Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

list policy

Expand Messages
  • froeb-list@gmx.net
    ... Well, I thought that the list policy was clear, but I will try to clarify it and, in some cases, also to be more precise: a) Technicaly, this list is
    Message 1 of 11 , May 30, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      > Nevertheless, I will examine the quotation you provided
      > above (as Kai now says this is an unmoderated list, with
      > no requirement to quote Hegel himself or deal specifically
      > with his texts).

      Well, I thought that the list policy was clear, but I will
      try to clarify it and, in some cases, also to be more
      precise:

      a)
      Technicaly, this list is unmoderated, except for new members,
      were we need to wait wether they are "real persons". (This
      restriction needed to be introduced after some clever people
      programed some robots which automaticaly sign in at
      yahgoogroups to distribute their spam), after this they are
      also turned into unmoderated.

      So the folowing rules are basicaly calling for your
      self discipline, as we have no moderator. They should be
      quite self evident, I hope.

      However, real persons that forcefully contradict the folowing
      rules, especialy continue to send mails which fall under
      the "black list" (see b), may become moderated (this applies
      to only one person at the moment).

      b)
      So the absolute minimum to write to this list is to keep
      it off spam (black list):

      b1)
      Spam in the context of this list is not only
      advertisments, but also any mail that has no special
      relevance to a fruitfull *Hegel* discourse is out of place.
      Of course, Hegel, as an encyclopedic thinker has writetn
      about nearly any topic. However, before you make this an
      excuse to post in this list your essay on Darwin, your protest
      against or in favour of the Bush administraion etc, you better
      make clear in the mesage itself, what relevance this message
      has in advancing Hegel studies, our knowledge, understanding,
      upgrade and application of Hegel thoughts.

      b2)
      Also, we call for a minimum of standards by asking for the
      usual netiquette rules (And, if possible, for the even higher,
      scientific standards): meaning that messages whith insults,
      people/position bashing (a meaningfull critique in the *content*
      is OK) etc. should not be posted. No need to be nitpicking,
      a good polemic here and there, in order to help make a point
      clearer and better readable than the prudent language of
      usual scientific discourse may help soemtimes, but personal
      insults should be avoided and we need to take into account
      that in this international forum people from different cultures
      participate, so some remark that are totaly acceptable in
      one society, may still sound rude in another one.

      I think that everyone is adult enough to find the adequate level
      himself, no need for us to nany you (only people who constantly
      offend the rules woithout any cooperationm will be set to moderated,
      at the moment only one).

      b3)
      We also ask you to use the newly createdc mailinglists for specific
      topics. This especialy applies to discussion on Marx (hegel-marx),
      post hegelian philosophy (hegel-php), politics (hegel-os) and hegelians/
      hegelreception (hegel-hegelians), as these topics tend to create a lot of
      traffic and not everyone is interested in them.

      So e.g. the current discussion on marx should realy be moved
      to the Hegel-Marx list instead.

      Also, beginners questions and discussions about Hegel should be
      placed in the hegel-intro list, at least as long as they are not universal
      interest to the Hegel "professioanls".

      c)
      So mails that do not violate to the black list above should be OK here,
      as long as we don't find a moderator for this list.

      If asked for a "white list", mails I especialy would like to read here
      in this list, my answer would include:

      - reviews of Hegel related literature
      - anouncment of Hegel related congresses
      - scientific discussion of Hegel related problems
      - this could also include informal exchange on
      specific Hegel questions

      Topics of such discussions could include
      - Hegel's life and his contempories
      - his time and its discourses
      - relation of Hegel to other philosophers, theologians, scientists, artist
      and otehr thinkers before him and of his time
      - systematic questions of Hegels philosophy, e.g. relation between different
      parts of teh system, architetucral questions
      - discussion of any part of Hegel's system for which we dont have a specific
      list yet, including lesser known parts of the system, including philosophy
      of nature, philosophy of subjective spirit, etc
      - critical revision / reaxamination of any of Hegel's teachings etc.

      In order to avoid an unfruitful replication of already solved debattes /
      questions, in order to contribute to the progress of Hegel studies, the mails
      should at least have a knowledge about the relevant parts of the work of Hegel
      and if ever possible also of at least parts of the relevant secondary
      literature.

