Old Email Archive
Return to old archive list
log 3_1_95-3_27_95
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 1995 13:05:40 PST
Reply-To: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
Sender: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
From: Wayne Miller
Subject: Forwarded: request for submissions...
Hi,
I'm posting this for the editors. Please feel free to repost as
appropriate. I believe they're especially interested in graduate
student contributions at this time. Thanks -
Wayne
----------------------
CALL FOR PAPERS
Suitcase: A Journal of Transcultural Traffic invites individuals
working in any discipline to consider submitting material for
publication and electronic conferencing. Suitcase is heavily engaged
in trafficking ideas, images, and cultural artifacts across
(in)visible disciplinary, ideological, national, and international
borders. It provides a space for exchange and translation between
those working within institutions of knowledge and culture, and the
public, connecting people locally, nationally, and transglobally to
start conversations between different contexts and positions. It
urges the development and use of new, radical idioms that attempt to
dismantle some of the barricades that stand between theorists from
different disciplines, artists, activists, and the public. In
addition to academic papers, Suitcase publishes political
commentary, cultural analysis, translations, cartoons, pulp theory,
photographs, fiction, reportage, World Statistics, interviews,
travelogues, disaporic correspondences, meditations, and memoires,
an eclectic spectrum of texts, genres, and images that constitute an
increasingly transglobal cultural repertoire.
Suitcase is published biannually in old fashioned (but ecoesque) ink
and paper and is selectively available on the internet via the
WorldWideWeb where it holds forums and exhibits synopses of
submissions.
Email: Suitcase@humnet.ucla.edu
Listserv: To subscribe, send a message with "subscribe
suitcase-l" in the
body to maiser@humnet.ucla.edu; then use suitcase@humnet.ucla.edu for
correspondence.
WWW: http://www.humnet.ucla.edu/humnet/suitcase/suitcase.html
Tel:310.836.8855
Fax: 310.825.0655
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 1995 10:33:08 CST
Reply-To: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
Sender: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
From: "carr0023@gold.tc.umn.edu"
Subject: Fwd: Man and His Story (Human in Nature 1) public
counterpoint
___________________
|\ : . . ' : . /| Man, and His vantage have written the
|:\ ' : ' . .: / | History of the Humankind. Humankind is
| .\___________/: | to be equated from the summary Mankind.
|: |.: .: .' | ':|
| ;| ., .o/ ':| . | Man-as-Measure, then, has been the base
|' |____/|____|' .| of the Human question, throughout time.
|.:/.:'./|.: ';\: | The question of "What is-" is
reasoned,
|;/; '': .. ': ;\.| even in the present, from this History
|/_______________\| of Man, and shows bias towards HimSelf.
This bias is extended into today in the terms of this Man, and the
whole
of Humanity. Is it possible, through the thoughts and constructions of
Man, alone, to describe and detect the questions of all of Humanity?
I suggest to present a reasonable proof that a question posed in terms
of Man is limited, and limits the questions answer. This limit prefers
a bias towards Man, and in this, an assumption that has changed in time
from a Public view to a Private View, stands between Humanity in terms
of this private Man and public Human.
In this day it is no longer required to share the same Private Beliefs
to live on this planet Earth together. An example of this Declaration
is in the Freedom of Individual Rights that is supposed to allow those
different Private views of Man not to stand between the Public
Humanity.
"United We Stand-- Divided We Fall" is a remarkable test to
our Public.
The question is-- who are We? History would presuppose that We are
Man,
individual, and yet representing the vantage of Mankind in the greatest
of historical questioning. And Mankind should translate, as
represented,
for the Whole of Humankind, or Humanity. If it can safely be assumed
in
the default upon this bias of Man-as-the-measure of being the Public
View
of the Human question, then it can also be assumed that in this vantage
Mankind would be representative of the Public WE.
"United Mankind Stands-- Divided Men Fall" might summarize
what seems to
be the Historical approach to the question of Humanity in Nature, and
in
this the bias for Man-as-Measure. In the terms of Man, a Limit is
placed
upon the Individual Mind, a bias in the construction of Public
Knowledge,
which prefer Private Man, Man-as-Measure, over the Public Human
question.
This inequality, this bias of Man and Mankind has somewhat been
addressed
in its oppressive description of those private non-Man, and also incurs
a
limit on any ability to question the whole Human condition through this
semantic-Man. With some equality, non-Man can be understood as Woman,
and this vantage balances the historical and herstorical worlds of
view.
And possibly within the same reasoning of Mankind as History has
written,
Womankind, Herkind and Herstory also are as valid a perspective on the
Whole of Humanity, and yet the semantic limiter remains intact. Woman
neither will suffice as unbiased in the questioning and representing
the
Whole of Humanity. Neither Woman-as-measure, nor Man-as-measure will
be
sufficient in representing the entire Human Public. That is not to
mean
that they are invalid in their questioning, but that in reasoning for
the
Whole Human Public, the WE- all people, that it is improbable for
either
a he/she, male/female, man/woman to Stand as Primary before the
questions
of all Humanity, We Humans.
In effect, this His Story is the exact condition of which is
influencing
and preferring war instead of peace. That is to say that in the terms
of
Man, and Mankind, it is a preference and bias towards the individual
Man
as representer of the Whole of Humanity. It assumes, in terms of this
semantic-flaw, that Man-as-Measure stands as Man-Individual before
being
Human, and is in common with all of Humanity in questioning with
Private
Man viewing the Whole. As previously stated, this Private Bias prefers
to be seen as Public, Mankind representing Humanity, but Public Law has
changed this condition in terms of Human Equality, and in terms of
being
an Human Being with Individual Rights. Thus, in subtle ways, this view
of Man is somewhat being addressed in its oppressive Representation of
the Whole of Humanity. The Ideals of One Man may not be the Ideals of
another, and History reminds us of the Human Tragedies that Private Man
brings as representive of all of Humanity.
The past 30 years in the World have these Issues of Man and His biases
at the forefront of the Public Debate- and yet- still remain within the
semantic-limiter of Gender as Primary to the Whole perspective, thus
the
same His/Herstorical improbability exists in describing the Whole Human
Public within these terms. That is not to discount their value, but it
should not be assumed that these views Represent the whole of Humanity
in any way that will suffice to define or unite the entire Human
Public.
Considering the inequality that exists in the History written, and in
the
questions posed from within the context of Man alone, in philosophy, in
religion and science, it seems a construct such as Man-as-measure can
be
reasonably assumed, by law of civil, equal and fairness with
disability,
to never be able to equate with the whole of Humanity. History is
proof.
So the condition of semantic-limiter of Man is noted, and now its bias
has been attempted for reconstruction in terms that will suffice Public
Humanity. Of these descriptions, sometimes it is within the
definitions
of What is- Man, that attempt to encompass the non-Man. For some, this
condition may be an inherent state-of-translation-for-Man-as-measure in
asking and anwering questions. But for Man, in the terms of History, a
translation is not required- for He is Man, and He reads and writes for
Himself, for all Mankind possibly, and thus, for Humanity. This has
not
been just of Man questioning in History, rather Man being the
Perspective
for all Public questioning, the Whole of Humanity, throughout History.
In its definition, Man has been translation for Man and the unknown,
for
Man and Self, for Man and other Men, for Mankind, and even for
Humanity.
In Being a definition of Mankind, the whole Human quality, Humankind
can
find itself as a construct inside of Man. Kinds of Humans that are
Non-
Man can be added as this is a representation of the Whole of Humanity,
but in the terms of Man, this is dependent upon arbitrary
understandings
that are Historically rooted in Private and Individual bias toward Man,
Himself. Man, reading through the semantic-limit Man is not limited in
the equation of Mankind being the Human question, if and only if He is
the same as She. Today our Public Law defends this defintion of Man as
equal in meaning both man and woman, and this to protect the Public
Mind.
But this is an arbitrary definition for the Whole Human Public, both
Man
and Woman, this Man-as-measure of Humanity. Woman-as-measure also is
of
the same semantic-limit as is Man, and in terms of Woman there also is
no
concrete definition that can describe the Whole of the Human Public.
What is inherent in this semantic-limit of Gender is the improbability
of
sufficiently describing the common Human Public in gender perspective.
The problem with language is the limit imposed when asking and
answering
questions assumed to be the Public Human view when written in terms of
a
gender-limitation of Man, or of Woman.
To be sure, this is not to discount these Views for not being in terms
of
Human Beings as a Public, but that these gender-particular perspectives
will never completely suffice in describing the Whole Human Public, nor
should be assumed to be doing so as an End, for it is impossible.
It is impossible to describe Humanity in the terms of Man/Woman simply
because the limits would need to assume that there exists no difference
in gender between Man and Woman, that is, that they are the same thing.
In the terms of History this may be seen in the Rights of Man also
being
translated and defended as in the Rights of Woman. That is to say that
Man does not necessarily still obtain the role of representer of
Humanity
as a Whole, and that the Rights of the Public are the Rights of Man.
But
even this understanding is arbitrary and not necessarily understood by
everyone who is Man and non-Man. Better said, the Rights of Man are to
be the Rights of the Individual, every Individual Human.
In the case of Individual Human Rights, then, We the People should be
in
common equality with One another in the Public, in mind and in body.
Man
and Woman and other inherent inequalities in History should then be
able
to be seen in their limiting upon the common Human Question and
identity,
the Human Public. As Historical inequalities have limited the richness
of this Human Public, and through bias and private Man acting on behalf
of the Man of His Kind, grave injustices towards other non-Man and Man-
not-like-Him have attempted configuration of Humanity in the terms of a
Man of Private mind. This Historical Man finds greatness in His Story,
and translates His Will as the Private Will over all Mankind. Slaves-
of any kind, reside in this History, and are inherently supported by
the
gender-limit upon describing the Human Public in adequate terms, and of
an adequately Public Defintion, beyond both Man and Woman. The superior
Man and Mankind will never equate with the Whole of Humanity, and yet
it
is the default presupposition of our Human Story, written in the terms
of
History, that this condition will persist-- and in that, with an
inherent
preference for Man, as in the Rights of Man or Woman, to be representor
for all of Humanity. It is this condition, this gender-limitation,
that
attempts to show it based on another presupposition; that is, that this
vantage of Private Man, or Private Woman, describing and asking
questions
in the terms of the gender-limits are incapable of representation of
the
the common whole of the Human Public.
The views of Man or Woman are necessarily a part of the Human Public,
but
they are limited in their unbiased presentation of views in this
Public.
This is not in the terms of Individual Intention to presuppose that One
transcends all, but if the case is made in the terms of Man or Woman it
is improble to be sufficiently representative of the Whole Human
Public,
as WE have learned this with our History.
In the continuation of the Human Story it seems necessary to bridge
this
seemingly immense gap between Mankind and Womankind, and to address the
inequalities that pervade our logical defaults. These logical defaults
now exist in the terminology of "Difference".
As an example of the impossibility of finding a common Human Public in
"difference" as a virtue, Our Public would need be an entirely
Private
Construction. That would mean that the diversity of Private Humanity
would indicate the Value of the Whole of Humanity. And in this
History,
this is desired in the semantic-limits inherent in gender definition--
that is, that the Man in Mankind will never represent the entire Human
Public, all peoples, nor would the Woman in Womankind assume to be able
to represent the Whole of Humanity as the translation of History
proves.
In this way, the difference inherent in the gender-limitation is seen
as
a possible balancing of the semantic-limit of Man in History, and is
to,
in effect, balance the difference- make more common the vantages of Man
and Woman as being equal, and with reason as the case for Public Law,
and
Individual Rights of Equality, Common Law secured for the Human Public.
What is unique in this condition of finding a Common in the Difference
is the scale in which these are revealing themselves in the Public.
And,
also unique is this gender-limit has yet to transcend from the private
scale of Individual Rights to the Whole scale of Public Human Rights.
That is to say that it seems, in terms of unification of a Human
Public,
that Human Ideas are seen as being a part of special-interst-groups,
and
in this, playing a part in the Whole (assumed public but non-existent)-
which finds its Value in Difference, and in this, achieving the
balance.
Human-interest exists in many groups, but within limits of gender- or
of
ethical concerns of science and humanity being described through Man.
More specifically, that the limitations-imposed upon the ability to
find
and secure a Common Human Identity as being Public is not to be
achieved
in the gender-limitation language, as the language of Human difference.
And that this limitation will never, and can never achieve resolve in
any
definition that is common to those private Individuals with Human
Rights.
