Greetings. I've started two new discussion groups (below). They'll be slow at first. I'd like to recruit some good people for them. Would be appreciative if you passed them along to graduate students and other faculty. Two preliminaries. I started the groups because of the private mails I get in response to my comments here and elsewhere. People seem to like one-on-one's with me. Now, there is a forum for that. Feel free to participate anonymously if you like (some do that on my Wittgenstein site). The technology on the sites are pretty friendly. You don't have to join the group to participate. You can read them on the web at may different places (yahoo, google, freelists, and the discussion board). The group comes in discussion-board format as well as email format -- you can use either vehicle and never miss a message. Here are the groups: CRITICAL POLITICOLOGY link: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/politicology/ This group provides an intellectual critique of the American academy, and a discussion about American culture, value and politics. The group is particularly harsh on what academics call "political science." This social club is both more lost and irrelevant than it has ever been. Politics is more in the nature of an aesthetic than a science. Hence, the term "politicology" is offered as a substitute (cf. "sociology"). In a sense, this group is about forming a new understanding of how to have a bird's eye view of culture, politics, history and philosophy. The group shows how to become, teach and think like a politicologist. The essence is intellectual context, not information. And intellectual freedom, rather than social-club norms. The group believes that the academy in general, and American culture in particular, suffer from the same sorts of contemporary illnesses. The failings of the one relate to the failings of the other. SECOND GROUP: LAW AND META PERSPECTIVE link: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/metalaw/ This group is devoted to ending the perspectival account of law (e.g., "law and society") without resurrecting either strict objectivism or formalism. Instead, the goal is to attain "meta-perspective." The idea is simple: the thing that affords us perspective must, by necessity, also allow for meta-perspective, if we simply continue our quest to understand. Hence, a good account of law should involve all of the "perspectives" -- society, politics, economics, philosophy, literature, etc. A good legal scholar, therefore, should be meta-perspectival. In essence, then, this group allows perspectivism (Nietzsche) to win the battle, but not the war. Regards and thanks Dr. Sean Wilson, Esq. Assistant Professor Wright State University Personal Website: http://seanwilson.org SSRN papers: http://ssrn.com/author=596860 New Discussion Groups! http://ludwig.squarespace.com/discussionfora/