> 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