[peirce-l] Re: Panopedia
I have no interest in trying the list's patience by drawing this out further, but I did want to supply one further piece of information. Steven Zenith raises the question about the transparency of the Digital Universe (i.e., if I understand it correctly, whether we will require the use of real names and identities). In fact, we have been projecting for over a year that real names and identities *will* be required. They already are required for all work done by those building the Encyclopedia of Earth and the Earth Portal. In a forthcoming monograph about the DU, I have argued at some length that this policy is indeed advisable. I won't bore you with the arguments here, since I assume we're rather off-topic from Peirce, but suffice it to say that I have long thought that some of Wikipedia's problems can be laid down to the fact that many participants do not take responsibility for their own work by connecting it to their real-world identities. Moreover, we will of course (and already do) have contributor biographies that will help develop a sort of reputation system. Steven, if you have further questions, I'd appreciate it if you'd simply ask rather than making uncharitable assumptions about a project on which I've been working hard for over a year. --Larry Sanger --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
[peirce-l] Re: Panopedia
Dear all, I forwarded to Larry Sanger, co-founder of Wikipedia, the thread of messages on Panopedia. I copy below his answer announcing the new project Digital Universe that may interest to some people in the list, Jaime Thanks for forwarding these mails about Panopedia. I'm seeing increasing interest in having a wiki encyclopedia managed by experts. I know of another academic general encyclopedia project starting, as well as specialized encyclopedias about law and medicine. As co-founder of Wikipedia and the person who basically conceived of it and got it started, however, I would direct people to get involved instead with my new project Digital Universe, at http://www.digitaluniverse.net . I am involved in the project as Director of Distributed Content Programs and have been helping to design our own general wiki encyclopedia project. I have been thinking very hard for over a year about how to make the Wikipedia magic happen in a more academic context, and I think we have settled upon the right formula. It will be part of a larger expert-managed information resource, the Digital Universe. For more information, please see (and please distribute!) this blog post: http://www.digitaluniverse.net/participate/blog/200601192.php If you would like to get involved, please go here: http://www.digitaluniverse.net/create/content/ The encyclopedia project, to be managed by a large group of top-notch scholars and scientists from a wide range of fields, should be starting within a few months. A prototype, the Encyclopedia of Earth, is already under development and has over 500 articles. --Larry Sanger Director of Distributed Content Programs, Digital Universe Foundation 100 Enterprise Way, Suite G370, Scotts Valley, CA 95066 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.digitaluniverse.net/ --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
[peirce-l] Re: Panopedia
FWIW. I know of the ManyOne project and have tried before to understand what they are trying to do. Digital Universe is designed to promote that project. However, it requires you to download the ManyOne application suite - a new browser - to subscribe PLUS they want to up sell Internet services to you. While I certainly appreciate the need to support projects like this, it seems unnecessarily complex and it's value is unclear. This could be resolved perhaps if they simply redesigned their interface and presentation of their vision (for which there is no clear statement unless it is that they think they have a better browser). In particular, it is not clear that the encyclopedia is free in the sense of the Creative Commons. They do not appear to use a license that permits free use of copies, which is especially important for the third world and in working-class initiatives. Further, there is no statement about their transparency policy and I saw no author profiles. The sign up process seems unnecessarily intimidating. On the upside, they do appear to have funding - but why all the commerce and channeling of money? :-) With respect, Steven Jaime Nubiola wrote: Dear all, I forwarded to Larry Sanger, co-founder of Wikipedia, the thread of messages on Panopedia. I copy below his answer announcing the new project Digital Universe that may interest to some people in the list, Jaime Thanks for forwarding these mails about Panopedia. I'm seeing increasing interest in having a wiki encyclopedia managed by experts. I know of another academic general encyclopedia project starting, as well as specialized encyclopedias about law and medicine. As co-founder of Wikipedia and the person who basically conceived of it and got it started, however, I would direct people to get involved instead with my new project Digital Universe, at http://www.digitaluniverse.net . I am involved in the project as Director of Distributed