      As a last aspect, the self discipline of applying the rules fo that "white
      list" mor or less restrictive is dependent on teh amout of trafic we face here
      on the list. As long as we have little traffic (less than, say, 100 messages
      a month), we can relax the rules, when we get many traffic, everyone
      intending to write to the list is asked to have a closer look wetehr his message is
      helpfull for the otehrs.

      I hope these rules make sense. The only reasons for these rules is to create
      for you, the participants, a mailing list that makes it attractive for
      professionals to participate and for everyone rewarding to read, and to advance
      Hegel studies above their current level. If you want to discuss these rules,
      such discussions, like any other rukles / goald / actions of Hegel.Net related
      activities, is possible and welcome on the hegelnet mailing list.

      HTH (hope that helps) and all the best,
      Kai

      --
      Kai Froeb, Muenchen
      http://kai.froeb.net
      http://hegel-werkstatt.de
    • Paul Trejo
      Hi Kai, This is all fine -- I m not into debating Marx (even though I can) because time is short and there is never enough time for disseminating Hegel s
      Message 2 of 11 , May 30, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Kai,

        This is all fine -- I'm not into debating Marx (even though
        I can) because time is short and there is never enough
        time for disseminating Hegel's unique System. My only
        point was that a scholarly approach would not expect
        an atheist to offer academic insights into Religion!

        It is a plain tautology -- it's like asking a Nazi for insights
        into Marxism; we won't get anything scholarly, that's
        certain. I don't mind people advocating Marx's political
        ideology (especially if, as with the younger students,
        they try to divorce it from totalitarianism, Stalinism and
        so on). But I am inclined to speak out when political
        science students overstep their science and claim to
        know a lot (or everything) about sciences *outside*
        political science.

        There has never been a single Marxist in history who
        was a bona fide expert on Religion. Atheists just don't
        have the patience for it. (Karl Kautsky was the one
        who came closest -- he actually read the Gospel and
        analyzed it in order to prove that Jesus was a political
        revolutionary against Rome, and that this was the one
        and only reason for his crucifixion. But he had so many
        omissions and gaffs in his attempt to read the Gospel
        in an Atheist manner that no serious scholars today
        refer to him.)

        Hegel was an Encyclopedic philosopher -- Marx was
        not. The two should only be academically compared
        in a debate about political science. Never, under any
        circumstances that I have seen, should they be compared
        anywhere else, since Marx frankly has no other claim to
        fame.

        You've provided a Hegel-Marx list for discussions like
        these, Kai, and I appreciate it. I'd be happy to duel
        with my detractors on that List -- and criticize Marx in
        a manner befitting his many errors and follies.

        Best regards,
        --Paul Trejo



        ----- Original Message -----
        From: <froeb-list@...>
        To: <hegel@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Friday, May 30, 2003 9:48 AM
        Subject: [hegel] list policy