The impossibility exists because there is a Private arbitrary
limitation
and understanding upon the definition of the Whole system through a
more
particular system encountered through gender-definitions.
______________________________
If the presupposition of History is | The History of Man |
followed in that Man describes what | __________ |
was called Mankind, thus, Humanity | / \ |
and its condition as a Whole, and | | Humanity | |
non-Man is to be defined somewhere | \__________/ |
therein this vantage, the Human Public | |
is limited by the definition of Man. |____________________________|
If we can assume Human Beings, Ourselves, Man-as-measurement
as being previous to the gender-quality -----------------------
of any one Individual Human Being, then \o/
this definition of Man, assuming that it |
is a particular in the case of Humanity, __________/_\__________
will be seen as a specific vantage point | Man, non-Man, Woman,|
acting for the whole Human Public. |_Mankind,_Humanity___|
The same condition of Man as a semantic- Woman-as-measurement
limit upon a common Public Human view is -----------------------
repeated within the description of any \o/
one definition of Woman sufficient to be |
representative of all of Humanity, and as __________/_\__________
indadequate as an unbiased vantage point | Woman, non-woman,Man|
acting for the whole Human Public. |_Womankind,_Humanity_|
How can this condition, the semantic-limit of Man or Woman be
understood
in relation to the whole of Humanity? If WE cannot presuppose that the
solution will be found purely within the gender-difference itself, is
it
probable that neither of these will suffice in our finding something
that
is common to all of Humans?
-------------------------------------
| I am Human | It would seem the Human Being
| \o/ | would suffice to give
Humanity
| | | a equal Vantage in this
Public.
| / \
|_______________________________________
|:.............. ................:|:... Yet, Humanity exists within
the .:
__o/ \o__ gender-limit, itself a particular,
| | historically presupposed as being
/| |\ the derivative of Man, or Mankind,
male female translating into Human, Humankind.
If evidence is needed for the inadquate performance of whole
definitions
through gender-limits, one anomoly, fitting neither the description of
man or woman, male or female would be needed-- and to this
presupposition
would be invalidated, and the assumption of respresenting all of
Humanity
within gender itself proven limited. One such case is a Human Being
who
is neither male/female, or is of both definitions. As this is quite
obviously a redeeming quality in the case for a description of Humanity
not based on gender-difference, even with this difference We could find
a Common Human Public, and representation for all, Our Common Humanity.
-------------------------------------
| Man and His Story | But this is not the Value
given
| \o/ | to the Human in History,
instead
| | | this Public has been Man
alone,
| / \
|_______________________________________
|:.............. ................:|:... Yet, Humanity exists within
the .:
__o/ \o__ gender-limit, itself a particular,
| | historically presupposed as being
/| |\ the derivative of Man, or Mankind,
Man Not-Man translating into Human, Humankind.
Mankind Humanity
In this case, We now know that Humanity
is not limited by Man alone, and the Public Human has changed
accordingly.
Yet, with the gender-limit, this change is under the same presupposition
as
that of History, and Herstory is also describing a condition of
Humanity,
yet, a particular, not common to all Humanity in terms of any
definition.
Thus, the gender-limit of either History or Herstory is inadequate at
the
level needed to describe the common Human condition, and to direct Laws
to
ensure its Value. Yet, the gender-limit is unique in that its Value
does
not change from between genders. The gender itself is the value. In
the
Historical Vantage, Man was and continues to be the base upon
Measurement,
and at the base of the measure of Humanity itself, as history
conditions.
But this condition, This Man- by Law, is of no unique precept to assume
a
higher position than the non-Man. Hopefully this has been secured by
Law.
The Public is no longer dominated by the mind of Man and
Man-as-measure,
but now this Man assumes a correction regarding His Story and its
Biases.
The conclusive evidence that Man is not all Men, or Mankind, nor does
He
deserve privelage in this historical positioning in the present, this
makes
the Issue of Man as measurement a Private Mind of Man. This condition
is
encountered within the success of securing the Right of Woman to be of
no
Value less than Man, and this Public, existent within Common Human
Rights,
equalizes the imbalance within the Individual life of Woman, as being
less
than Man in the Whole.
Yet, in the righting of the imbalance the same condition persists with
the
semantic-limiter, and gender continues as an element of difference.
This
is not because of either gender-itself, but of the Value given to
Gender.
The Value of Equality hopefully secured by Law, protecting the
Individual
from the inherentance of Historical Bias and Inequality towards
non-Man,
is now in the definition of what WE believe Common in protecting for
the
equality of Humans of the Kind never defined by Man, Himself, nor
History.
That is to say, that within the battles for equality there is a
historical
semantic-limiter that will never achieve a common Human Understanding
for
the Whole, but rather the Part under the Whole. That the difference
that
exists between the Man-as-measurement and Woman-as-measurement is to say
at
the least entirely unresolvable in any context for the Whole of
Humanity.
Woman, being secured by Common Public Law, can now exist with the
Freedoms
as an Individual that should be free of History in that it should not
make
Her less than Him. Woman is equal and this is Publically recognized,
and
within the Rights of Individuals, Man or Woman, to be treated as
equals.
The Human Public describes that condition We share in simply being
Human.
In this, WE need be nothing more specific than the subject of Humanity.
------ Forwarded message ends here ------
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 1995 10:41:57 CST
Reply-To: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
Sender: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
From: "carr0023@gold.tc.umn.edu"
Subject: Fwd: Woman and Her Story (Human in Nature 2) public
counterpoint
This post regards the Whole Perspective of Man and its translation
directly into Private biased Viewpoints that Public Law now restricts.
As this view is the default of the semantic-limit, it will be attempted
to surpass this gender-association with whole-system views, and with
the
success or failure of others in the Public Mind, to reason with others
in the quality of discussion, a distinction between a private vantage-
with possible bias originating in an inequality based on gender, or of
an inherent limiting upon the coceiving of a common Public through this
Historical conditioning. This historical conditioning, then, is that
strange and fuzzy-logic which firstly defaults upon Private Views which
and assumes, through the vacancy of an Individuality based upon a
Public,
that One's Private Individual Views equate as Public Views for
Humanity.
It is reasonable to assume this condition is of Value for the Public in
that it seems there exists nothing in which We all share in common
except
possibly the relationship of being described objectively as existing in
and of the same nature of science as parts of this nature. These parts
of Humanity described in terms of Science, of Sociology and
Anthropology
are also within the semantic-limiter of gender-description, and nicely
fit into the evolutionary model of the Human Species as a social
animal.
In this description, as best can be achieved from the Historical
vantage,
Man and Woman, Male and Female, Mankind and Womankind mark certain
areas
of this state of mind. Humanity as a whole stands as a question within
Science, but within the worlds of Man and Woman, with the
gender-limiter.
Neatly enough, This Man or Woman, This History or Herstory are uniquely
consistent with scientific propositions of Darwin's being in nature. In
its Declarations of Value- of aims for Evolution of the Human race- and
Within the constructs of the gender-limiter in the Description of
Humans
in this Objective Nature of Science, the classical Modern
Understandings
of Science are biased within the same limits incurred with the gender.
Objective Scientific Thoughts and Ideas are written in the classical
way
of Man-as-Measure, and in doing so, are presupposing Man as a fair and
accurate justification for the Whole of Humanity. Written in terms of
Man, taught in terms of Man, for the Man of Science, Science incurs
bias
which it denies itself to be capable of in its investigations-- private
subjectivity. Private Subjectivity would be that of a
gender-perspective
assuming the best representator of the Whole of Humanity, and in doing
so
limits the ability to approach the Human in Nature, Objectively, that
it
is presupposed to do. Instead, this gender-limit of subjectivity
leads,
by Historical default, to the Individual Private Mind developed in the
beliefs that Men are not equal, previous to the liberation of these Men
and Women and others who do not fit the homogeny of Private Minded Man.
If the objective description and understanding of Science finds value
in
the consistency and development of this observation in progressive
detail
over time, then at the subjective understanding of this detail- it is
to
be assumed that this objective description is to be as numbers are in
the
quantification and description of behaviors and qualities. Numbers
being
genderless, it is assumed, as a symbol set not of number value but only
in being numbers. Thus, the human subjectivity and understanding of
the
objective numbers is Public in the sense that it is unbiased
information
in regards to numbers. Female Mathematicians and Male Mathematicians
may
work differently with the same objective numbers, but humanly
subjective
before being further categorized into the specific description of sex.
Is this true? It may be true in the sense that in all ways reasonable
it must firstly be within the Human Context, and the understanding of
the
same sets of numbers unbiasedly presented before a mathematicians mind
before individual birth, to consider that the Mathematician stands
before
numbers not as in a semantic-limiting of gender, but as a Human Being.
A test for this being true, besides consulting with a mathematician on
the Objective Nature of Mathematics and its subjectivity as being
within
gender descriptions only in a severly limiting and destructive way,
would
be the realm of these mathematics in describing the Human Condition.
As
it seems, the actual influence of non-genderized mathematics as a
ground
for the Sciences as a whole in this mathematical condition- is that
this
test for Human Subjectivity before Gender-limitation occurs-- indeed,
it
is not true that the Human Subject, as Humanity, exists within the
realm
of the mathematical sciences _without_ this gender-limitation; this
same
His Story assuming to represent the whole of the Human Public, which by
Public Law has proven insufficient and dangerous to our own Humanity.
Science, with supporting objective evidence of theories of
capitulation,
renders Humanity within the limiting-gender semantic-flaw of Man alone.
Is this a fair statement? In its being broad, and as Science is study
of a Public common construct- freeing the Human Mind to explore Nature,
including Humanity as part of this Nature, and in the terms of numbers,
and supporting evidence, to prepare and persuade objective truths with
repetitive objective experiments of verification-- this measurement of
Humanity remains within the bias construction of man-as-measure, biased
to a degree that denies that a specificity exists before the privatized
actions of gender, in the survival-for-the-fittest, for success in the
evolution of the private human-animal, Man, Woman, in competition with
one another because of the uncommonness, and with a presupposition that
the classical superiority of Man- being a description of man and woman,
is a sufficient description of the Whole of Humanity. It is not the
case that this is an intentional bias of any One Individual of Public
Mind, but also is not to assume the gender-limit as being capable of a
sufficient, nor unbiased viewpoint for the Human Subject in the realm
of
objective Science, with such designs in Science and Technology that now
bring these questions as primary to making Human Reason the
Subjectivity
of the Public Mind and Intention in these and future Affairs of
Humanity.
For example of the Gender-influence, and the default to Private Man or
Woman, to competition, to presumptions of Evolution as being more than
a Private Endeavor transcending this Gender-limit, and to defaulting of
the presupposition that Science is inherently a Public endeavor within
the descripition of "Science for all Mankind", this is to
presuppose an
inadequate and dangerous description surrounding the questions of this
Nature, a severe gender-limitation upon achieving the unity, and the
whole Human Perspective within this Objective Nature of Science, and in
this way, as History has been seen as being unjust in these terms, and
Public Law and Individual Human Rights have been ennacted to Change
this
imbalance between those not sufficiently represented in the
descriptions
of Man, so too must Science realize that in the terminology of Man, or
in
the terms of Gender and its limitations- it is a practice of Private
Man,
in the Inequality of History, and is acting beyond the realm of Common
Human Public Law in its assuming a Subjective Man is representative of
the isolated and oppressed Private Individual who competes in this
Nature
to survive without anything in common with Humans as a whole. Mankind
is
used to describe this Whole condition, rarely Humankind- Humanity
itself
may even be a conceit in this Private-Man Nature of Competition of
Public
Ideas. For example, if the presupposition of Science is to be noticed
in
its presupposition of description of Humanity in terms of Private-Man,
the Public Mind need think no further than the condition of the Digital
Identification Card, and its terms for Humanity. This cards
information
will be fused of both your Individual Public and Private Histories,
your
Individual Triumphs and Failures, and you will be Judged, Privately and
Publically upon the Value of the Information, be it numbers, magically
existent in the Objective Nature of this Identification Card. This
Will
be Your Representation in terms of Numbers, your Human Subjectivity in
the Realm of Objective Science and its Values, those being of
biological
origin and evolution, and of Technological Values of System, Order and
Control. You, as a Human Individual will be judged, both by Private
Mind
and Public Mind, based upon the Laws that Stand, of your Public and
your
Individual Private Value as interpreted to the Whole of Humanity.