Content Programs and have been helping to design our own general wiki encyclopedia project. I have been thinking very hard for over a year about how to make the Wikipedia magic happen in a more academic context, and I think we have settled upon the right formula. It will be part of a larger expert-managed information resource, the Digital Universe. For more information, please see (and please distribute!) this blog post: http://www.digitaluniverse.net/participate/blog/200601192.php If you would like to get involved, please go here: http://www.digitaluniverse.net/create/content/ The encyclopedia project, to be managed by a large group of top-notch scholars and scientists from a wide range of fields, should be starting within a few months. A prototype, the Encyclopedia of Earth, is already under development and has over 500 articles. --Larry Sanger Director of Distributed Content Programs, Digital Universe Foundation 100 Enterprise Way, Suite G370, Scotts Valley, CA 95066 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.digitaluniverse.net/ --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
[peirce-l] Re: Panopedia
All, Forgive the intrusion. After Jaime Nubiola forwarded Steven Zenith's mail to me, I thought I would respond here on the list (rather than bother Jaime further personally). I have no interest in a long drawn-out discussion--I simply wished to correct a few factual errors in Steven's post. First, let me grant that the digitaluniverse.net website's strategy at present isn't the best. It was originally designed with a view to potential users rather than potential contributors. The Web design team decided a few weeks ago to entirely rework the website--a new one should be out within a few weeks, I hope. FWIW. I know of the ManyOne project and have tried before to understand what they are trying to do. Digital Universe is designed to promote that project. ManyOne is not a project; it is a technology service company. The DU is the content-creation project. Also, not the claim itself but the converse is true: in a perfectly straightforward factual sense, ManyOne is designed to support and promote the nonprofit, free-as-in-freedom DU. That really is the *purpose* of ManyOne. However, it requires you to download the ManyOne application suite - a new browser - to subscribe PLUS they want to up sell Internet services to you. We (= the DU and ManyOne) agree completely that one should not have to use a new browser to see the content. This should be fixed by the end of April, when we launch a browser-neutral website that requires neither a download nor a login to view. In fact, this has long been our plan (although of course Steven had no way of knowing all this!). Bear in mind that the browser and DU will always be free of charge, and the vast bulk of the content will always be free (i.e., open content). Including the entire encyclopedia and almost everything else too. The *purpose* of the DU is to aggregate and organize the world's reliable free information in one place. While I certainly appreciate the need to support projects like this, it seems unnecessarily complex and it's value is unclear. Its value will be tremendous and beyond doubt, if we succeed. The interface and project will both be about as complex as the finest free information resource and its supporting community would have to be--which is to say, pretty complex, but not unnecessarily so. For one thing, we are already using a wiki for the Encyclopedia of Earth (not publicly viewable yet). This could be resolved perhaps if they simply redesigned their interface and presentation of their vision (for which there is no clear statement unless it is that they think they have a better browser). We agree on both counts and we're already working on it. In a few weeks a new introduction to DU website will be launched that will contain much more and much clearer information than what we have up there now. It will, in particular, have a lot more information *for potential contributors*. In particular, it is not clear that the encyclopedia is free in the sense of the Creative Commons. Again you're right that that's not adequately clear, although it will be in the new website. Lawrence Lessig (Mr. Creative Commons) is on our Board of Advisors and has made a specific recommendation about which CC license we should use. We are 100% committed to being a free/open content/Creative Commons project. They do not appear to use a license that permits free use of copies, which is especially important for the third world and in working-class initiatives. If it doesn't appear that way, that's a problem. Because the fact is that our recommended license will permit such use. Our freedom is one of our main virtues, and we should be much more explicit about it. Further, there is no statement about their transparency policy and I saw no author profiles. See: http://www.digitaluniverse.net/understand/foundation/ And: http://www.earthportal.net/about/leadership/ There isn't a list of Encyclopedia of Earth authors yet, though, which is long and very impressive--there will be. The sign up process seems unnecessarily intimidating. For Stewards, we think the sign-up process is