List, On Thursday, I sent the note below to Peirce-L. I received some strong positive comments and suggestions offline, but complete silence from the people who send most of the notes to Peirce-L. For example: "As for the natural extensions of Peirce's thought, even when they agree closely with his principles, they are rejected [on Peirce-L] as post-Peircean" I interpret those responses as evidence that we need n email list that is dedicated to the kinds of topics that dominated the Peirce Centennial Congress in 2014. That was a very exciting conference on research that builds on Peirce's work and relates it to developments in the century after Peirce. As Peirce frequently emphasized, the meaning of any sign is its implications for action in the future. We live in Peirce's future, and our actions today depend critically on the developments in the century after Peirce. I don't believe that we should reject Peirce-l, but we should have another email list that relates Peirce's ideas to the issues of today. I would encourage subscribers to Peirce-L to participate in both lists. I'll send another note tomorrow.. John
---------------------------------------- From: "sowa @bestweb.net" <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2021 10:39 PM To: "Peirce-L" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's contributions to the 21st century Robert, Edwina, List, The passages Robert quoted show that Peirce admitted that his system was a work in progress. We could add his remark that phaneroscopy was still a "science egg". CSP: I am, as far as I know, a pioneer, or rather a backwoodsman, in the work of clearing and opening up what I call semiotic, that is, the doctrine of the essential nature and fundamental varieties of possible semiosis; and I find the field too vast, the labor too great, for a first-comer. I am, accordingly, obliged to confine myself to the most important questions. (CP 5.488) CSP: All that you can find in print of my work on logic are simply scattered outcroppings here and there of a rich vein which remains unpublished. Most of it I suppose has been written down; but no human being could ever put together the fragments. I could not myself do so. (CP 2.1) RM: we must make, collectively and in the long run, a rational representative construction of Peirce's work that is communicable with a minimum of effort. To reach this goal, we must not fall into a dialogue of the deaf. We are also backwoodsmen in the traces left by Peirce; faithful to his spirit there are several of us on this list who follow and develop some of these traces. We find them particularly relevant because we have new tools. Some literalists think we should leave the forest as it is. Every time they get in the way, which keeps happening, there's a big problem. ET: Thank you Robert, for this analysis. But I'm beginning to think that the Peirce-List is not equipped to handle the exploration of Peirce and his analytic framework in the 21st century. After all - some of us have been trying for years to introduce current scientific and other research areas [linguistic, AI, societal, economic] and explore how the Peircean framework, in different terms, is being used to examine these fields. We've been met with a refusal to engage in any discussion and/or, an open almost horror of such an approach. That is an issue that should be considered. John
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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] . ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