The major point of this description of this judgement of your
Individual
Humanity is that this judgement is limited in the terms of gender,
still
of Man or Woman, alone, as an object which presupposes that gender is
the
most common element between humans, polar opposites in theory but not
in
objective fact or truth. This bias threatens the entire realm of Human
action in that it makes the Public Mind compete with the Private Mind
in
the future development of Science. The Public Mind would exist in the
terms of Humanity, I AM A HUMAN BEING before my GENDER-specification--
and that OUR PUBLIC COMMON LAW, AND THE INDIVIDUAL HUMAN RIGHTS PROTECT
AGAINST THIS PRIVATE OWNERSHIP OF THE HUMAN PUBLIC BY GENDER
DESCRIPTION,
THAT IS, INEQUALITY BASED UPON AN INDIVIDUALS GENDER, SUCH AS MAN BEING
SUPERIOR TO WOMAN- AND WOMAN BEING SECONDARY TO PRIVATE MAN'S VANTAGE.
THE DATE CARD, by default, unless this Public Issue can be Reasoned
with
the Official Representatives of this Public Constituency- Humanity,
WILL
ASSUME EACH INDIVIDUAL IN TERMS OF GENDER, BECAUSE SCIENCE IS WITHIN
THE
SUBJECTIVE DEFINITIONS, the classical History of Private Man, BASED
UPON
THE SEMANTIC-LIMITING OF MANKIND- WHICH PRESUPPOSES EQUAL
REPRESENTATION
FOR ALL OF HUMANITY- NOT IN TERMS OF BEING A HUMAN PUBLIC UNITED AS
ONE,
BUT AS BEING A MAN OR A WOMAN, A SHEEP OR A DOG, An X-Type or a Y-Type,
WITHIN BOTH THE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE REALMS OF INFORMATION OF BOTH YOUR
OWN
INDIVIDUAL PRIVATE HUMAN VALUE DESCRIPTION AND IN YOUR PUBLIC
INDIVIDUAL
VALUE ENCOMPASSED WITHIN THE LIMITATION OF GENDER-LIMITS FOR THE WHOLE
COMPOSITION OF YOUR LIFES VALUE-- THUS, ENTIRELY PRIVATE, SINCE IT IS
AN
IMPOSSIBILITY TO DESCRIBE THE WHOLE OF HUMANITY THROUGH limited-GENDER.
The Semantic-limiter of Gender will divide and isolate every Individual
HUMAN BEING based upon a historical assumption that is proven
PUBLICALLY
unacceptable AS THE BETRAYEL OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS BY PRIVATE
INEQUALITIES
OF MAN as Representer of Mankind-- presupposing HIMSELF A PUBLIC MIND
OF
OF ALL OF HUMANITY. PRIVATE GENDER will succeed in Securing the Fate
of
the PRESUPPOSITION OF EVOLUTION, BEING A PRIVATE ENDEAVOR OF MANKIND---
by default, MANKIND AS MAN, AS MAN AS INDIVIDUAL, AS MAN or WOMAN, AND
IN COMPETITION TO SURVIVE, WITH EQUAL RIGHTS TO PURSUE THE EVOLUTION OF
THE PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL SELF-- Which is PRESUMED the EVOLUTION OF
HUMANITY
AND THE MEASURE OF THIS PRIVATE-GENDER AS THE EQUIVALENT TO THE WHOLE
OF
THE HUMAN PROGRESS, PRIVATE, AND AS A RESULT, THE WHOLE OF THE
EVOLUTION
OF THE PRIVATE HUMAN SPECIES, ASSUMED PUBLIC EVOLUTION FOR THE WHOLE.
THIS FITNESS TEST OF THE PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL IS PRESENTED EVERDAY IN THE
OBJECTIVE NATURE OF THE TELEVISION NEWS, WITH BOTH ITS MATHEMATICAL
BASE
AND ITS FEEDBACK MECHANISM OF PRIVATE REPRESENTATION THROUGH SUCCESS OF
THE SAME SCIENCE AND SAME EVOLUTIONARY ETHIC BASED UPON THIS INEQUALITY
IN DESCRIBING SCIENCE-- IN ITS FIRST QUESTIONS- BEYOND THE TERMS OF ANY
ONE HUMAN INDIVIDUAL, BUT IN THE TERMS OF SPECIFICITY AND PRIVATE MIND.
THE HUMAN PUBLIC EXISTS WITHIN THE PRIVATE DESCRIPTIONS OF MANKIND
WITHIN
SCIENCE AND ITS MATHEMATICS OF COMPETITION BETWEEN PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS,
AND WITHOUT ANY PUBLIC RESPONSIBILITY BEYOND THE PRIVATE ISOLATED Self.
:Please Forward the Individual Human Public Will to Check and Balance:
------ Forwarded message ends here ------
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 1995 12:55:50 -0500
Reply-To: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
Sender: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
From: HUMAMATO@MINNA.ACC.IIT.EDU
Subject: Re: Fwd: Man and His Story (Human in Nature 1) public
counterpoint
To all subscribers: Once again I'd like to remind folks NOT to post
such
lengthy material to the entire list... It seems to me that treatises
are
better handled on a "per request, direct to individual
subscriber" basis,
unless of course there is a *raging* discussion in which it is
generally
agreed that everybody wants/needs to read such an item...
Joe Amato
Listowner
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 1995 15:07:00 +0800
Reply-To: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
Sender: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
From: 91A16811671F <91A16811671F@AM.NIE.AC.SG>
Subject: Keats
I am presently looking into some of the poems written by John Keats.
I need to refer to some of his ideas concerning his works.
Does anyone know of any references which i can find some of his
letters?
Victor
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 1995 07:52:53 -0500
Reply-To: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
Sender: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
From: Johanna Smith
Subject: Re: Keats
In-Reply-To: from "91A16811671F" at Mar 3, 95 03:07:00 pm
There's an edition of Keats's letters edited by Jack Stillinger. You
might also look at Hermione de Almeida's book on Keats and medicine.
Johanna M. Smith
smith@polar.bowdoin.edu
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 5 Mar 1995 09:00:40 +0100
Reply-To: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
Sender: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
From: Name withheld by request
Organization: Replay and Company UnLimited.
>And I ask, "Of what value is a public idea without a
public?"
i like your question-answers. this answer-question, there is no
public-
seems to be the default belief among persons. what is public? it
seems
that this usually translates to one's private beliefs, and often in the
opposition with other views. competition of private views seems to be
the public realm today- where private views are being the driving force
in policies, etc- and the concern is that these do not translate in any
way to the public as a whole, but rather to the survival-of-the-fittest
in these private minds. thus, if a radical private-viewed group has
the
capital to advertise their private views as public- this is Our choice,
but it is limited to working with the whole of the Human Public through
their definition- say of specific values and morals- and whatever might
become the inquisition- say of a specific group being wrong- then the
group, for its survival, exists on a public level to defend its rights-
or vanish in extinction from the private-majority whole system.; this
is why it seems important regarding the whole system in terms of Man.
Man is insufficient in defining the whole system, and yet continues to
be the jargon and understanding used. Man, gender, in the USA is a
Private Man. And this semantic fits nicely into the current model of
public government- where the public attempts to work through this
Private
Man. As there is no other whole system option, besides realizing this
as being impossible and a biased and unequal and Private future for the
whole of the Human Public, it seems this must change for whole system
action. What i find unique about this private Man is how well the
model
of competition is to seem- how ideal an ecosystem of Man and Man, etc,
alone, as individuals- to go up or down in the eco/soc/pol system, and
the winners win- (few); and the losers support the pyramid of the
winners.
All these winners are Private semantic-Man, and all these losers are
the
whole of the Human Public. So that, with this evolutionary model, this
Man fits perfectly into Darwin's Man Model, and yet the Human Public
does
not exist anywhere within this Private Man's system, nor Responsibility
for the whole, in terms larger than Man. Private Man may be the same
as
the Environmental Fascist- Private Man long term knows the system needs
to be stabilized, and yet in the competition to do this- might go
beyond
HUMAN rights to do this- In the name of Man. All in competition, and
if
this env-action is denied, this Private Man can say his private Public
service is being blocked by Private Interests against the Public Good.
Thing is, this Man has no public in the whole- but defines the Public
and
its Value for the Whole. If this is defined in terms of HIMself, then
this is the mirror-model for the rest, and in many cases limits, and
even
causes extinction and homogenization of the diversity of the Public
Mind.
Man is a Private Closed-System, no need for Input, no possibility for
this
in the larger Human Context of being alive, and different from this One
Man-idea. So, as a Public, one must work within the Private Defintions
and values for Public Action-- take what you are given. Problem is
that
You are given less and less, and Man's Private limits become oppressive
and a Private Authority over the Freedom of Choice- of Public Values--
such as Human Values- and instead remain in secular contexts from which
the whole is meant to act. The Whole is Private, Private Man
representing
the Public of Humans. In this, they have no requirement, nor any
possible
way of effectively addressign the larger Human concerns that exist
between
Man of differences. Competiton of Man can turn into Cooperation of
Human.
But this common Public seems to come second, somehow _after_ the
Private
Man's judgement- competition, survival-of-fitness, morality. Thus,
there
seems a condition which is of Human disrespect, of inequality and bias
that prefers this Private Man, and His Views and Story, to represent
the
miniature Private Public it has its own individual interest in-- that
is,
itself, and others like Him, Man. Success. A test of this bias is the
treatment of race/gender/disability, and it seems that often before one
can consider one an equal as a Human being- a private Judgement is made
regarding this success/failure in terms of this Man and His private
views.
a person is in a wheelchair residing by a doorway on a busy urban
sidewalk
and a successful Man-type comes up, gives a grin, and talks from above
as
a superior breed of Man, not-handicap, and relates to this human in
chair
firstly as Man- attempting human. the distinction is slight- but a
dis-
respect regarding the fitness of this (judged as private Man) human
being
is an immediate psychological bias, and it- in terms of evolution mind-
has a superiority flavor that is absolutely sick. a handicap person
may
even be a disease to this Man, who exists independent of the whole, the
rest- not in terms of himself and his truly private feelings of
equality,
but institutionally. this Man-individual (private competition) is the
Institutional Ideology of Man that is taught world-over. And its view
is
that of Man first- and Human second. This social stigma, well, it
seems
this is a major condition of the isolation between people-- and even in
the philosophys entertained between the Private Public minds--- such as
ideas of deconstruction or chaos, often rule supreme over any equality
or
balance between Private Man and the Public Human. The Public Human as
being Primary- that is, considering and respecting eachother on the
terms
of being a Human in Nature- before -making a personal judgement
(private)
regarding individual differences amongst the whole of this Public, is,
it
seems, a fundamental and absolute necessity to reviving the Human
Public.
People, all people have this Public in mind, but the Private View, of
which I also consider a Darwin-Man (i am Private a biological-etc.),
seems
to be the FIRST JUDGEMENT, and UNequal in terms of the whole Human
Public.
If the Public View-- We are Human beings and accept the equality of
this,
were to come FIRST- AS FAIRNESS, and as Unbiased in JUDGEMENT, Respect,
Then it would seem a much more beautiful world- a community rather than
a
a concentration camp for non-Darwin's who are this Public Mind.
Private
Authority exists in every mind, or so it seems, Before the Fairness of
a
Equality of being Human. As a Pre-Judgement based on the assumption
that
the Private View (self) is the Public (self)- which is possible only if
the Prejudgement is of equality of the Whole System, and not Private
Man
above the Unfit like Him. The extinction rate is the Extinction of the
Common Mind, the one that holds Humanity and this common above Private-
and this Public Idea is in competition with the fittest Private Man.
What
is Unique is that The Private Man no longer wants to Compete, no Longer
is Inside the Private Self with His Mind and His Story. He is naked.
And
Yet, He cannot Act, within the realm of his Private Man, Public, in any
effective Way to Let this Common Human Public thinking make way in the
competitive Model of Individual Private Man. Or so it seems, by My
Story.
That Limit in Private Man is the reason there is NO Public. The Human
Public, as a whole Idea of being Human together, cannot fit within the
Model of Private Man and His Beliefs. His Private Authority exists in
a
realm of Man competition Man. If He practices Fitness in terms of the
Self- and firstly- Equality only on the terms of being like Himself,
Man,
Private and Individual- He is alone- Independent of any one unlike Him-
Self- alone in the Universe with his Private Morality- to then Survive.
