this continued harangue is either: 1) > attracting new individuals to be interested in Peirce?; or 2) resolving > anything? I wish I knew where there was a forum, as I first encountered > years ago with this list, where I could learn and sometimes contribute to > an inspection of Peirce's fecund writings. No longer. If, based on the > evidence of these interchanges, I hear more about charity or grace or > whatever you want to call it, I will puke. Please stop this destructive > behavior. > > Despite Gary R telling me offline to resign from the list, I will continue > to monitor. I am curious to see if the human animal has the capacity to > learn and grow. Evidence based on the way this list is going does not > instill optimism. > > Mike > On 5/14/2020 8:59 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote: > > John, List: > > Thanks for confirming that there are no specific examples to cite of Gary > R. making the kinds of "blanket statements" of which he has been repeatedly > and falsely accused. I sincerely hope that a retraction and an apology > will be forthcoming accordingly. > > JFS: Even Peirce could not "integrate different passages to arrive at an > overall interpretation of [his own] thought". No Peircean scholar or > committee of scholars would attempt to do that. If Peirce himself couldn't > do that, it's the height of hubris for anybody else to claim that they > could. > > > This is utter nonsense. *Many *Peircean scholars have attempted to do > that, not out of hubris but out of a sincere (even humble) desire to learn > from Peirce's writings and then help others do likewise. As I have said > before, that is precisely why there is such a vast secondary > literature--including books like Kelly A. Parker's *The Continuity of > Peirce's Thought*, which was my own initial introduction to the subject > matter. Its back cover explicitly calls it "A comprehensive and systematic > reconstruction of the philosophy of Charles S. Peirce--perhaps America's > most far-ranging and original philosopher--that reveals the unity of his > complex and influential body of thought." This is followed by two > accompanying quotes. > > Joseph Brent: In spite of the difficult complexity of its subject, Kelly > Parker's ambitious work is remarkably clear and readable and is > indispensable for an understanding of the evolution of Peirce's thinking. > > Nathan Houser: I know of no better introduction to Pierce. Parker's book > is the first to present Peirce's philosophy fully and systematically > following Peirce's own system. This is a stimulating work that should > engage even the most sophisticated Peirce scholar. > > > These kinds of claims are not only unobjectionable, they are *routine *in > mainstream philosophical scholarship. If no one could ever say anything *new > *about Peirce, then no one would ever have much to say *at all* about > Peirce. > > JFS: For my own writings, I have *never* seen any paraphrase--favorable > or unfavorable--that I would consider accurate. > > > Thanks for confirming that the attribution of such a sentiment to Peirce > is nothing more than a projection of one's own feelings. Is it reasonable > to expect others to *memorize *what we have written, and then do nothing > more than repeat it back verbatim? On the contrary, if no readers can > accurately restate it in *their own* words, then that strikes me as > strong evidence of a complete failure by the author to communicate his/her > ideas successfully. > > JFS: That is human charity, not mathematical charity. > > > Who said anything about "mathematical charity"? Charity is charity, > regardless of the context--putting the best construction on everything, and > conscientiously exhibiting generosity of attitude. > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 7:01 PM John F. Sowa <s...@bestweb.net> wrote: > >> Jon, et al. >> >> I just want to emphasize one point: It's extremely rare for anybody to >> approve or be satisfied with anybody else's summary or paraphrase of what >> they said or wrote. If it's highly favorable, they probably won't >> complain. But even then, they realize that the paraphrase is not what they >> themselves would have said. >> >> JAS> The debates are rarely about there being only one "right" >> interpretation of only one particular passage, but rather whether and how >> we can integrate different passages to arrive at an overall interpretation >> of Peirce's thought, usually stated in our own words rather than his. >> >> No!!! Even Peirce could not "integrate different passages to arrive at >> an overall interpretation of [his own] thought". No Peircean scholar or >> committee of scholars would attempt to do that. If Peirce himself couldn't >> do that, it's the height of hubris for anybody else to claim that they >> could. >> >> Note: I am not complaining about what you write -- provided that you >> state it as your own opinion. But I strongly object to any claim by >> anybody that they could do what Peirce himself could never accomplish. >> >> JAS> John Sowa recently claimed >> <https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2020-04/msg00118.html> that >> "Peirce would cringe at most, if not all attempts to paraphrase his >> thoughts," but offered no citation or quote to support this projection of >> his own feelings onto Peirce. >> >> If you want to see people cringe at a paraphrase, just watch children >> cringe when their parents try to repeat what they said on some previous >> occasion. >> >> As for Peirce, I'll turn the question around. Can you find any >> paraphrase that Peirce approved? Look at his reviews of writings by >> William James or Ernst Schröder. Or note they way he introduced the word >> 'pragmaticism'. >> >> For more examples in ordinary language, look at any email debates on any >> list or blog on any subject: Few, if any people, fully agree with any >> paraphrase of what they said. Sometimes, they might admit that the other >> person made a clearer or better statement on the same topic. But an >> improvement is not an exact paraphrase. >> >> For my own writings, I have *never* seen any paraphrase -- favorable or >> unfavorable -- that I would consider accurate. Some of them are worse than >> others. But even the favorable comments are not exact. >> As for Peirce, his background and knowledge were unique. Even the best >> Peircean scholars can't write a truly accurate paraphrase of anything he >> wrote. I would never attempt to do that. >> >> But every mathematician, including Peirce, recognizes that mathematical >> derivations are guaranteed to absolutely precise or completely false. If >> anybody derives a conclusion from some proposition p in formal math or >> logic, the original authors will accept any statement derived from p -- >> *provided that* the derivation correctly follows the rules of inference for >> that notation. >> >> In mathematics, every derivation is either exactly correct or exactly >> false. There is no room for charity. But a good teacher can be charitable >> by being sympathetic and helpful in showing students how to correct and >> avoid mistakes. That is human charity, not mathematical charity. >> >> John >> > <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> Virus-free. www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> <#m_9096631262413729917_m_-2196777822106231397_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
----------------------------- 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 .
