[peirce-l] Re: Existent vs Real
Jim Platt wrote (in part): - Original Message - From: Jim Piat [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Peirce Discussion Forum peirce-l@lyris.ttu.edu Subject: [peirce-l] Re: Existent vs Real Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 12:02:23 -0500 Dear Iving, Thanks for those observation. --- It is important to understand that I was running on memory here, and I'm certain that there are plenty of folks on this list who can be of better service in respect to explicating Meinong's ontology. Judging from the growing amount of recent books on Meinong, I would think that his ideas have begun to overcome the stigma attached to them by Russell in On Denoting (1905). I do recommend looking at Meinong's original, before going to the many commentaries. I recall that even Nick Griffin, a respected Russell scholar, published a paper in which he argued that Russell played somewhat fast and loose with Meinong's ideas, both when reviewing Meinong's writings and when working out the theory of descriptions in On Denoting as a way to get rid of existence claims about uch inconvenient entities as round squares, Pegasus and the present King of France. As I recall, the best presentation that Meinong gave of his theory was in his Ueber Gegenstaende hoeherer Ordnung..., the theme of which, if not the opening line of which, ran something like: Es gibt keine Vorstellungen ohne etwas zu vorstellen. Irving Anellis -- ___ Search for businesses by name, location, or phone number. -Lycos Yellow Pages http://r.lycos.com/r/yp_emailfooter/http://yellowpages.lycos.com/default.asp?SRC=lycos10 --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
[peirce-l] Panopedia
Excuse me if this is a little off track, but I promise there is a Peircian edge to it from several points of view. I know that several people here on Peirce-l have attempted to write articles for Wikipedia - and I have expressed my own concerns here in the past. If you missed those then you can find a summary of the issues on my Wikipedia user page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:StevenZenith As many of you know I am interested in semeiotic issues as they relate to the development of human understanding, deliberation and consensus on the Internet - and I conduct field research by going out there and actually engaging to some level with the various mediums. A principal issue that occurs again and again - and we have seen it here on Peirce-l - is what is broadly called the issue of transparency. That is the ability to know who the author is. As you will see, I firmly believe that when dealing with knowledge it is essential that we can identify the author - it is essential for the author to be transparent. There are many reasons for this but the primary reason is that without this knowledge we can be easily misled and manipulated both as individuals and communities. My primary focus in the past couple of years has been Wikipedia and Citizen Journalism where this problem is actively manifest. So, aside from the observations that assist theoretical developments, I am a pragmatist and I have assembled a concept piece that I would be please if Ben and Gary, at least, would review. In essence I believe that the basic idea behind Wikipedia is a good one - a free encyclopedia will aid many and particularly the alternative education community of which I am a life member. But Wikipedia is doomed to fail principally because of the transparency issues mentioned above. In addition, they can't back out. The copyright license they have selected essentially prevents them from changing their model - they would have to start again and would not be able to use the current base. Which is exactly what I think they should do, but they won't because the community of anonymity is a compulsive game - they have too much invested. So what, I thought, would solve the problem? See http://www.panopedia.org It is a concept piece based on the familiar Wikipedia software modified to enforce transparency requirements. It combines several interests of mine - including my personal commitment to place on line a resource that will continue to serve my home schooled children in their adult years. Contributions and comments from your experiences with Wikipedia and elsewhere are welcome. Caveat: This is a concept piece that currently sits on servers in my garage where bandwidth is limited - and it is essentially an empty encyclopedia - if it seems viable I will move it out of there. With respect, Steven --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
[peirce-l] Re: NEW ELEMENTS: So what is it all about?
Gary, Jim, Joe, Thomas, list, Erratum. In fact I should probably have cut the kinematic quantities out since there's room to explain what the heck I'm thinking about with them, but, since I mentioned them, I should at least get them right. Change of observer's time should appear where I put "1" (unity). Change of the observed's own time is "Dt" often called "change of tau." I should also have added "(with lightspeed c held equal to 1)." ARX. (Arche.) Saturation, struggle, instability, mobility, forcefulnessDd = =TLO. (Telos as teleiosis.) Illumination, culmination, vigor, immoderation, energeticism. Dt-Dt =|X|= MES.(Meson.) Incubation, mediation, moderation,patience (like processual steadiness). Dt = = NTL. (Entelecheia.) Verification, establishment, stability, firmness (like structural integrity) Dt-Dd Sorry about that! Best, Ben --- 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