The Private Survival is meant to equate with the Public survival, and
yet there is no Public. This is because Man limits the understanding
of
being Human, and in this similar and equal, as a Public- within the
Self.
The Public does not exist because Man stands before Human
understanding.
The Private Man stands before the Public Human. The Private Man
defines
the realm of Public Action, and in His likeness, decides what is Right
and what is Wrong- relative to the Private Individual Self, in
isolation.
If there is no Public- If it were truly not to Exist within Private
Man,
then this would assume that WE, as Human Beings, have nothing in
Common.
We do not exist. We is an assumption on the largest scale of assuming
His Story to be not fully Our Story, We the People. We would be to
assume
Man not the Measure for the Whole of Humanity in nature, and by Law an
unjust One for this Private Value representing the entirety of the
Public.
We would be to assume We, as Human Beings, can work for each other for
mutual benefits, Man presupposes Private Competition in the Survival of
the Fittest Man to be the Value, the Success, for the Whole of
Humanity.
The Private Success, at the top- this Man and His Story, to be our
Public
Benefit- Our Achievement as a Human Public. This is Private Man and
His
Achievement- and His Responsibility to the Public is within His own
Self.
If this Self is entirely Private, and assumed to equate to Public good,
this Man's Service, this Private Man's Service is to Be Himself, as an
Individual- Competing- In the Name of the Public Service, Mankind- some
of Us, within the pattern of survival achieved by Man in His Likeness.
Public Responsibility, for the whole of Humanity, is within the Limits
of
whatever this Private Self can figure for the Entire Human Public, and
then-- This is OUR Direction- As a Human Private Man's Public View.
The
Private Man is the Steers the Public Mind within His Private limits-
Man,
Private Man acts as Governer to the Private Mind of the Human Public.
The Human Public exists within Private Man. Or so the Law has
described.
Private Man can choose to believe in the Values of Science, as the
Values
of all of Humanity underneath His Kingdom and His Rule. The
Biological,
the Evolutionary, the presupposition of man-as-animal, the Ethic of the
Mind of Science- the Values of Technology- and the Machine- System,
Order,
and Control, and He determines the Path for the Whole of the Human
Public.
His Value is Scientific, His Mind assumes Private Superiority over the
Whole of the trained Apes to surely be swayed in his Private Mind's
Eye--
He assumes Private Authority in the name of Man- Private Man- above and
beyond any definition in this Man for Public Responsibilty- or as Human
respect and equality, but Firstly is the Private Judge- of what He
SEES.
He sees Him Self, His Story, Man and Mankind alike. He has no way to
be
beyond Him Self- for the whole- for there exists no whole- Public,
Human
understanding. Man is assumed Human, and yet Has no way or
responsibility
for this in the terms of Man- Private. Private Darwin might believe it
so
that Ecology is the End for Human Goodness, in the terms of Man. Yet,
it
will carried out in the terms of Man, win or lose in the fitness-test,
and
the Strongest Private Man, and His Kind, and His Story, will represent
the
Whole of the Human Public for the rest, and until the End of His Story.
As there is no Public- And the Public that there is Is the Enemy of the
Private Man, it is a question as to whether This Injustice to All
Humans
can be Reasoned with the Private Mind of Man. Education has Proved
this
an Unfit Assumption. The Public is assumed to exist by end result from
the University's Mind. What Results in Man determining what Action can
be Publically Achieved is Semantic-Man, or arbitrary and Private
Intent.
The Public Has No Place in the University of Today- Instead, Man of His
Story becomes the Man of Our Public Story- and Private Man teaching and
Preaching the Word, the Belief in His Story as Our Story-- And His
limits
are Our Limits- in the description and questioning of our Human Selfs.
Thus, this Private Fitness Test Of Similarity to the Successful Model
Man,
becomes the Model for all of Humanity- with Private Authority- this His
Story is curated and Policed by The Private Cultural Man whose Values
are
the Values of this Man He Believes to be like Him Self, Private. (1)
------ Forwarded message ends here ------
------ Forwarded message ends here ------
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 5 Mar 1995 09:03:18 +0100
Reply-To: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
Sender: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
From: Name withheld by request
Organization: Replay and Company UnLimited.
>And I ask, "Of what value is a public idea without a
public?" ...
Every One has Public and Private Mind. But there exists no Public
Mind.
It must only be a dream that We are similar as a Man and a Man. Because
No One Man is Like Me, I Man. No Man knows what I know. No Man will
defeat Me, and My Success. I am an Individual Man. And I am Private.
I am Individual Man, and I define What is the similarity between Us. We
are Only Different- No One Individual is Like MY Self, in His STory.
> but Man- I ask; are you not a human before you are a man? are you
not in
Union with others Human?
- we are only animals, Man and Man alike- Evolution and Mankind, you
stupid
ape. we are totally different. we do not think alike. we are
animals.
we behave with those higher up, and we compete to survive in the chain.
> but Man, when did you decide yourself an animal-alone?
- evolution itself has been proven by science, by Man of Science, that
we
are no different from the rest- we are entirely unique to ourselves.
you
assume yourself a human, but you are only a man, an evolved species
man.
> but Man, human objectivity is not based on the bias of being man.
it is
the seperation of man's subjectivity- so that it is human
understanding.
any human of science should be equal within sciences unbiased
description.
- but the Man of science does not believe this. the man of science is
only
an animal, and he describes himself- believes His Story this way, as
man.
> Man do you think yourself a man- and this is who you are? do you
believe
yourself a human being before you are a man in this evolutionary piece?
Man, i cannot judge you as a man- else i would believe you are only an
animal- and unfit for reasoning with. you need no one except yourself.
you need only survive, and this is the value you give to the evolution.
if you misbehave, Man, you make enemy's of other men, and you will pay.
you live only to succeed for yourself, man. you have no other self.
you
are independent of the whole, only in that you are before the whole as
nothing important beyond yourself. your worth is in your success as
Man.
- yes, and my evolution.
> Man's evolution?
- yes, and the whole of the Human race, Mankind. Into Space!
> Human, i can only reason this.. In the course of His Story, is it
not of
our knowledge of truth in events that in the last few hundred years the
Man known as Darwin provided objective evidence in the Terms of Man, to
define the concept of evolution in this nature?
- yes
> And assuming this as an unbiased looking at the whole question of
humanity
withing this objective world - do you believe Darwin differentiated His
Story in terms of the whole of the Human System? Or the system of Man?
- i do not know
> Did Darwin and His Followers of Mind understand themselves before
Science
and its unbiased objective observation as being Humans? I assume this.
Science would not be science if observation were only based on this
Man.
But When Darwin saw the unfiltered Evidence through His Keen Human
Sense,
did He Understand this Sense in terms of Humanity- Did Darwin Write the
Story of Evolution, or whoever it may Be in detail, In the Terms of Him
Self, and His Story, as a Private Man, as a Part of the Competition by
an
Assumption of Man and Nature- in the semantic-limit of Man did He
describe
the whole of Humanity - and how He understands the His Story to Be- in
the
terms of this Man-in-His-Story, and this Man-as-measure for the Whole?
that indeed there is no Man like Himself in His Story- But only as One
in
the competition and evolution amongst Man? Did Darwin Describe the
Whole
of Human Nature in the limited terms- the bias of Being a Man- of being
a
Man in Science before being a Human Being, in Common as a whole Public?
- why do you ask me this? why does it matter? you can't change His
Story.
He is Our Story. His Story-- don't You get it? Don't you understand
His
Story? You must agree- you have no authority to question Science.
> But if Science was a practice in biases terms, and assumes
definition for
the objective whole of humanity in terms of private man-- then do we
not
have some stake in realizing that Man does not describe the whole
firstly,
in the objective nature of science, but rather that within HIS STORY
We
have understood Ourselves as being Human Beings, with ideals, with
common
union amongst us, is this not the same story as Man being more than
Man?
Is not the story of antiscience the recognition that Man does not stand
alone in the unknown? But that He stands, in His Story, with Other
Man,
with Non-Man, Mankind, and ultimately this Man and His Bias are
released
into an equal and common description of Humanity, the whole fo the
Human
Public, in this Unknown future? It is Humanity- is it not- that Stands
As One before the Description of Science-- and not Man alone- is it
not?
- that is your opinion. i do not need to believe you, i need only
myself
and my beliefs to survive. i am Man and i choose my direction to
survive.
yours is an improbable option, but it is only yours. you are not more
than me as a Man. you do not have the authority to make me believe
what
you believe. i doubt you in the fitness of your thoughts and ideas.
> Human, i do not believe this is an issue between you and me, nor
does this
seem to be an issue of private understanding. this is an issue that
can
and should be reasonable to question- each of us, humans, and yet it
seems
that you, Man, do not yet believe yourself a Human before you are a
Man.
- i am a human, of course. do not insult me with your egotism.
> i do not mean to challenge your integrity as an individual man with
your
private view of what is known and unknown, but i am trying to reason
with
you, as a human being, that it seems your Man-ideas precede your Human
ideas, and in this way are limiting our relation to each others as
equals
in this uknown.
- i have my known. it is my private good.orderly.deeds that i believe
in.
> goodness in terms of yourself, as a Man, or as a Human and equal
with the
rest as Human beings? i may not believe in your good.orderly.device,
but
We have law, as Public law, to ensure this does not make us any less
equal
in being a Man in this History. It has not always been so though. In
the
past, a Man's belief was equated for the beliefs of the whole, and what
He
believed was good.orderly.device was to equate for all Humanity. Know
We
know- by Public Law- that indeed this Man is no greater than non-Man
nor
does he need to stand before others as a Public, as a Man, for it is
this
bias which has caused Man to believe Him Self, His Private Story, for
the
whole of His Kind, Man Kind, and woman has fought, and race has fought,
and different cultures have fought, and those with disabilities have
also-
to secure their equality inside the bias of this Man, and His World
Story.
Thus, in the terms of Man- Now WE Know, as is the Public Law- that Man
is
not to be Public in His Authority nor Beliefs, as a Man, but that this
Man
and History are biased in terms of Him Self, and these Are Private
Limits
which should Be Imposed on No One because they are not Like Him, His
Self.
A woman is equal to a Man, and she has her rights to be a woman, and
now
that this is Secured in the Laws of Equality inside this limited Man,
the
Woman is an Equal, and Her Story is also allowed to be Private, nor
should
Her Limits stand before others in their freedoms. Racial Man and
Ethic,
and Man of Disability is not this- but of Equality of these in terms
not
of Man- but beyond Man, more than Man can describe. These are Freedoms
of
the Individual, to be and choose what they want to be, and this Man by
Law
no longer Stands as Authority over their Minds and Bodies, for it has
been
proven injust and inequal in the Law. If you are firstly to be a Man,
sir
then I suggest this is your Private Understanding, and as it appears,
you
choose yourself as a Man before yourself as being a Human being.
- as a Man i am a human being, i am a man living in history, and this is
my
life, my evolution, and my choice to be this way.
> I do not disagree with you Sir, but I suggest within reason that
this Man
you believe yourself to be is your Private Viewpoint, as is His Story,
and
this presupposes equality of the whole through injustice and bias
towards
those not like Your Self. So, as Humans before Us, We have Public Law
and
this allows your Private Man not to stand before our Human Reasoning.
And
In that, We are equals to the Human Story, and We can understand this
as
becoming before our individual Private Views- if We are to be Fair to
each
other. That means that We as Human Beings are alike and equal in the
fact
of our Individual Rights in His Story, and if Man should stand before
Our
belief in Being Human Beings, it is His Private understanding, His
Story.
- yes, but this is only your opinion on this matter. it is independent
of
myself, for there is no nothing described beyond the terms of Man, and
it
is improbable that this will change. Thus, to succeed, to live as
being
a human being- one is best to consider themselves a Man in competition,
it is idealistic to think your view is anything more than my view. We
are
equal you say, as humans, and yet you are my competition today. If i
were
to agree with your reasoning, i would admit myself biased in terms of
my
self- the one me that is surviving in this system of evolution- and if
I
disregard my condition, i lose my ability to survive in this system.
> agreed, the values of survival-for-the-fittest are in the terms of
Man,
and this i hoped to reason was the limit of Man to describe Himself as
a
Human being before Man- if only because the Law defends against this
Man,
for His Views and His Story are Private and not to equate to the
Public.
