[lit-ideas] Re: Purpose of the "Literature and Ideas" List with the Digest and Archive

It doesn't matter. Or as the French relativists say when I suggest that perhaps
their relativist claim is itself an absolute and universal claim: "Sa fer
ryen."

Waltayr d'Okshevsky
Directeur,
Romance in Languages of Philosophie
Sorbonne a UQAM
Monreyal, Quaybek

Quoting Judith Evans <judithevans1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

> > The purpose of the list, in regard to those rules relevant or
> > pertinent to my interests and as understood in rough summary by
> me, is
> > that it should be used responsibly as a learned forum to
> discuss
> > topical ideas in relation to "published" literary writings,
> where such
> > literature is deemed to be in the form of both fictional and
> > nonfictional works
> 
> That isn't quite correct.  Lit-ideas was set up following the
> closure of
> Phil-Lit, "ideas" is (I believe) an attempt to avoid a suggestion
> that
> the original list's title had been poached.  Though various of
> its
> members are or were professors (not only of Philosophy and
> Literature),
> it has always been fully open to non-academics, so if "learned"
> carries
> a professional or disciplinary connotation, then it's
> misconceived.
> The official Freelists description ("for university professors in
> the
> humanities to discuss the impact of technology") is an attempt to
> comply
> with freelists' requirements but is in my view misconceived; I'd
> prefer another description even if freelists had to be abandoned
> as a result.
> 
> The Guidelines on the List's web page (linked to at freelists)
> state
> 
> "Acceptable topics include discussions about books, ideas, and
> related topics."
> 
> > Another problem is whether learned scholars in academia are
> prepared
> > to share their coveted ideas in websites on the internet that
> are
> > accessed virtually at will by the public;
> 
> It is my impression that they are; see the discussions at The
> Valve and
> elsewhere.  (I may have ceased being a "learned scholar in
> academia"
> by the time Phil-Lit, based at tamu, so, not archived on the web,
> was set up,
> so cannot speak personally for them.)  More, if the concern is
> that "coveted
> ideas" may be poached, I assure you, wearing my former hat and as
> a poachee,
> that fellow lsias are the likely thieves, not the public.  But
> perhaps
> you are more concerned with the thought that your pearls may be
> cast
> before swine?  Whichever: we lack a university home, and have
> done since
> Phil-Lit's closure.
> 
> ******
> List members sympathetic to a modified version of your
> suggestions (e.g.
> that there be a greater number of posts conforming to a
> philosophy/
> literature rubric) may be slightly alienated by your emphasis on
> learned scholars and coveted ideas.  Perhaps you could consider
> rewording
> your points
> 
> Judy Evans, Cardiff, UK
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Frances Kelly" <frances.kelly@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "lit-ideas digest users"
> <ecartis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2006 11:43 AM
> Subject: [lit-ideas] Purpose of the "Literature and Ideas" List
> with the Digest and Archive
> 
> 
> > Frances with thanks to listers...
> >
> > This online list called "Literature and Ideas" is seemingly
> free and
> > open to the internet public at large who wish to enter its
> portal, and
> > with little invite or limit. There is clearly however a stated
> > guideline of rules for this list as issued by its owners and
> managers.
> > The purpose of the list, in regard to those rules relevant or
> > pertinent to my interests and as understood in rough summary by
> me, is
> > that it should be used responsibly as a learned forum to
> discuss
> > topical ideas in relation to "published" literary writings,
> where such
> > literature is deemed to be in the form of both fictional and
> > nonfictional works. The broad literary ideas under discussion
> could
> > presumably be "within" the writings or "about" the writings,
> where
> > such writings are held to variously be statements in texts or
> > narratives in documents or discourses in manuscripts.
> >
> > Many of the messages posted however often appear atopical and
> even
> > trivial or silly to me. This makes the storage of messages in
> the list
> > archive bulky, and the retrieval of messages from the list
> archive for
> > reasons of say research very cumbersome. This thorny issue no
> doubt
> > has likely surfaced here in the past before my time, but in
> light of
> > recent flows it may justify resurrection.
> >
> > Without suggesting any kind of censored policing of
> "appropriate"
> > messages posted to the list, some sort of voluntary process or
> > protocol might nonetheless now be warranted, at least to serve
> the
> > interests of those listers who may wish to follow a somewhat
> narrower
> > threaded path when discussing topical subjects or special
> themes in
> > keeping with the stated purpose of the list as to what is
> acceptable.
> > This list after all is a valued resource, and ought not be
> disused or
> > abused or misused, for reasons that for example would be
> clearly
> > outside either the general purpose of the list or any special
> topic on
> > the list that is trying to stay within that purpose.
> >
> > My fear is that my stance in this regard may be overstating the
> case,
> >
> > but then perhaps not. In any event, any suggestion or
> correction to
> > this position would be welcome. My motive here is not to bypass
> or
> > overstep the list authorities, but to be better informed by
> listers
> > who might share my particular scholarly interests in "sign"
> theory.
> > Those interests partly include the comparison of angloamerican
> > philology and semiotics with francoeuropean semiology and
> > structuralism, and the application of such "sign" theory to the
> field
> > of "literature" both as humanal art in the fictional and
> philosophic
> > manner, and as nonart in the technical or scientific manner.
> Other
> > lists such as the Dewey List and the Peirce List and the
> Aesthetics
> > List do of course provide some satisfaction.
> >
> > Another problem is whether learned scholars in academia are
> prepared
> > to share their coveted ideas in websites on the internet that
> are
> > accessed virtually at will by the public; but that is a further
> topic,
> > and there is certainly enough in this present message to
> discuss.
> >
> > Frances Kelly, City of Toronto
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
> digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
> 



------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts: