New Members
As usual, we welcome our new members to the SIG. We have 11 new members this time. It’s good to see people are still joining faster than they escape.
|
Kate Manion |
Andrew King |
|
Arthur Knox |
Judith Bailey |
|
Edward Kelly |
Timothy Preston |
|
Lesley Killick |
Ann-Louise Lowson |
|
John-Joseph Hosking |
David White |
|
Genevieve Harding |
As we enter a new millennium, some sort of "state of the nation" address is to be expected, but I’m not going to inflict one on you. From a philosophical perspective, I would allege, all the dating systems are arbitrary, so why worry about them ? Enough to wish you all the best for the new year in accord with convention.
That said, I have to apologise for the non-appearance of Commensal 99 to schedule in November. Some of you have emailed me to query whether you’ve been disenfranchised. Well, no more than anyone else. The trouble was, contributions were down from normal, and most of my emotional and creative energy was being absorbed by my work. Also, as with all things, the fun has somewhat gone out of SIGSecShip & Commensal editorship - we’ve been going three years now, after all. So, enterprising new ideas from those willing to help implement them are welcome. In particular, we need someone to organise the Conference in May.
PDGList
It’s been an eventful few months for PDGList. There are now 32 members. We’ve had the occasional resignation, but I’ve managed to persuade most members to hang on in there. The list exploded into excessive life a couple of months ago, with people, it seemed to me, putting insufficient thought into their postings before pressing the "send" button. This was a valid objection of some people who departed the list, along the lines that philosophy doesn’t benefit from being pursued as a furious pace. In any case, 6 postings a day was too much to cope with given that they are supposed to be considered reflectively.
As, possibly, an over-reaction, I amended the list to "moderated"- in that I had the opportunity to review postings before they hit the rest of the readership - so that the sort of spontaneous comment that’s rattled off without any real consideration hit the waste-bin. The sort of thing that’s OK in a conversation, but leads to anarchy in a serious discussion. This had the unfortunate consequence, predicted by some, of the list declining into quiescence - about one posting per week. Anyway, I’ve now switched the list back to "unmoderated", so we’ll see how we go.
For your entertainment, I give my "list-killing" post - a good example of a rant, but containing some serious points.
I’ve decided to switch on the "moderated list" button temporarily. Consequently, any posts have to be approved by me before they hit the rest of you. Outrageous ? Well ….
Something bizarre seems to have happened to the list over the last few days. Until then, the majority of postings had been reasonably well thought out. Maybe the subjects have not always been to everyone’s taste, but there’s a way of getting the list to discuss "your" topic - raise it yourself in a creative, interesting or provocative way !
However, the volume has escalated recently and the quality has been execrable. Maybe we could argue about what quality is (along the lines of Persig’s ZatAoMM), but I think we would probably agree that items evidently rattled off in a matter of minutes (seconds, some of them) with no attempt at adopting standard grammar or spelling - nor attempting to be coherent & to look forward to the next couple of rounds of the argument - are just not up to scratch.
This is supposed to be a philosophical list. Posts are archived & should be worth referring back to. We are all (supposed to be) intelligent people whose time is valuable. I presume you each wish your posts to be read with attention. Any post - if read with the presumption that there is something in it worth reading - will take a minute to read. So, it only seems fair that you should take at least as long over a post as you demand collectively of your readers. There are 28 of us currently - so if your post took you less than half an hour to compose, don’t post it. The longer your post, the more time you will consume, so be brief. Think of opportunity costs - what list members might otherwise do with their valuable time.
In general life, Hi-Q types tend to assume that "our" time is more valuable than others’ (that’s why we turn up late to meetings). Whatever the dubious value of this approach, here we are all (supposed to be) peers, so we can’t carry on like this on PDGList.
So, some pedantic rules …
The purpose of the list is to enable people to discuss philosophical matters that they care about and have thought about for some time. Maybe they’ve got stuck and need help - in which case post the thoughts in a coherent manner up to the "then I got stuck" point. It is not for idle twaddle or for people to mouth off on any old whimsy.