sober and serious, but also as brief as possible, and it should be; we want the project to be run by the leaders of every field. For everyone else, it won't be intimidating at all. Right now we're just collecting e-mail addresses: http://www.digitaluniverse.net/create/content/contributions/ On the upside, they do appear to have funding - but why all the commerce and channeling of money? :-) The short answer is: because experts will not, in the long run, work for free; there must be a way to pay for their participation. More generally, a nonprofit project of this size cannot reach its maximum potential unless there is a robust flow of cash supporting it. Pretending otherwise will doom any project to mediocrity. Even Wikipedia needs significant cash to keep going. As far as I'm concerned, though, I agree with you on this: there is no excuse for giving what is
[peirce-l] Re: Panopedia
Larry, list, Your project appears to hold great promise and is already taking impressive shape imo. It is especially encouraging to see Larry Lessig on board. This list may recall my positive review of an address he gave at Cooper-Union in NYC a year or so ago on copyright issues. I recall posting this URL of some relevant slides he'd created for an earlier but closely related talk. These are, I think, still worth viewing. See: http://randomfoo.net/oscon/2002/lessig/ See also: http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/November-December-2004/feature_hunter_novdec04.html It would appear that you are already working on some of the difficult issues which Steven brought up, and it would appear that his recent critique may also prove valuable. The best of luck on this ambitious project. Gary Richmond City University of New York Larry Sanger wrote: All, Forgive the intrusion. After Jaime Nubiola forwarded Steven Zenith's mail to me, I thought I would respond here on the list (rather than bother Jaime further personally). I have no interest in a long drawn-out discussion--I simply wished to correct a few factual errors in Steven's post. First, let me grant that the digitaluniverse.net website's strategy at present isn't the best. It was originally designed with a view to potential users rather than potential contributors. The Web design team decided a few weeks ago to entirely rework the website--a new one should be out within a few weeks, I hope. FWIW. I know of the ManyOne project and have tried before to understand what they are trying to do. Digital Universe is designed to promote that project. ManyOne is not a project; it is a technology service company. The DU is the content-creation project. Also, not the claim itself but the converse is true: in a perfectly straightforward factual sense, ManyOne is designed to support and promote the nonprofit, free-as-in-freedom DU. That really is the *purpose* of ManyOne. However, it requires you to download the ManyOne application suite - a new browser - to subscribe PLUS they want to up sell Internet services to you. We (= the DU and ManyOne) agree completely that one should not have to use a new browser to see the content. This should be fixed by the end of April, when we launch a browser-neutral website that requires neither a download nor a login to view. In fact, this has long been our plan (although of course Steven had no way of knowing all this!). Bear in mind that the browser and DU will always be free of charge, and the vast bulk of the content will always be free (i.e., open content). Including the entire encyclopedia and almost everything else too. The *purpose* of the DU is to aggregate and organize the world's reliable free information in one place. While I certainly appreciate the need to support projects like this, it seems unnecessarily complex and it's value is unclear. Its value will be tremendous and beyond doubt, if we succeed. The interface and project will both be about as complex as the finest free information resource and its supporting community would have to be--which is to say, pretty complex, but not unnecessarily so. For one thing, we are already using a wiki for the Encyclopedia of Earth (not publicly viewable yet). This could be resolved perhaps if they simply redesigned their interface and presentation of their vision (for which there is no clear statement unless it is that they think they have a better browser). We agree on both counts and we're already working on it. In a few weeks a new "introduction to DU" website will be launched that will contain much more and much clearer information than what we have up there now. It will, in particular, have a lot more information *for potential contributors*. In particular, it is not clear that the encyclopedia is free in the sense of the Creative Commons. Again you're right that that's not adequately clear, although it will be in the new website. Lawrence Lessig (Mr. Creative Commons) is on our Board of Advisors and has made a specific recommendation about which CC license we should use. We are 100% committed to being a free/open content/Creative Commons project. They do not appear to use a license that permits free use of copies, which is especially important for the third world and in working-class initiatives. If it doesn't appear that way, that's a problem. Because the fact is that our recommended license will permit such use. Our freedom is one of our main virtues, and we should be much more explicit about it. Further, there is no statement about their transparency policy and I saw no author profiles. See: http://www.digitaluniverse.net/understand/foundation/ And: http://www.earthportal.net/about/leadership/ There isn't a list of Encyclopedia of Earth authors yet, though, which is long and very