        > > Nevertheless, I will examine the quotation you provided
        > > above (as Kai now says this is an unmoderated list, with
        > > no requirement to quote Hegel himself or deal specifically
        > > with his texts).
        >
        > Well, I thought that the list policy was clear, but I will
        > try to clarify it and, in some cases, also to be more
        > precise:
        >
        > a)
        > Technicaly, this list is unmoderated, except for new members,
        > were we need to wait wether they are "real persons". (This
        > restriction needed to be introduced after some clever people
        > programed some robots which automaticaly sign in at
        > yahgoogroups to distribute their spam), after this they are
        > also turned into unmoderated.
        >
        > So the folowing rules are basicaly calling for your
        > self discipline, as we have no moderator. They should be
        > quite self evident, I hope.
        >
        > However, real persons that forcefully contradict the folowing
        > rules, especialy continue to send mails which fall under
        > the "black list" (see b), may become moderated (this applies
        > to only one person at the moment).
        >
        > b)
        > So the absolute minimum to write to this list is to keep
        > it off spam (black list):
        >
        > b1)
        > Spam in the context of this list is not only
        > advertisments, but also any mail that has no special
        > relevance to a fruitfull *Hegel* discourse is out of place.
        > Of course, Hegel, as an encyclopedic thinker has writetn
        > about nearly any topic. However, before you make this an
        > excuse to post in this list your essay on Darwin, your protest
        > against or in favour of the Bush administraion etc, you better
        > make clear in the mesage itself, what relevance this message
        > has in advancing Hegel studies, our knowledge, understanding,
        > upgrade and application of Hegel thoughts.
        >
        > b2)
        > Also, we call for a minimum of standards by asking for the
        > usual netiquette rules (And, if possible, for the even higher,
        > scientific standards): meaning that messages whith insults,
        > people/position bashing (a meaningfull critique in the *content*
        > is OK) etc. should not be posted. No need to be nitpicking,
        > a good polemic here and there, in order to help make a point
        > clearer and better readable than the prudent language of
        > usual scientific discourse may help soemtimes, but personal
        > insults should be avoided and we need to take into account
        > that in this international forum people from different cultures
        > participate, so some remark that are totaly acceptable in
        > one society, may still sound rude in another one.
        >
        > I think that everyone is adult enough to find the adequate level
        > himself, no need for us to nany you (only people who constantly
        > offend the rules woithout any cooperationm will be set to moderated,
        > at the moment only one).
        >
        > b3)
        > We also ask you to use the newly createdc mailinglists for specific
        > topics. This especialy applies to discussion on Marx (hegel-marx),
        > post hegelian philosophy (hegel-php), politics (hegel-os) and hegelians/
        > hegelreception (hegel-hegelians), as these topics tend to create a lot of
        > traffic and not everyone is interested in them.
        >
        > So e.g. the current discussion on marx should realy be moved
        > to the Hegel-Marx list instead.
        >
        > Also, beginners questions and discussions about Hegel should be
        > placed in the hegel-intro list, at least as long as they are not universal
        > interest to the Hegel "professioanls".
        >
        > c)
        > So mails that do not violate to the black list above should be OK here,
        > as long as we don't find a moderator for this list.
        >
        > If asked for a "white list", mails I especialy would like to read here
        > in this list, my answer would include:
        >
        > - reviews of Hegel related literature
        > - anouncment of Hegel related congresses
        > - scientific discussion of Hegel related problems
        > - this could also include informal exchange on
        > specific Hegel questions
        >
        > Topics of such discussions could include
        > - Hegel's life and his contempories
        > - his time and its discourses
        > - relation of Hegel to other philosophers, theologians, scientists, artist
        > and otehr thinkers before him and of his time
        > - systematic questions of Hegels philosophy, e.g. relation between
        different
        > parts of teh system, architetucral questions
        > - discussion of any part of Hegel's system for which we dont have a
        specific
        > list yet, including lesser known parts of the system, including philosophy
        > of nature, philosophy of subjective spirit, etc
        > - critical revision / reaxamination of any of Hegel's teachings etc.
        >
        > In order to avoid an unfruitful replication of already solved debattes /
        > questions, in order to contribute to the progress of Hegel studies, the
        mails
        > should at least have a knowledge about the relevant parts of the work of
        Hegel
        > and if ever possible also of at least parts of the relevant secondary
        > literature.
        >
        > As a last aspect, the self discipline of applying the rules fo that "white
        > list" mor or less restrictive is dependent on teh amout of trafic we face
        here
        > on the list. As long as we have little traffic (less than, say, 100
        messages
        > a month), we can relax the rules, when we get many traffic, everyone
        > intending to write to the list is asked to have a closer look wetehr his
        message is
        > helpfull for the otehrs.
        >
        > I hope these rules make sense. The only reasons for these rules is to
        create
        > for you, the participants, a mailing list that makes it attractive for
        > professionals to participate and for everyone rewarding to read, and to
        advance
        > Hegel studies above their current level. If you want to discuss these
        rules,
        > such discussions, like any other rukles / goald / actions of Hegel.Net
        related
        > activities, is possible and welcome on the hegelnet mailing list.
        >
        > HTH (hope that helps) and all the best,
        > Kai
      • Omar Lughod
        ... Paul, Reach for your nearest book on informal fallacies and you will recognize the ad hominems you ve espoused so righteously here. By your criterion,
        Message 3 of 11 , May 30, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          --- Paul Trejo <petrejo@...> wrote:
          > Hi Kai,
          >
          > This is all fine -- I'm not into debating Marx (even
          > though
          > I can) because time is short and there is never
          > enough
          > time for disseminating Hegel's unique System. My
          > only
          > point was that a scholarly approach would not expect
          > an atheist to offer academic insights into Religion!
          >
          > It is a plain tautology -- it's like asking a Nazi
          > for insights
          > into Marxism; we won't get anything scholarly,
          > that's
          > certain.