I am only asking, by the Law of Fair and Equal Treatment, to be treated
adn to treat others as Human Beings, and to value them in this way,
before
Considering or Judging them in terms of being Man or not-Man. This
because
this judgement is a Private Judgment of Man, and is against My
Individual
Rights for these Private Values and Beliefs, such as Darwin's Man, to
be
My values. I do not require this Judgement, and am protected against
this
by Law- and in my Freedoms as an Individual, in both Mind and Body.
- This is an interesting perspective, and yet I cannot agree that I have
in
any way Infringed, as a Man, upon your beliefs, nor have I limited your
freedoms to speak or feel- as you suggest I have. I think, as a human
being that it is within the Machinery itself- within the institutions
of
economics, politics and society that this same issue exists- so please,
If
I may, do not suppose I am to blame for this-
> No, indeed it is not the Individuals Fault, but in the same way,
this may
be a severe case of institutional and individual infringement upon the
Individual Rights and Freedoms of Any Individual who does not consider
themselves being a Man, and this Private Value, before considering the
Value of Being a Human, and within the Justice of the Law, and its
safety.
Thus, if Evolutionary thinking is to be the Thinking of Man- it is
unjust
in this way- as a bias of Man, inequality proven by Law, and unfit in
the
service and value of the Human Public. This Evolutionary thinking of
Man
is a Private endevour in that it limits- through Man- any description
of
the Rest of Humanity who are not the Man, His Kind in His Story,
Mankind.
If this view were proposed as the Highest Viewpoint of Human Thought,
in
the terms of Man- it limits the Freedom of Mind and Body of any one who
considers themselves a Human Being before the individual Man of
Science.
- You are only an individual Man though. there still exists no Public
in
which to share these ideas, and to change these into terms of Humanity.
> exactly, but as a Man I have the Right to Consider myself a Human
First.
And this is Public. If We are equals as Humans, in terms of being
Human,
no more or no less, but We expect equality and to be treated fairly
with
these terms- then anyone who presupposes my Individual Self as firstly
being an animal, or an biological etcetera- firstly, and in terms of
Man-
then This is a Private View, necessity of His Story, and His Man kind,
and in this way- My Human View, My right to Speak as a Human Being, is
Being Limited by thsi Private Man's Private Beliefs about Him Self and
His
Story, Man Kind, and He is doing a disservice to the Whole of Humanity
in
presupposing a belief in Him Self, and His Private Understanding, as
being
Public- as being fair and unbiased- and He Will Fight For His
Individual
Rights to think this Way- He is in the Least Intimidated by any One Man
less than Him Self, and His Story. His Freedoms, and His Judgement Act
as One. His Beliefs in Man and His Story are the Right Beliefs. And
to
question the Integrity of His Story is to question His Private Self. He
is only in the Position to Win or Lose. The Fitness Required for the
Self
in the Institutions is that of being a Human in Science, of System,
Order,
and Control- and Yet- this Man is Private in his Understanding of His
Own
Individual Humanity in the Private Words of Man, and His Story.
Humanity
is in the Tragedy- In the Loss. Will this Man be at War with the other
Man? Will the Private Man be at war with the Public Human- Their
Self?
What can the Human who is Man do within the System, and what can the
Man
who is Human do within the system-- for their equal value in being
Human,
if this Human Action is only done in terms of Man, Private and Limited?
- well, you are my student, and I must confess I cannot believe that I
can
right this wrong in terms of Man- it is beyond my individual self
> Yes, and this is the Idea of the common, the public, in being a
human.
- and it is a rather desparate condition between Us humans, for I am
your
authority, I am your teacher- your action is dependent upon My
abilities
and upon my understanding. I must confess that I do not understand
what
can be changed, but i do think, with the improbable actions of the
system
to be in order and controlled, that this should be -- what you say--
Public Rights before Private Values? and this seems to me rather
abstract
but within reasoning of those who might find this condition in the way
of
their own Individual Rights to Freedom of Mind and Body. And within
the
condition that the Human is the Measure for this Fairness, and not the
Private Man- that more will voice their public minds and present
evidence
which proves beyond a reasonable doubt that this case is closed for
all.
that indeed, Man is a Private Human, and Human is a Public Man. Yes, it
seems Fair Enough- but this will cause all the instititutions to Fall
because of their Inequalities towards all- the Public. This should not
be a war against eachother-- there should be no competition in this
matter
for it would destroy everything. The Private should not compete with
the
Public-- for look what has happened-- look around you-- everything is
of
Private Man-- it is mostly His World- except for those who declare this
not so.. but the majority of Mind are of Man's Mind and this Being
Private
seems that We will be Warring against the Man- when in fact it would be
to
lose the valuable resources of this Human Public that exists within
choice
in each individual. Certainly this cannot be the only Human Action in
this system. Physical Action of Individuals will cause losses on both
sides of the mind, the private and the public. We must not choose War.
> We must choose peace, but Justice needs to define this Human
security.
The context of the Law of Individual Rights should be now written in
the
terms of Individual Human Rights, and not in the limited-terms of Man.
This would create a Public with Rights in their Freedoms to be Public,
and this idea could be defended by the Law in terms of being a Human.
Therefore, the distinction between the Public Rights of Humans, and the
Private Rights of Individuals would find both a Common Public, and also
the benefit of the diversity of their Private Beliefs, all supporting
this
element they share between themselves, as a Public, equal in being
Human.
It is only a belief in eachother that will allow us our freedoms to
live,
act and feel, and if the primary belief is that We are Humans, this
should
pose no problem to those of differing Private beliefs, nor would it
create
chaos in its distinction- it will only make the World of Man relative
to
the whole of Humanity--- by displacing Man as worldview, as the
Public--
We shall instead find our Common Share in being Humans, and in this, to
share with eachother, to work for eachother, within our differences,
for
the benefit- the depth and breadth- of the Individual Human Will,
Public.
3end
------ Forwarded message ends here ------
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 5 Mar 1995 10:24:18 -0500
Reply-To: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
Sender: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
From: Michel Pierssens
Subject: Unesco Colloquium
PREMIERE RENCONTRE PHILOSOPHIQUE DE L'UNESCO:
UNESCO PHILOSOPHICAL ENCOUNTERS
CE QU'ON NE SAIT PAS
WHAT WE DO NOT KNOW
Mardi 14 mars 1995/Tuesday 14 March/Matinee
1OhOO: Allocution d ouverture de Federico Mayor, Directeur
General de l'UNESCO
Opening speech by Federico Mayor, UNESCO Director General
COMMENT SAIT-ON CE QU'ON NE SAIT PAS
KNOWING WHAT WE DO NOT KNOW
1OH30: Bernard Williams La philosophie permet-elle de
comprendre l'ignorance? Can philosophy help in understanding
ignorance?
Hide Ishiguro rencontre Williams! Hide Ishiguro meets Bernard
Williams
DISCUSSION AVEC LE PUBLIC/PUBLIC DEBATE
11h30: Paul Ricoeur Apprendre et ignorer
How and when do I learn that I do not know?
Bernard Michaux rencontre Paul Ricoeur / Bernard Michaux
meets Paul Ricoeur
DISCUSSION AVEC LE PUBLIC / PUBLIC DEBATE
12h30: Mustafa Safouan Ce qu'on ne sait pas, comment le
dire?
How can we say what we do not know?
Jean-Pierre Dupuy rencontre Mustafa Safouan . Jean-Pierre
Dupuy meets Mustafa Safouan
DISCUSSION AVEC LE PUBLIC / PUBLIC DEBATE
Mardi 14 mars 1995, apres-midi / Tuesday 14 March, p.m.
AUX ORIGINES DE L'IGNORANCE / IN SEARCH FOR LOST KNOWLEDGE
15HOO: Navjyoti Singh
Ignorance et connaissance dans la philosophie indienne
Ignorance and knowledge in Indian Philosophy
Roger-Pol Droit rencontre Navjyoti Singh Roger-Pol Droit
meets Navjyoti Singh
DISCUSSION AVEC LE PUBLIC / PUBLIC DEBATE
16hOO: Ha'l'm Zafrani De la Kabbale speculative a la Kabbale
pratique et a la magie From contemplative Kabbalah to practical Kab-
balah or magic
Maurice Ruben-Ayoun rencontre Haim Zafrani I Maurice Ruben-
Ayoun meets Haim Zafrani
DISCUSSION AVEC LE PUBLIC / PUBLIC DEBATE
17hOO: Jesus Garcia Ruiz Un savoir perdu? La perception
Maya Quiche de l'inconnu A lost knowledge ? The Maya Quiche
perception of the unknown
Enrique Lynch rencontre Jesus Garcia Ruiz I Enrique Lynch
meets Jesus Garcia Ruiz
DISCUSSION AVEC LE PUBLIC / PUBLIC DEBATE
18hOO: Simha Arom L'ethnologie a la recherche d'un savoir qui
s'ignore African music: a self-ignored knowledge ?avec le groupe GAMAKO
(musique africaine traditionnelle /Musical illustration by GAMAKO
Christie McDonald rencontre S. Arom et les musiciens
Christie McDonald meets S. Arom and musicians
DICUSSION AVEC LE PUBLIC / PUBLIC DEBATE
19hO0: Vernissage de l'exposition de Pierre-Marc de Biasi:
L'lllisible et l'indechiffrableOpening of the exhibition. paintings and
sculptures by Pierre-Marc de Biasi
Mercredi 15 mars Wednesday 15 March / Matinee
AUX FRONTIERES DES SCIENCES / BORDERS OF SCIENTIFIC
KNOWLEDGE
O9HOO: N.P. Bechtereva
Ce que nous savons et ne savons pas sur le cerveau humain
What we know and don t know about the human brain
Francisco Varela rencontre N.P. Bechtereva / Francisco Varela
meets N.P. Bechtereva
DISCUSSION AVEC LE PUBLIC / PUBLIC DEBATE
1OhOO: Trinh Xuan Thuan Les limites de la
connaissance en astrophysique The limits of knowledge in
astrophysics
Bernard Williams rencontre Trinh Xuan Thuan Bernard Williams
meets Trinh Xuan Thuan
DISCUSSION AVEC LE PUBLIC / PUBLIC DEBATE
11hOO: Stephen Jay Gould La paleontologie et les
fictions de l'origine Narratives and fiction in paleontology
Isabelle Stengers rencontre Stephen Jay Gould Isabelle
Stengers meets Stephen Jay Gould
DISCUSSION AVEC LE PUBLIC / PUBLIC DEBATE
12hOO: John Maddox peut-on faire un etat des lieux de
l'ignorance scientifique? Ignorance and the historical record
Henri de Lumley rencontre John Maddox / Henri de Lumley meets
John Maddox
DISCUSSION AVEC LE PUBLIC / PUBLIC DEBATE
13hOO - 1 5hOO: Pause dejeuner Lunch break
Mercredi 15 mars 1995, apres-midi Wednesday 15 March, p.m.
LIMITES SAVANTES ET ENJEUX SOCIAUX / HOW THE UNKNOWN IS
MANAGED
15HOO: Jean-Paul Fitoussi Economie et societe: ce qu'on
ne sait pas de leurs relations Economics and society: what we
do not know about their relationship
Mihaly Fulop rencontre Jean-Paul Fitoussi / Mihaly Fulop
meets Jean-Paul Fitoussi
DISCUSSION AVEC LE PUBLIC/ PUBLIC DEBATE
16hOO: Fadila Barkat La recherche des preuves dans la
pratique du droit The search for proof in the practice of law
Francois Sureau rencontre Fadila Barkat Francois Sureau
meets Fadila Barkat
DISCUSSION AVEC LE PUBLIC I PUBLIC DEBATE
17hOO: Dorothy Blake Le SIDA: ce qu'on ne peut pas et ce
qu'on ne veut pas savoir AIDS Epidermic: What we do not know
Chantal Saint-Jarre rencontre Dorothy Blake/ Chantal Saint-
Jarre meets Dorothy Blake
DISCUSSION AVEC LE PUBLIC / PUBLIC DEBATE
18hOO: Seiya Uyeda Les tremblements de terre - comment
les prevoir? Earthquakes - How to predict them?
Martine Barrere rencontre Seiya Uyeda/ Martine Barrere meets
Seiya Uyeda
DISCUSSION AVEC LE PUBLIC / PUBLIC DEBATE
Jeudi; 16 mars 1995 / Thursday 16 March / Matinee
SAVOIRS SPECIALISES, IGNORANCE GENERALE, ET VICE VERSA
SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE OR GENERAL IGNORANCE AND VICE VERSA
O9HOO: Jean Molino Evolutionisme et frontieres du savoir
Evolutionism and the frontiers of knowledge
Mario Laserna rencontre Jean Molino / Mario Laserna meets
Jean Molino
DISCUSSION AVEC LE PUBLIC / PUBLIC DEBATE
10hOO: Carlin Romano Le philosophe a-t-il quelque chose a
apprendre du journaliste? Should journalists generalize ?