[peirce-l] Re: Panopedia
Dear Larry, Thank you for your response. The references that you give reveal transparency regarding your organization but that is not the transparency we are discussing. Wikipedia is also transparent in this sense. We have discussed here the transparency of authorship - especially with respect to articles in Wikipedia. I have argued here that identifying the author is a logical necessity and we have explored the writings of Peirce that show he argued in the same way. If you review my user page on Panopedia I have summarized the position there http://www.panopedia.org/index.php/User:Steven And if you look at my Wikipedia page I have summarized the issues that concern me http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:StevenZenith I am not unsympathetic to your cause - if I understand it correctly - but it does not appear to address the particular issues I am interested in. DU has certainly assembled an impressive set of credentials but, as I am sure you realize given the Wikpedia experience, that is no guarantee of success. From my point of view it is not clear that DU can develop familiarity with authors and ultimately it is from that familiarity that authority is derived. An example of the power of familiarity is Gary's enthusiasm for Lawrence Lessig or, in the past, the public admiration of Bertram Russell. Then arises authority by association with those we are familiar - so DU will benefit from the relationship with Lessig and so on. This is how the world works. Wikipedia allows the development of familiarity, in spades, but is fatally flawed by its lack of transparency. In Panopedia I seek to provide an environment with the Wikipedia benefits but without this flaw. It will be an interesting experiment. As an inveterate bootstrapper I admire the volunteer contributors model and for encyclopedia articles there appear to be plenty of competent contributors available outside of the academic cliques, in institutions far and wide, happy to take advantage of a platform such as Panopedia. We shall see. As to matters of fact, I think DU is an interesting case in point - since you reveal that it is not as it currently presents itself - a common problem on the web. My misunderstandings, rhetorical differences aside, apparently derive mostly from things I could not have known, future intentions of DU. I look forward to the revisions to see how it matches the need. With respect, Steven Larry Sanger wrote: All, Forgive the intrusion. After Jaime Nubiola forwarded Steven Zenith's mail to me, I thought I would respond here on the list (rather than bother Jaime further personally). I have no interest in a long drawn-out discussion--I simply wished to correct a few factual errors in Steven's post. First, let me grant that the digitaluniverse.net website's strategy at present isn't the best. It was originally designed with a view to potential users rather than potential contributors. The Web design team decided a few weeks ago to entirely rework the website--a new one should be out within a few weeks, I hope. FWIW. I know of the ManyOne project and have tried before to understand what they are trying to do. Digital Universe is designed to promote that project. ManyOne is not a project; it is a technology service company. The DU is the content-creation project. Also, not the claim itself but the converse is true: in a perfectly straightforward factual sense, ManyOne is designed to support and promote the nonprofit, free-as-in-freedom DU. That really is the *purpose* of ManyOne. However, it requires you to download the ManyOne application suite - a new browser - to subscribe PLUS they want to up sell Internet services to you. We (= the DU and ManyOne) agree completely that one should not have to use a new browser to see the content. This should be fixed by the end of April, when we launch a browser-neutral website that requires neither a download nor a login to view. In fact, this has long been our plan (although of course Steven had no way of knowing all this!). Bear in mind that the browser and DU will always be free of charge, and the vast bulk of the content will always be free (i.e., open content). Including the entire encyclopedia and almost everything else too. The *purpose* of the DU is to aggregate and organize the world's reliable free information in one place. While I certainly appreciate the need to support projects like this, it seems unnecessarily complex and it's value is unclear. Its value will be tremendous and beyond doubt, if we succeed. The interface and project will both be about as complex as the finest free information resource and its supporting community would have to be--which is to say, pretty complex, but not unnecessarily so. For one thing, we are already using a wiki for the Encyclopedia of Earth (not publicly viewable yet). This could be resolved perhaps if they simply
