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