Mayuri Odedra-Straub rencontre Carlin Romano / Mayuri Odedra-
Straub meets Carlin Romano
DISCUSSION AVEC LE PUBLIC / PUBLIC DEBATE
11hOO: A. Maqueron Lucero La reeducation neuro-motrice
des enfants: limites du savoir theorique Neuro-motor
rehabilitation of children: the limits of theorical knowledge
Mireille Szatan rencontre A. Macqueron Lucerol Mireille
Szatan meets A. Macqueron Lucero
DISCUSSION AVEC LE PUBLIC / PUBLIC DEBATE
12hOO: Vittorio Hosle
Ignorance et surinformation What information should a modern
philosopher try to collect?
DISCUSSION AVEC LE PUBLIC / PUBLIC DEBATE
13hOO - 1 5hOO: Pause dejeuner / Lunch break
Jeudi 16 mars 1995, apres-midi/ Thursday 16 March, p.m.
IGNORANCE ET MEMOIRE DANS L'HISTOIRE CONTEMPORAINE
WHAT WE DO NOT KNOW IN CONTEMPORARY HISTORY
(avec la collaboration de la revue L 'Histoire, L'Institut
d'Etudes Politiques de Paris, et le Centre d'Histoire de
l'Europe du Vingtieme Siecle)
President de seance Chairperson: Henry Rousso
15hO0: A. Kavachonkine
N. Werth
Etre historien en Russie aujourd'hui Being a historian in
Russia today
Sovietologie et archives sovietiques: confrontation et
confirmation Societ archives: what we know, what we thought
we would discover
Pierre Pachet rencontre Nicolas Werth et A. Kvachonkine /
Pierre Pachet meets Nicolas Werth et A. Kvachonkine
DISCUSSION AVEC LE PUBLIC / PUBLIC DEBATE
1 6h30: Michel Winock
Cha In-suk
A quoi sert l'histoire? History, what for?
Le savoir et la resolution des conflits Knowledge and
conflict resolution
DISCUSSION AVEC LE PUBLIC / PUBLIC DEBATE
17h30: TABLE RONDE / ROUND TABLE Pourquoi ne savons-nous
pas vivre ensemble? Why don't we know how to live together?
Avec / With: Cherif El-Shoubashy, Gianni Perona, Jeremy
Popkin, Fethi Ben Slama
DISCUSSION AVEC LE PUBLIC / PUBLIC DEBATE
Vendredi 17 mars 1995 1 Friday 17 March /Matinee
LA TECHNOLOGIE AU SERVICE DU SAVOIR / IGNORANCE AND
TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION
O9hOO: Renato Parascandalo. Multimedia: vers une
encyclopedie immaterielle?
Multimedia: a virtual encyclopedia ?
V.M. Mendez Villegas rencontre R. parascandalo / V.M Mendez
Villegas meets R. Parascandalo
DISCUSSION AVEC LE PUBLIC / PUBLIC DEBATE
10hOO: Luciano Floridi. Internet: nouveaux savoirs, nouvelles
ignorances Internet: Which future for organized knowledge,
Frankenstein or Pygmalion?
Michel Pierssens rencontre Luciano Floridi / Michel Pierssens
meets Luciano Floridi
DISCUSSION AVEC LE PUBLIC / PUBLIC DEBATE
11 hOO: Roger C Schank
Les enseignements de l'intelligence artificielle: ce qu'on
sait, ce qu'on croit savoir Work in artificial intelligence:
What we know: what we think we know.
Pierre Levy rencontre Roger C. Schank / Pierre Levy meets
Roger C. Schank
DISCUSSION AVEC LE PUBLIC / PUBLIC DEBATE
12hOO: Michel Serres. Qu'est-ce qu'on n'enseigne pas?
The things that are not taught
Bernadette Bensaude rencontre Michel Serres I Bernadette
Bensaude meets Michel Serres
DISCUSSION AVEC LE PUBLIC / PUBLIC DEBATE
Vendredi 17 mars 1995, apres-midi / Friday 17March, p.m.
LE DESIR DE TOUT SAVOIR DREAMS OF TOTAL KNOWLEDGE
15H00: Judith Schlanger
Le desir de tout savoir
The old dream of totality
Rachel Ertel rencontre Judith Schlanger / Rachel Ertel meets
Judith Schlanger
DISCUSSION AVEC LE PUBLIC / PUBLIC DEBATE
16hO0: Jean Baudrillard
Sujet et objet de savoir: une relation reversible? To
discover, to be discovered: a two-way relationship ?
David Dabydeen rencontre Jean Baudrillard / David Dabydeen
meets Jean Baudrillard
DISCUSSION AVEC LE PUBLIC / PUBLIC DEBATE
17hO0: Henri Atlan
Tout savoir? Determinisme biologique et liberte humaine
Biological necessity and human freedon
Gustave Martelet rencontre Henri Atlan / Gustave Mar~elet
meets Henri Atlan
DISCUSSION AVEC LE PUBLIC / PUBLIC DEBATE
18hO0: Jean d'Ormesson
Ne rien savoir de Celui qui sait tout
Knowing nothing of the Who knows all
Jacques Schlanger rencontre Jean d'Ormesson / Jacques
Schlanger meets Jean d'Ormesson
DISCUSSION AVEC LE PUBLIC / PUBLIC DEBATE
19hO0: Elements de synthese par Federico Mayor
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 5 Mar 1995 14:14:47 -0600
Reply-To: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
Sender: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
From: Byte Monster <1gt2760@TSTC.EDU>
Subject: List server/commands
In-Reply-To: <199503050813.CAA20098@waco.tstc.edu>
I know this is probably not the appropriate address to send
subscribe/unsubscribe and other list commands. So, could someone send
me
the correct one. Thank you.
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 1995 06:17:02 +0100
Reply-To: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
Sender: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
From: Name withheld by request
Organization: Replay and Company UnLimited.
_______________
The Human Story 2000 Year
_______________
(future past)
\o/
|
/ \
Key to the Code
(I, We) = Humanity
........... 1995 Year
/||||||> \
/|||||||> \
/||||||||> \ let's go back into
/|||||||||> \
/||||||||||> \ the
/|||||||||\o/ \
/|||||||||||| \ story
/|||||||||||/|\ \
/||||||||||||||> \ of
/||||||||||||||| \
/|||||||||||||||| \
/||||||||||||||||| \ H
/|||||||||||||||||| \ u
/||||||||||||||||||| \ m
/|||||||||||||||||||| \ a
/>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>=
\ n
/>>>>> HISTORY
>>>>>=<<<<< Her Story <<<<\
i
/>>>>>> >>>>>=
\ t
/>>>>>>> \o >>>>>=
\o \ y
/>>>>>>>>_____|\____>>>>>=
......|\.... \
/>>>>>>>>>| / \ |>>>>>=
: / \ : \
/>>>>>>>>>>|_________|>>>>>=
: : \
||||||||||||| ||||||============================|
|::::::::::M:a n k i n:d::<=:=>::W:o m a n k i:n:d::::::|
||||||||||||| ||||||============================|
|:::::::::::: He ::::<=:=>:::: She :::::::::::|
||||||||||||| ||||||============================|
|:::::::::::: Male ::::<=:=>:::: Female :::::::::::|
||||||||||||| ||||||============================|
|:::::::::::: M A N ::::<=:=>:::: W O M A N:::::::::::|
||||||||||||| ||||||============================|
|:::::::::::: Husband ::::<=:=>:::: Wife :::::::::::|
||||||||||||| ||||||============================|
|:::::::::::: Father ::::<=:=>:::: Mother :::::::::::|
||||||||||||| ||||||============================|
|:::::::::::: Son ::::<=:=>:::: Daughter:::::::::::|
||||||||||||| ||||||============================|
|:::::::::::: Boy ::::<=:=>:::: Girl :::::::::::|
||||||||||||| ||||||============================|
|:::::::::::: King ::::<=:=>:::: Queen :::::::::::|
||||||||||||| ||||||============================|
|:::::::::::: Him ::::<=:=>:::: Her :::::::::::|
||||||||||||| ||||||============================|
|:::::::::::: His ::::<=:=>:::: Her.s :::::::::::|
||||||||||||| / \ ||||||==========/==\==============|
|:::::::::::: Hiskind ::::<=:=>:::: Herkind :::::::::::|
||||||||||||| / \ ||||||========/======\============|
|::::::::::::/Kingdom\::::<=:=>::::/Queendom\:::::::::::|
||||||||||||/ ^^^^^^^ \===========/ ^^^^^^^^ \==========|
|||||||||||/ \=========/ \=========|
||||||||||/ HIStory \=======/ HERstory \========|
|||||||||/_______________\=====/================\=======|
||||||||/ \===/ \======|
|======/> I, Man \=/ I, Woman <\=====|
|=====/=> Us, Men >=< Us, Women <=\====|
|====/==> Us, Mankind >=< Us, Womankind <==\===|
|===/===> Them, Not-Us >=< Them, Not-Us <===\==|
|==/====> Our, Men >=< Our, Women <====\=|
|=/=====> Their, Not-Our >=< Their, Not-Our <=====\|
|/======> We, Mankind >=< We, Womankind
<======\_________
|=======> We, Men >=< We, Women <=
Individual |
|=======> Me, Man >=< Me, Woman <= Equal
Rights |
|=======> My,/I >=< My, I <= Movement
and |
|=======> He, Man >=< She,/Woman <= Civil
Rights |
|=======> Him, Man >=< Her, Woman <= Movement
and |
|=======> His, Man\s >=< Hers, Woman's <=
American's w/|
|=======> Man, Him self >=< Woman, Her \ Self<=
Disabilities |
|=======> Self, Man ^\^^ >=< Self, Woman\^^^^<= Act:
Changes |
| / \ / \ <= His-Story in-|
| / I, Man \ = / I, Woman \ <= to the terms |
| / \ / \ of Our Public|
| / PRIVATE-HIS-Story\ / PRIVATE-HER-Story\ Story, each |
| |\_________________/|\__________________/| Self having |
| | | I think | I think | | Individual |
_______|____ | | ___________/ \_______________ | | Worth &
Value|
Semantic-Man | | /____________________________/ | | as equals in
|
looses | | "As a I Believe.." | | Being
Humans,|
HIS- \|____________________________________|/ Each Voice w/|
Story ____________________________________________ The Freedom |
as the whole |////// Individual Rights for Humans \\\\\\| of Speech, I
|
Human Story- |>>> Man in His-Story is a Private Man
<<<<| Human, And w/|
------ | In the term's of Man, and in His-Story, | Individual |
Semantic-Man | His-View is_not_the_Whole-View, HIS | Rights for a
|
is *Private* | Is a PRIVATE-View: Relative-only-to HIM,| Public
Mind,|
in terms of | SELF, and If HIS Judgement upon Your- I,| I Human, not
|
being *Man* | Individual SELF, and your, Our, Public- | to be second
|
------- | Private Individual Rights and Freedoms, | to a Private |
Man does not | Precedes-and-Restricts Your Individual | Value
System,|
speak for all,| Rights and Freedoms with Private Values,| As His
Story.|
HIS Story has | RELATIVE only to HIM Self and His Story,| Private Man-
|
Proven this as| HIS PRIVATE UNDERSTANDING OF HIM-SELF; | and Private
|
have the Equal| THEN, This Private Individual LIMITS an | Relativity,
|
Rights of the | Individual, Public, TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH| standing as
|
Non-Man. | RELATIVE Only to HIS Private VALUES AND | Image of the |
---------- | JUDGEMENTS, His PRIVATE BELIEF SYSTEM-- | Whole Story.
|
When in terms | And Thus- LIMITS the Freedom of PUBLIC | Private Mind
|
and Limits of | SPEECH and any Private Persons Rights to|
Closed-System|
Man are to be | these Freedoms to Only those Things HE | I Decide
What|
the Limits of | Privately Believes Fit-- Good or Bad. | is True and
|
All Humanity, | Thus, The Private Judgement of Freedoms | and False,
It|
This Man and | and of Individual Rights to be PUBLIC- | is relative
|
His Story and | ARE- if JUDGED within Values in terms of| to His
Story,|
His Believes | Private Semantic-Man- as Being Wrong or | History, My
|
Still Propose | False-- based on the Private Values and | Story, Me-
I,|
Their Private | Beliefs of MAN-- REGARDLESS OF TRUTH -- | His Story
Man|
View- Man- as | Meaning a RIGHT/WRONG JUDGEMENT PRECEDES|
being Public. | What is PUBLICALLY ACKNOWLEDGED AS TRUE,| He
Presupposes
If Man stands | in terms of OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE, Then, I,| His Values
are
as Defintion | Individual- am LIMITED to this PRIVATE | as His
Public
and Reasoning | MAN and HIS BELIEFS, IN HIS STORY, HIM- | Mind- And
that
for the whole-| Self. MY individual Freedoms, then, are| these equate
This Man is a | Available only IN HIS Acceptance of MY | for All Men,
Private Man, | Values being Similar to His PRIVATE Man.| they
(non-man)
and HE thinks | If this Man, and HIS Story limits | Just don't get-
only in terms | in Your Individual Freedoms and Rights, | iT. They do
not
of HIS Story. | Then this Man- His Story- and Beliefs- | Know what He
Him Self, Man.| Precede Your INDIVIDUAL PUBLIC FREEDOMS.| Knows. They
are
*Private*, and| This Condition of Private Values before | Not the
Public.