[peirce-l] Re: Panopedia
Steven... Aside from the issues of objective intent and textual authorship, the promise of an open and free internet with its unpoliced websites and networks that are responsible and reasonable is regrettably as yet unfulfilled. Even the serious lists continue to be filled with trivial atopical nonsense. Expert thinkers furthermore still covet their sound ideas, and in my experience are hesitant to post and store them in such an unpredictable environment. Striking a balance for the serious lists on the internet between being opened and closed or free and fee is obviously being worked and tooled by specialists in the field, and is cause for some optimism. This very site is perhaps a good example of it, for which the manager or owner in his kind wisdom should be applauded. (Forgive this injection, but by any logical or semiotic stretch, the message with its intent or effect is not the messenger, any more than the interpretant sign is the interpreter. Logically, it is pointless and meaningless and useless to say attack the messenger or the interpreter of a sign who merely expedites it. Any alternative in logic wrongly resorts to some form of psychologistic subjectivism or linguistic nominalism. The exception might be in finding the motive of desire for signers in seeking the logical truth of a sign initially in their efforts. This is a preliminary state of thought that logic seemingly cannot account for solely on its own alone. This may very well be the reason why abductive inference is available to mind, but then this too is an objective kind of logic. The solution to this problem of course is objective relativism, where the signer is held to be brought into a relation with the message they sense, rather than with their inner sense of the message, because it is after all the message that is said to be say nice or valid or sound or true.) Steven partly wrote... I am most firmly convinced that there is no message without a messenger; i.e. any message without a clearly identifiable messenger is simply meaningless. By which I mean literally without intent; absent the embodiment of meaning in a message creator. We are deceived if we believe that there is intent in any message in which the messenger cannot be clearly identified or identified by proxy through a transparent identity. We would do as well to consider astrology. Hence, from this point of view, almost everything that is in the Wikipedia is meaningless. Despite your criticism of elitism, you advocate aristocracy. I am not an aristocrat. Each idea I give out freely provides me with bills to pay. --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
[peirce-l] Re: Panopedia
Steven, Catherine, Ben, list, I would like to suggest that Ben's analysis perhaps rather nicely bridges the gap between what seems like the polar positions held by Steven and frances, Frances arguing on the one hand that: The need for identifying the messenger is in my opinion overstated and overrated. It too often smacks of celebrity elitism, and lionizes the messenger to the detriment of the message. and Steven on the other that: I am most firmly convinced that there is no message without a messenger; i.e., any message without a clearly identifiable messenger is simply meaningless. Tending to reconcile these two positions, Ben wrote: My initial take is that a transparency-requirent version of Wikipedia is an excellent idea, but that, considering the kind of energy which has been put into Wikipedia, it may take quite some time for similar energy to build for the Panopedia. Yet ultimately it could happen. It would be nice if it could systematically include links to corresponding Wikipedia articles. In effect, both systems would be run, checkably against each other. A body of commentary by each about the other would be built up, too. I especially like Ben's idea that the Panopedia site might "systematically include links to corresponding Wikipedia articles" not only because a great deal of solid work has been done there which could be referenced, but that where authors of Panopedia articles believe the Wikipedia article in question is in error, incomplete, one-sided, etc. they could point to those errors in their own articles. Ben continued. I don't oppose the permitted anonymity of Wikipedia, because I think it frees people to say true things that they wouldn't otherwise say. That's a good thing in every society. It could, perhaps, use a label briefly stating that there isn't transparency, summarizing briefly, if that's possible, the kinds of checks that are in place. I mean a label such as would be carried along with articles' contents to other sites continually using such articles, e.g., about.com . Again, this tends to lend support to the value of both approaches (why either/or?) although, as Ben notes, even were one to add to theWikipedia site a label stating lack of transparency, etc. that, as Ben says, ". . . it seems indeed doubtful that all drawbacks can be remedied in the Wikipedia framework." Nevertheless, even the case of grave error which Steven pointed to was found and was corrected. I personally have found Wikipedia a valuable resource, but then I always triangulate any research with other sources. Steven, I spent some time exploring it yesterday, and I like the look of your Panopedia project. I also enjoyed a romp through your home page which points to all sorts of valuable resources, for example, reminding me that I want to sign up for Skype. Best, Gary Richmond --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
