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