Thus- This Man| Individual Rights and Freedoms is| They are Private.
Must Not Place| the Cause of the Loss of Freedom to the | He thinks for
We.
HIS Story and | Private Individual Man, and HIS STORY. | He is
Wrong.
Values before | The Freedom of Individuals and Freedoms |
the Reasoning | of the PUBLIC-- The Right to BE Human- | He is
of the Human | Is Under The Judgment of this Private | ^^^^^
Story-- Our | Individual and Their Values and Beliefs.|
Semantic-Man
Story inside | The Freedom of Each and Every One of US |
of HIS Story. | is at Stake with each and everyone else.|
I-gender
The Whole of | If Firstly Judgement is Made in terms of|
Being Human- | Semantic-Man and His-story, this is only|
and a Public | a Private-View of Man-as-Measure in the | Private
Man
in Common with| terms of This Private Man. Equal Rights | is a
this- is being| Have Secured the Equality of being Human| Public
Human
Restricted by | in His Story, and Yet His Story is not |
This Private | the Whole-Story-- The Story of Humanity.| This
Man's Beliefs | His Story is Relative Only to HImSelf I.| is
in HIS Story, | If HIS SELF, Private, Comes Before the | an
Which is not | Common Self, the Human Self, I, and the |
Historical
a Public Story| Relavance of PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE is Wrong- | bias
for All but | Thus Limiting Individual Freedom | based upon
Only for those| to Reason with What is Known, in a way | His
Private
Like Him Self-| that is rational-- Then, This Private I | Self,
Private. | is Limiting the Public and Private Self | Man.
Man & History.| to HIS OWN VALUES. Thus Leaving Public |
Equal Rights | Rationalization and Reasoning in Chaos, | This
is
have Proven | Irrational. If Judgement is made on the| an
this the case.| Basis and Equal Value of Being a Human- |
Inequality
______________| Being with Freedoms and Rights in Public|
between
| and With Private Freedoms and Rights-- | all
| Then the Private Value Judgement will be| Humanity
Private Man | left for Private Individual Decision, I.| and
is Public as |__________________________________________| this
a Human being. I Have the Freedom and Right to be Human. Private
Man
in
Private Man I do not need Private Man and HIS Story His
Story
is Public if His Values and His Beliefs Speaking for ME
He is equal WE- The Public
and Fair to Man of Science is a Private Man- His Story
others in He PRIVATELY JUDGES Me as Being an Animal-
the terms Before my Individual Freedoms and Rights- I must Behave.
of being
a (The Scientific Ethic is the Ethic of Man and HIS Story -- Private)
Human Before Objective Science I am Human before I am a Man
First- I value Our Individual Human Freedoms and Rights
and We need a Human Ethic to Govern in the Nature of Science
Not His We need to Value Our Public, Self- Human.
Private
Values We are the Common Public in the Human Story
Before
This --- W E T H E P E O P L E ---
fact.
The Architecture of the United Nations
|\\The Architecture of Electricity //|
|\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ a/e/un //////////////|
|\ Continuation of the Human Story //|
|\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ ////////////////|
|\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ /////////////////|
*- transform the pyramid -*
Humans working for Humans, Public
Private Man vs. Public Human
Change His Story into Our Story
Value Humanity
Speak Up
You Have a Choice
You Have the Freedoms
You Have the Rights
You are an Individual
--It is Our Future--
United We Stand- Public
Divided We Fall- Private
I am a Human Being
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 1995 03:01:00 +0800
Reply-To: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
Sender: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
From: 91A16811671F <91A16811671F@AM.NIE.AC.SG>
Subject: Re: List server/commands
In-Reply-To: <01HNU8269GEO000Q9N*@mr.nie.ac.sg>
the correct address would be :
listserv@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu
vic
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 1995 13:00:25 PST
Reply-To: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
Sender: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
From: Eric Dahlin
Subject: Please Post
ASSOCIATION FOR COMPUTERS AND THE HUMANITIES
ASSOCIATION FOR LITERARY AND LINGUISTIC COMPUTING
1995 JOINT INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ACH-ALLC 95
JULY 11-15, 1995
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT SANTA BARBARA, SANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA
************************************************************************
IMPORTANT CONFERENCE INFORMATION *** IMPORTANT CONFERENCE INFORMATION
************************************************************************
Those of you who have submitted abstracts for this year's ACH/ALLC
Joint International Conference will be aware that the announced date
for notifying applicants was March 15, 1995. Due to unforeseen
circumstances, however, we are obliged to move the this date ahead to
APRIL 20, 1995.
The Association for Computers and the Humanities, as primary organizer
of this year's conference, apologizes for the delay. We understand
that some potential contributors to the conference program may need
to be notified earlier than April 20, in order to secure travel funds,
etc. If for such a reason you must know as soon as possible, we ask
that you contact hcf1dahl@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu so that we may expedite the
processing of your abstract. Please do not contact us unless
your need is serious.
We received a strong response to this year's call for papers, and we
have every expectation that the conference program will be
excellent. I look forward to seeing you in Santa Barbara this summer,
and thank you for your patience and understanding.
Nancy Ide, President
Association for Computers and the Humanities
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 1995 14:19:21 -0500
Reply-To: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
Sender: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
From: WVSSLCS@WVNVM.WVNET.EDU
Subject: WVU Summer Seminar
The following notice is being cross-posted on a number of lists, and
therefore,
I apologize for any duplication. Please email to the address below with
your
postal mailing address if interested since this is an administrative
account
which is not directly subscribed to this list. Thanks.
**************************** Announcement
*************************************
West Virginia University
Summer Seminar in Literary and Cultural Studies
presents
RADIANT TEXTUALITY:
HUMANE STUDIES IN VIRTUAL SPACES
Seminar Leader:
Jerome J. McGann
Commonwealth Professor of English
University of Virginia
June 8-11, 1995
West Virginia University
Morgantown, WV
For seminar rates and more information, contact:
Dr. David C. Stewart
Department of English
West Virginia University
PO Box 6296
Morgantown, WV 26505-6296
304-293-3107
WVSSLCS@WVNVM.WVNET.EDU
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 1995 12:22:13 PST
Reply-To: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
Sender: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
From: Eric Dahlin
Subject: ACH/ALLC '95
==========================================================================
PLEASE POST AND REDISTRIBUTE
==========================================================================
ASSOCIATION FOR COMPUTERS AND THE HUMANITIES
ASSOCIATION FOR LITERARY AND LINGUISTIC COMPUTING
1995 JOINT INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ACH-ALLC 95
JULY 11-15, 1995
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA
On behalf of the Executive Councils of the Association for
Computers and the Humanities and the Association for
Literary and Linguistic Computing, we cordially invite you
to attend the seventh annual joint international conference,
to be held at the University of California, Santa Barbara,
July 11-15, 1995.
This conference is the major forum for discussion of the
preparation, encoding, and use of character-based electronic
text and for computer-based research in literature,
linguistics, and related humanities disciplines. It will
include presentations on the development of new computing
methodologies for research and teaching in the humanities,
on the development of significant new materials and tools
for humanities research, and on the application and
evaluation of computing techniques in humanities subjects.
The Association for Computers and the Humanities is a
professional society for scholars working in computer-
related research in literature and language studies,
history, philosophy, and other disciplines of the
humanities.
The Association for Literary and Linguistic Computing was
founded in 1973 as an international association to promote
the development of literary and linguistic computing.
Overview:
---------
As a preliminary event, an optional tour of the city of
Santa Barbara has been scheduled for the afternoon of
Tuesday, July 11, from 1pm to 4pm.
The conference will officially begin in the late afternoon
and evening of Tuesday, July 11, with a reception, opening
addresses, and an optional banquet.
Concurrent sessions will begin on the morning of Wednesday,
July 12, and continue through to closing at noon on
Saturday, July 15.
An optional beach barbecue will be held on the evening of
Friday, July 14.
An optional winery tour will take place on the afternoon of
Saturday, July 15, after the closing of the conference.
Room and board accommodations are available in campus
dormitories at economical rates, and rooms are available at
special conference rates at a variety of area motels and
hotels.
Details are given below.
Air Transportation to Santa Barbara:
------------------------------------
The Santa Barbara/Goleta Airport provides jet service by
United Airlines from major international airports in San
Francisco and Denver. Several forms of transportation are
available between Los Angeles International Airport and
Santa Barbara, including commuter flights, rental cars and
bus service, particularly the Santa Barbara Airbus, which
has several scheduled pick-ups daily from LAX. Please
phone them directly at (805) 964-7759 for more information.
Or, you can send them a fax at (805) 683-0307.
Complimentary Shuttle Service:
------------------------------
UCSB Campus Conference Services will provide complimentary
Shuttle Service to campus from the Santa Barbara Airport
ONLY. The shuttle vehicle will be marked "UCSB
Conferences." Pick-up will be in front of the terminal or
near the baggage area. If you do not see the shuttle
vehicle, call the Anacapa Residence Hall Desk at 893-2189.
Please make sure to write this number down so that you can
easily access it upon your arrival.
Bus:
----
Bus service to Santa Barbara is provided by Greyhound.
The Greyhound terminal is located in downtown Santa Barbara.
Taxi service is available from the terminal to campus.
Train:
------
Train service to Santa Barbara is provided by Amtrak.
The Amtrak terminal is located in downtown Santa Barbara.
Taxi service is available from the terminal to campus.
Car:
----
UCSB is readily accessible from US 101. When driving
north on US 101 (from LA), travel through Santa Barbara and,
about 10 miles north of Santa Barbara, take the Airport/UCSB
Highway 217 exit which leads directly onto campus. When
driving south on US 101 (from San Francisco), take the
Storke Rd./UCSB exit, travel about 1 mile on Storke turning
left onto El Colegio Road which leads directly onto campus.
When entering campus, stop at the campus gate and request
directions to Anacapa Residence Hall; however, if you will
be arriving on Wednesday and especially if you are NOT
residing on campus, you may wish to ask for directions to
the University Center, where registration will continue to
take place and the conference sessions will be held.
Parking:
--------
Parking at UCSB is by permit only. When you arrive
at UCSB you can receive directions and a temporary parking
permit from the gate attendant by identifying yourself as an
ACH/ALLC attendee. This temporary permit will need to be
replaced with the permit you will receive either when you
check-in at the Residence Hall or during Registration if you
are staying off-campus. Parking is complimentary for those
residing in the Residence Hall. Please indicate with the
Desk Staff at check-in if you will be needing a permit.
Attendees residing off-campus may purchase a weekly parking
permit by indicating this on the Registration Form. There
is a substantial savings in purchasing a weekly pass, as the
daily parking rate is $5.00. Parking citations are issued
for failure to display permits and/or parking in incorrect
areas.
The Santa Barbara Area:
-----------------------
The city of Santa Barbara, founded by the Spanish in the
18th Century, is considered to be one of the jewels of the
California coast. It lies approximately 100 miles northwest
of Los Angeles, nestled against the Santa Ynez mountains
overlooking the Pacific Ocean. In July, the days are warm
(75 degrees F) and the nights are cool (55 degrees F) with
occasional morning fog. Nearby are excellent ocean beaches,
lakes, forests and mountains with varied hiking trails.