[peirce-l] Re: Panopedia
Dear Gary, My thanks for your encouraging words. I agree that Ben's suggestion of cross referencing to Wikipedia is interesting - and I am thinking about the implications of that approach. Wikipedia articles do not have stable states. Who would own the labels? I did consider that one solution was to produce a reviewed version of Wikipedia which took a snapshot and reviewed all the articles - deleting the most onerous - but I concluded that this was impossible to maintain and did seem rather egotistical. However, as I note in my response to Frances the almostness of Wikipedia is an interesting effect; rather like writing poetry by cutting out random words from a magazine and throwing them on a table. Of course, I am rather hoping that Ben will want to build a taxonomy :-) With respect, Steven Gary Richmond wrote: Steven, Catherine, Ben, list, I would like to suggest that Ben's analysis perhaps rather nicely bridges the gap between what seems like the polar positions held by Steven and frances, Frances arguing on the one hand that: The need for identifying the messenger is in my opinion overstated and overrated. It too often smacks of celebrity elitism, and lionizes the messenger to the detriment of the message. and Steven on the other that: I am most firmly convinced that there is no message without a messenger; i.e., any message without a clearly identifiable messenger is simply meaningless. Tending to reconcile these two positions, Ben wrote: My initial take is that a transparency-requirent version of Wikipedia is an excellent idea, but that, considering the kind of energy which has been put into Wikipedia, it may take quite some time for similar energy to build for the Panopedia. Yet ultimately it could happen. It would be nice if it could systematically include links to corresponding Wikipedia articles. In effect, both systems would be run, checkably against each other. A body of commentary by each about the other would be built up, too. I especially like Ben's idea that the Panopedia site might systematically include links to corresponding Wikipedia articles not only because a great deal of solid work has been done there which could be referenced, but that where authors of Panopedia articles believe the Wikipedia article in question is in error, incomplete, one-sided, etc. they could point to those errors in their own articles. Ben continued. I don't oppose the permitted anonymity of Wikipedia, because I think it frees people to say true things that they wouldn't otherwise say. That's a good thing in every society. It could, perhaps, use a label briefly stating that there isn't transparency, summarizing briefly, if that's possible, the kinds of checks that are in place. I mean a label such as would be carried along with articles' contents to other sites continually using such articles, e.g., about.com . Again, this tends to lend support to the value of both approaches (why either/or?) although, as Ben notes, even were one to add to theWikipedia site a label stating lack of transparency, etc. that, as Ben says, . . . it seems indeed doubtful that all drawbacks can be remedied in the Wikipedia framework. Nevertheless, even the case of grave error which Steven pointed to /was/ found and /was/ corrected. I personally have found Wikipedia a valuable resource, but then I always triangulate any research with other sources. Steven, I spent some time exploring it yesterday, and I like the look of your Panopedia project. I also enjoyed a romp through your home page which points to all sorts of valuable resources, for example, reminding me that I want to sign up for Skype. Best, Gary Richmond --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
[peirce-l] Re: Panopedia
Steven says: Transparency is a pragmatic. Or, exactly as Joe suggests that Peirce implies (is there a reference to this Joe?): identifying the author is a logical necessity. REPLY: Here's some quotes to that effect: CP 2.315 (c. 1902) For an act of assertion supposes that, a proposition being formulated, a person performs an act which renders him liable to the penalties of the social law (or, at any rate, those of the moral law) in case it should not be true, unless he has a definite and sufficient excuse; and an act of assent is an act of the mind by which one endeavors to impress the meanings of the proposition upon his disposition, so that it shall govern his conduct, including thought under conduct, this habit being ready to be broken in case reasons should appear for breaking it. CP 5.30 (1903) Now it is a fairly easy problem to analyze the nature of assertion. To find an easily dissected