          Paul,

          Reach for your nearest book on informal fallacies and
          you will recognize the ad hominems you've espoused so
          righteously here. By your criterion, only a Hegelian
          would be capable of real knowledge of Hegel. That
          strikes me as genuinely un-Hegelian in its
          one-sidedness. A good Hegelian argument can be made
          that one has to be, at least in part, 'outside' a
          perspective in order to recognize both its limitations
          and possibilities.

          =====
          Omar

          __________________________________
          Do you Yahoo!?
          Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
          http://calendar.yahoo.com
        • robertfanelli002@aol.com
          Paul, What is going on? Only an atheist can have academic insights into religion. It appears that you are limiting the meaning of insights into religion
          Message 4 of 11 , Jun 12, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            Paul,

            What is going on? 'Only an atheist can have academic insights into
            religion.' It appears that you are limiting the meaning of 'insights into religion'
            to having the missing premise that 'only people who 'believe in God' can have
            'insight into religion;' a missing enthymene indeed. What kind of insight is
            this?

            Regards,

            Bob Fanelli


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Paul Trejo
            ... Bob, you have misquoted me. Terrible. So your question makes no sense. Regards, --Paul Trejo
            Message 5 of 11 , Jun 12, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              In response to the Thu12Jun03 post by Bob Fanelli:

              > Paul,
              >
              > What is going on? 'Only an atheist can have academic
              > insights into religion.' It appears that you are limiting the
              > meaning of 'insights into religion' to having the missing
              > premise that 'only people who 'believe in God' can have
              > 'insight into religion;' a missing enthymene indeed.
              > What kind of insight is this?
              >
              > Regards,
              > Bob Fanelli

              Bob, you have misquoted me. Terrible. So your question
              makes no sense.

              Regards,
              --Paul Trejo
            • robertfanelli002@aol.com
              Paul, Sorry I misread you. Let me ask a question about atheists and theists. Is it possible for either aetheists or theists to have insight into religion. By
              Message 6 of 11 , Jun 23, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                Paul,

                Sorry I misread you. Let me ask a question about atheists and theists.

                Is it possible for either aetheists or theists to have insight into religion.
                By insight, one may assume that one can determine some objective truth from
                religion's tenets. Why must one have to believe in a deity to grasp truths
                from religous doctrines. For example many religions encompass a detail system
                of ethics. One certainly can agree with the ethical doctrines and yet not
                hold to the metaphysical claims for the existence of an objective deity. What is
                your opinion?

                Regards,
                Bob Fanelli


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Paul Trejo
                ... In my opinion, Bob, the ethical spirit or Sittlichkeit of any religion is completely bound up with its understanding of God. This is explicitly stated in
                Message 7 of 11 , Jun 23, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  In response to the Mon23Jun03 post by Bob Fanelli:

                  > ...Let me ask a question about atheists and theists.
                  >
                  > Is it possible for either aetheists or theists to have insight
                  > into religion? By insight, one may assume that one can
                  > determine some objective truth from religion's tenets.
                  > Why must one have to believe in a deity to grasp truths
                  > from religous doctrines. For example many religions
                  > encompass a detail system of ethics. One certainly can
                  > agree with the ethical doctrines and yet not hold to the
                  > metaphysical claims for the existence of an objective deity.
                  > What is your opinion?
                  >
                  > Regards,
                  > Bob Fanelli

                  In my opinion, Bob, the ethical spirit or Sittlichkeit of any
                  religion is completely bound up with its understanding of
                  God. This is explicitly stated in each religion itself.

                  One may believe one can divorce the Ethics of a religion
                  from a given religion, but that is an illusion.