Getting back to the "moderated list" theme with which I started, hopefully we’ll be able to return to normal shortly. In the interim, I intend to adopt the "angel of death" approach. I’m very busy and have neither time nor inclination to enter into correspondence with individuals on whether or why their postings aren’t up to scratch. If they (in my view) fall lamentably short, I’ll just delete them. If the author has made an effort, I’ll wave them through. The point is not whether I agree or not with the sentiments expressed in the posts, it’s whether they are expressed rigorously enough for it to be possible for an opinion (other than one of contempt) to be held.
In case any of you are still reading, with reference to point 6 above, please cover only one point (or thread) per post. Please also make the title of the post clear, and keep the thread title the same unless you’ve changed the subject. A list member has suggested we remove the automatic [PDGList] from the titles and have a standard title format of <subject> <author> <date>. I’m not sure I agree, but am open to persuasion. Any thoughts ?
Ending on a positive note, thanks for your enthusiasm - but the list has to be worth running. If you want to set up your own lists, and can persuade others to join, please do. Just don’t mess mine up.
A fair number of subjects have come up for discussion, and some appear reprised later in this issue of Commensal for the edification of a wider audience.
As a reminder, to join PDGList you need first of all to log on to http://www.onelist.com and sign up to Onelist. Then you need to apply to join PDGList itself. You can do this by initially doing a search on "pdglist" and then following instructions. Alternatively, and quicker (though you will thereby miss out on all the wonders of Onelist !), you can go directly to http://www.onelist.com/subscribe/pdglist - again, you will need to join Onelist first (it will prompt you). Either way, I then need to accept your application. Once accepted, whenever anyone posts anything to the list, you will automatically receive an emailed copy of the posting. To post something yourself, just email to pdglist@onelist.com and everyone on the list will receive a copy. Why not give it a go ?
So far the idea of pre-posting Commensal articles to PDGList doesn’t seem to have been that fruitful, with few comments received.
I haven’t got round to the web-site yet and it remains low priority for me. Any volunteers ?
Some Feedback from Nigel Perks
Nigel writes … "I've just read Alan Edmonds' excellent article "Notes on Philosophy of Science" (C98/20) and wanted to register my praise for it. The distinction of mathematical model and intuitive explanation, and the mention that the uniqueness of the speed of light is a requirement of earlier discoveries, shed some light in the darkness I feel when reading popular accounts of physics and relativity. I don't know if this is the kind of comment you like to include in Commensal, but I thought in the critical activity of philosophy a bit of praise would not go amiss. I certainly appreciated the favourable comments of Paul Cadman and Rick Street (and you) about my first piece."
Royal Institute of Philosophy Annual Lecture Series, 1999-2000
Philosophy at the New Millennium
Here’s another repeat of the notice for the series of weekly lectures given by the Royal Institute of Philosophy, omitting those that have already taken place. These are fairly small, informal gatherings attended by 100-odd people; they are well worth turning up for if you can - but do so early or you won’t get in ! Unfortunately, I’ve been so busy at work that I’ve not been able to drag myself away early enough on Friday evenings, so have missed them all so far.
Date (2000) |
Speaker / Topic |
14 January |
Ruth Garrett Millikan : Cutting Philosophy of Language Down to Size |
21 January |
David Cooper : Environment & Technology |
28 January |
Stewart Sutherland : Human Nature and Human Flourishing |
4 February |
John Haldane : Has Philosophy Made a Difference, and Can it be Expected to? |
11 February |
Anthony O’Hear : Prospects for Beauty |
18 February |
John Skorupski : Outlook for Ethics |
25 February |
Margaret Boden: Cognitive Science |
4 March |
Jerry Fodor : tba |
All Lectures to be given at 14 Gordon Square, London WC1 on Fridays at 5.45 pm. Admission is free
PDG Conference 2000
Talking of conferences, we ought to be thinking of the 2nd annual PDG Conference at Braziers Park, near Oxford. I believe the Mensa at Braziers group’s September conference on Globalisation was an interesting event, if relatively sparsely attended, and look forward to a write-up from Leslie Haddow or Jane Benn in due course.
As to our own next conference, in May 2000, I haven’t given it a thought yet. Any ideas for subjects to discuss, or papers to present. Should it be themed or should people have a free rein ? If anyone can think of an appropriate theme, please suggest one !
Assuming that, after this brief intermission, we can return to the normal schedule, I’ll give you until 15th February 2000 for contributions to what will be the March 2000 edition Commensal (C100).
Best wishes for the new millennium !
Theo