example, we shall naturally take a case where the assertive element is magnified -- a very formal assertion, such as an affidavit. Here a man goes before a notary or magistrate and takes such action that if what he says is not true, evil consequences will be visited upon him, and this he does with a view to thus causing other men to be affected just as they would be if the proposition sworn to had presented itself to them as a perceptual fact. MS 70 (1905) Declarative sentence: a sentence which, if seriously pronounced, makes an assertion; that is, is intended to serve as evidence of its utterer's belief, to compel (so far as a sentence may) the belief of those to whom it is addressed, and to assume for the utterer whatever responsibility may attach to the particular form of the declaration, at least, his reputation for veracity or accuracy. New Elements, in EP2, pp. 312f MS 517 (1904) As an aid in dissecting the constitution of affirmation [assertion] I shall employ a certain logical magnifying-glass that I have often found efficient in such business. Imagine, then, that I write a proposition on a piece of paper, perhaps a number of times, simply as a calligraphic exercise. It is not likely to prove dangerous amusement. But suppose I afterward carry the paper before a notary public and make affidavit to its contents. This may prove to be a horse of another color. The reason is that the affidavit may be used to determine an assent to the proposition it contains in the minds of judge and jury--an effect that the paper would not have had if I had not sworn to it. For certain penalties here and hereafter are attached to swearing to a false proposition; and consequently the fact that I have sworn to it will be taken as a negative index that it is not false. . . . An affirmation is an act of an utterer of a proposition to an interpreter, and consists, in the first place, in the deliberate exercise, in uttering the proposition, of a force tending to determine a belief in it in the mind of the interpreter. Perhaps that is a sufficient definition of it; but it involves also a voluntary self-subjection to penalties in the event of the interpreter's mind (and still more the general mind of society) subsequently becoming decidedly determined to the belief at once in the falsity of the proposition and in the additional proposition that the utterer believed the proposition to be false at the time he uttered it. Joe Ransdell Joe Ransdell -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.12/265 - Release Date: 2/20/2006 --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
[peirce-l] Re: Panopedia
Steven... This message may be an aside, but the principle of evolutionary love as it is understood by me might be well applied to the act of science. It states that objects and here thinkers should give of themselves and thus their ideas freely, for its own intrinsic sake, with no ulterior motive, and expect nothing in return for the effort. This ideal implies to me that it is the message that is important, and not the messenger. It also neatly disposes of personal ego and material profit. This principle of course was posited by Peirce well before the promising internet and its open websites existed, if indeed this fact makes any difference. The need for identifying the messenger is in my opinion overstated and overrated. It too often smacks of celebrity elitism, and lionizes the messenger to the detriment of the message. --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
[peirce-l] Re: Panopedia
Thank you for your input Frances. I am most firmly convinced that there is no message without a messenger; i.e., any message without a clearly identifiable messenger is simply meaningless. By which I mean literally without intent; absent the embodiment of meaning in a message creator. We are deceived if we believe that there is intent in any message in which the messenger cannot be clearly identified or identified by proxy through a transparent identity. We would do as well to consider astrology. Hence, from this POV, almost everything that is in the Wikipedia is meaningless. Despite your criticism of elitism, you advocate aristocracy. I am not an aristocrat. Each idea I give out freely provides me with bills to pay. With respect, Steven Frances Catherine Kelly wrote: Steven... This message may be an aside, but the principle of evolutionary love as it is understood by me might be well applied to the act of science. It states that objects and here thinkers should give of themselves and thus their ideas freely, for its own intrinsic sake, with no ulterior motive, and expect nothing in return for the effort. This ideal implies to me that it is the message that is important, and not the messenger. It also neatly disposes of personal ego and material profit. This principle of course was posited by Peirce well before the promising internet and its open websites existed, if indeed this fact makes any difference. The need for identifying the messenger is in my opinion overstated and overrated. It too often smacks of celebrity elitism, and lionizes the messenger to the detriment of the message. --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