Daily excursions can be made to the Hearst Castle, the
flower fields of Lompoc and the Old World Village of
Solvang. In Santa Barbara you can visit the Mission, our
famous Court House or the Botanical Gardens.
Dress:
------
Casual clothing is in order with a sweater or light
jacket occasionally needed for the evenings. UCSB is
essentially a walking campus, so be sure to wear comfortable
shoes.
Registration:
-------------
On-site registration will be held from 2 to 7 pm on
Tuesday, July 11 in the Anacapa Residence Hall. Registration will
resume in the University Center on Wednesday, July 12, from
8 am to 3 pm.
On-Campus Housing Information:
------------------------------
Plan A includes lodging Monday through Friday nights and the
following meals: breakfast and lunch on Tuesday (the
Welcoming Reception Tuesday evening is included in the
registration fee; there is an additional charge for the
Banquet Tuesday evening); breakfast, lunch and dinner on
Wednesday; breakfast, lunch and dinner on Thursday;
breakfast and lunch on Friday (there is an additional charge
for the Beach BBQ Friday evening; if you prefer a dining
commons meal Friday night, you will need to purchase a
ticket at the door of the commons); breakfast and lunch
on Saturday.
Plan A Cost: $315.00 (Single Occupancy)
$249.00 (Double Occupancy)
Plan B includes lodging Tuesday through Friday nights and
the following meals: lunch on Tuesday (the Welcoming
Reception Tuesday evening is included in the registration
fee; there is an additional charge for the Banquet Tuesday
evening); breakfast, lunch and dinner on Wednesday;
breakfast, lunch and dinner on Thursday; breakfast and lunch
on Friday (there is an additional charge for the Beach BBQ
Friday evening; if you prefer a dining commons meal Friday
night, you will need to purchase a ticket at the door of the
commons); breakfast and lunch on Saturday.
Plan B Cost: $268.00 (Single Occupancy)
$215.00 (Double Occupancy)
If you wish to stay in the dormitories for the extra
night of Saturday, July 15, you may do so for a lodging
fee of $42, single occuppancy, or $29, double occupancy.
No meals are included in this fee.
Commuter Lunch Packages are available for those residing
off-campus or in University Apartments. Four and Five-lunch
packages are available, depending on your length of stay.
Cost: $33.00 (4 lunches)
$42.00 (5 lunches)
University Apartments: A limited number of off-campus two
bedroom apartments are available on a weekly basis only,
Sunday through Saturday. The apartments could easily
accommodate those traveling with families. Meals and campus
parking are not included.
Cost: $454.00 (weekly rate)
Off-Campus Accommodations:
--------------------------
Blocks of rooms have been reserved, at special conference
rates, for the hotels listed (except for Fess Parker's Red
Lion Resort, where reservations will be based on
availability only). Rooms will be released June 9, 1995.
Thereafter, reservations can be obtained only on a space
available basis. The conference takes place during the
heavy tourist season and rooms may not be available if you
do not act prior to the release date. Please contact the
hotel directly as soon as possible. To obtain the special
rate, please identify yourself clearly as an attendee of the
1995 Joint International Conference--ACH/ALLC. (You will
need to ask for the UCSB special rate if you choose to stay
at Fess Parker's Red Lion Resort.) The special rates given
below will not necessarily apply to Friday or Saturday night
stayovers; please check with the individual hotel should you
need additional accommodation.
None of the hotels listed below are within walking distance
of the UCSB campus. Rates do not include 10% tax. You will
be asked for either first night payment in advance or a
current major credit card account number to hold the room.
[The following hotels offer morning and evening shuttle
service to and from UCSB. You MUST indicate your needs at
the time you check-in.]
Pacifica Suites
5490 Hollister, Goleta, CA 93117
(805) 683-6722
$85 (Single); $95 (Double)
Rate includes up to two complimentary cooked-to-order
breakfasts, two rooms, two TVs, microwave, stereo,
refrigerator, pool and Jacuzzi. Complimentary
beverages served from 5 - 7 p.m.
Best Western South Coast Inn
5620 Calle Real, Goleta, CA 93117
(805) 967-3200
$73 (Single/Double)
Continental Breakfast included.
Holiday Inn
5650 Calle Real, Goleta, CA 93117
(805) 964-6241
$63 (Single/Double)
Free airport shuttle service also provided.
Best Western Pepper Tree Inn
3850 State Street, Santa Barbara, CA 93105
(805) 687-5511
$120 - $136 range
Located mid-way between downtown Santa Barbara and the
UCSB campus. Free shuttle service also provided to and
from the Santa Barbara Airport.
[The following hotels do NOT offer shuttle service to UCSB.
You must provide your own transportation.]
El Encanto Hotel
1900 Lasuen Road, Santa Barbara, CA 93103
(805) 687-5000
$90.00
Located in the foothills of Santa Barbara, with a
15 minute drive to campus, the historic El Encanto
Hotel features garden villas and cottages with
spectacular views of the ocean.
Fess Parker's Red Lion Resort
(Reservations based on availability only)
633 E. Cabrillo Blvd., Santa Barbara, CA 93103
(805) 564-4333
$119.00
Located directly across from the ocean near Stearn's
Wharf and downtown shopping. Airport shuttle service
available. Please contact the resort ahead of time to
inquire about the service. You must ask for the UCSB
special rate when making your reservation.
Tour Information:
-----------------
Santa Barbara City & Shopping Tour:
Tuesday, July 11, 1995
(1:00 - 4:00 pm)
Cost: $24 per person (3 hours)
A scenic driving tour will feature a stop at the Santa
Barbara Mission, with its dramatic twin towers and lovely
inner courtyard and garden. A stop at the courthouse, one
of the most beautiful public buildings in the country, along
with a ride to the top of the clock tower for a 360 degree
view of the city is included. Time will be devoted to
sampling the wonderful modern and antique shops, galleries
and boutiques in the downtown area, as well as at the new
mall "Paseo Nuevo."
Winery Tour:
Saturday, July 15, 1995
(1:00 - approximately 5:30 pm)
Cost: $28 per person (4.5 hours)
Enjoy a scenic drive from Santa Barbara through the Santa
Ynez Mountains and over San Marcos Pass. Once in the
Santa Ynez Valley, a visit to one of Santa Barbara County's
award-winning wineries will be made for a tour and wine
tasting. A stop at the Danish village of Solvang where Danish
architecture, windmills, charming shops and interesting
outlet stores is also planned.
****************************** cut here
***********************************
Registration Form
ACH/ALLC '95
July 11-15, 1995
University of California, Santa Barbara
=======================================
Name:
name tag should read:
Affiliation:
Address:
Phone:
Fax:
E-mail:
Special Needs (including dietary):
Payment of Fees:
----------------
Payment in U.S. Dollars may be made by:
Personal Check
Money Order
Bank Check
[Checks must be drawn on a U.S. Bank and should be made
payable to U.C. Regents.]
Credit Card: VISA or MASTERCARD
International Wire Transfer (in U.S. Dollars) from
your bank to:
Bank of America
San Francisco Commercial Banking, Office (#1499)
555 California Street, 2nd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Account #07805-00030
Regents of University of California
Santa Barbara. Reference: ACH/ALLC
[If using this latter method of payment; please add an
additional $10 to the total to cover the bank's fee for
this service.]
Payment (please check appropriate box):
___ Personal Check
___ Money Order
___ Bank check is enclosed
___ Wire Transfer [please enclosed a copy of the
wire transfer receipt with your registration]
Please charge to my credit card:
___ MasterCard
___ Visa
Credit Card #:
Expiration Date:
Signature:
Date:
Please complete and return this form with your remittance to:
ACH/ALLC '95, c/o Campus Conference Services
University of California
Santa Barbara, CA 93106-6120
Phone: (805) 893-3072
Fax: (805) 893-7287
E-mail: hr03conf@ucsbvm.ucsb.edu
Refunds, less a $25 administrative charge, will be given to
registrants whose written requests are received prior to
June 19, 1995.
For questions regarding accommodations and registration,
please contact:
Sally Vito
Phone: (805) 893-3072
E-mail: hr03vito@ucsbvm.ucsb.edu
Please check applicable items below
------------------------------------
Registration fees:
___ $150 (ACH/ALLC members) Prior to June 5, 1995 $
______
___ $175 (ACH/ALLC members) Postmarked after June 5, 1995 $
______
___ $170 (non-members) Prior to June 5, 1995 $
______
___ $195 (non-members) Postmarked after June 5, 1995 $
______
___ Guests $45 $
______
name:
___ Graduate Students $45 $
______
___ One-day rate (specify day & date) $75 $
______
On-campus Housing:
___ Plan A, Single Occupancy, $315.00 $
______
___ Plan A, Double Occupancy, $249.00 $
______
For double occupancy, name of person
you want to share with, if known:
___ Plan B, Single Occupancy, $268.00 $
______
___ Plan B, Double Occupancy, $215.00 $
______
For double occupancy, name of person
you want to share with, if known:
Stay over Saturday night, July 15, no meals included:
___ Single Occupancy, $42 $
------
___ Double occupancy, $29 $
______
___ University Apartment, $454.00 $
______
Parking:
___ Parking Permit (off-campus attendees) $10 $
______
(covers Monday through Saturday)
Commuter Lunch Package:
___ 4-lunch package $33 $
______
___ 5-lunch package $42 $
______
Optional Events
___ Banquet (Tuesday) $40 x ___ number of people $
______
___ Beach BBQ (Friday) $26 x ___ number of people $
______
___ Santa Barbara City & Shopping Tour $24 per person $
______
[Tuesday, July 11]
___ Santa Ynez/Winery/Solvang Tour $28 per person $
______
[Saturday, July 15]
TOTAL $________________
***************************** cut here
************************************
International Program Committee:
Chair: Elaine Brennan
ATLIS Consulting Group (ACH)
Marilyn Deegan
Oxford University (ALLC)
Gordon Dixon
Manchester Metropolitan University (ALLC)
Marianne Gaunt
Rutgers University (ACH)
Susan Hockey
Rutgers and Princeton Universities (ALLC)
Nancy Ide
Vassar College (ACH)
Espen Ore
University of Bergen (ALLC)
Willard McCarty
University of Toronto (ACH)
Local Organizer: Eric Dahlin
University of California, Santa Barbara
HCF1DAHL@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu
==========================================================================
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 1995 13:11:06 -0800
Reply-To: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
Sender: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
From: JAL@PORTIA.BITNET
Subject: SLS Meeting--Last Call
To all list subscribers who are interested in attending this fall's SLS
meeting but haven't done anything about it yet--it's not (quite) too
late!
The following will be sent to all SLS members but you get an electronic
preview. I don't suppose anyone will believe the following, but: THIS
deadline WILL be enforced.
Jay Labinger
Reminder and Last Call
The 1995 SLS meeting, to take place November 2-5 in Los Angeles,
promises
to be another outstanding one. It will include plenary lecturers
Steven
Pinker (author of "The Language Instinct") and Sharon Traweek
(author of
"Beamtimes and Lifetimes"), a special Presidential Forum to
commemorate the
10th anniversary of SLS, guest sessions featuring science fiction
author
Octavia Butler and editor of "The Sciences" Peter Brown, and
many other
exciting events.
If you would like to participate, there is still a chance! Although we
are
now more than a month past the deadline (which seems to be honored more
in
the breach than the observance in SLS tradition!), we have received
contributions that will fill up only about 55 sessions; the standard
schedule would permit up to 60. Accordingly we will continue to accept
additional proposals, for either individual papers or complete
sessions,
until we have completed a 60-session program or the end of April,
whichever
comes first. Anyone contemplating submitting a proposal is strongly
encouraged to let us know as soon as possible; even if a complete
abstract
is not yet available, send title and keywords to Jay Labinger by e-mail
(jal@portia.caltech.edu) or fax (818-449-4159).
All contributors will be notified about the acceptance and scheduling
of
their papers by mid-May.
(In order to help complete potential but currently fragmentary
sessions,
papers related to the following topics would be particularly helpful:
the
human genome project; gender studies (feminist theories of biology,
images
of the feminine body, etc.); chaos and/or complexity; information,
noise,
entropy; metaphor and science; music and science; cultural studies.
However, contributions on all topics are welcome.)