                  For example, Christianity offers a specific Sittlichkeit to
                  European civilization. Max Weber speaks specifically
                  about the Protestant Ethic, for example. Perhaps one
                  or two generations of Europeans may continue to
                  exhibit the Christian Sittlichkeit while remaining atheists
                  (especially since many Christian Ethical values are now
                  institutionalized in the European Legal System). Yet I
                  maintain that these Ethical values will eventually break
                  down unless they remain rooted in the original soil in
                  which they were born.

                  The problem with your question, as I see it, Bob, is that
                  you, like most modern readers, tend to regard God as some
                  weird finite object, and so you tend to demand proof from
                  the believer that this weird finite object exists. But no proof
                  of any kind can be produced because actually God is not
                  any sort of a finite object.

                  It does not matter how big a finite object we imagine. It
                  could be larger than a trillion galaxies, and yet it remains
                  finite. God it not merely some super-large object. God is
                  not merely some ethereal ghost.

                  God is REAL, but to know that with logical certainty, we
                  must clearly define God.

                  It has been said countless times that such a project is
                  impossible. Mystics as well as philosophers have said
                  this. Yet Hegel says it is possible. Others in history have
                  also said this. That is why the debate still exists.

                  For Hegel, God is the WHOLE. This is a special ontological
                  category. It is not easy to imagine. It is beyond the merely
                  physical world of Physics. It includes human subjectivity,
                  art, ethics and world history.

                  The WHOLE has everything inside itself, and nothing at
                  all outside itself. This is a special category that defies the
                  demands of empirical logic to "see" this God when soaring
                  through outer space in a Sputnik, for example.

                  The WHOLE can be apprehended by the human mind, since
                  the Mind is one of the principle features of the WHOLE,
                  according to Hegel.

                  Without this idea of the WHOLE (of God) the Ethics within
                  the various Religions are merely subjective opinions. It is
                  precisely because the WHOLE is Real, and there are people
                  who can clearly see this (the Visionaries, the Prophets, the
                  Seers, the Poets and so on), that the culture and the Ethics
                  implied in the WHOLE can be disseminated to world culture.

                  There is a specific Ethics implied by the WHOLE. This Ethics
                  includes a perception that all men and women are brothers
                  and sisters. It includes a perception that we are all One in
                  God. It includes a perception that Cooperation is possible
                  (although difficult, since without the vision of the WHOLE,
                  people tend to feel justified in self-protection).

                  This actually has nothing to do with 'believing in a Deity'
                  in the ordinary sense, like believing in 'Casper the friendly
                  ghost.' It is a serious matter of grasping Reality in a most
                  profound manner.

                  It requires deep insight. It is metaphysical. It is ontological.
                  It is cosmological. It is teleological. Yet God is Real. Indeed,
                  for Hegel, God is the Absolutely Real, and the world of Nature
                  and Physics is strictly dependent upon God.

                  If it were otherwise, and God were merely a human invention,
                  a merely finite ghost of imagination, then the Law of the
                  Jungle would be the absolute Law, and its return would
                  become inevitable.

                  It is because a few people know the truth of God and are
                  courageous enough to battle the Master/Slave relationship
                  in history, that we have won the Freedoms that we have so
                  far. We should carefully consider that the patriots to whom
                  we owe so much held a faith in this God (a faith, since for
                  most people, the literacy required for the ontological proof
                  is out of reach) and this God supported their Ethics, and
                  these Ethics won the battle against the Master/Slave
                  merchants -- at least in some nations, and at least for
                  our own epoch.

                  To continue to pursue the Will of God on Earth, namely,
                  Freedom and Justice for All, one should have a clear
                  philosophical understanding of the ontological
                  parameters, the histories, and the origins of these.

                  That's my view of it, Bob. The atheist tends to simply
                  shut down the entire discussion because the language is
                  theological. So, in my view, the atheist misses the most
                  important nuances, and yet rushes to judgment.

                  Best regards,
                  --Paul Trejo
                • paul81755
                  Dear Kai Froeb, Why was my email copied below not posted? Also, if you are list owner, idealy it is respectful and ethical to invite those who wish to
                  Message 8 of 11 , Jun 28, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Dear Kai Froeb,

                    Why was my email copied below not posted?

                    Also, if you are list owner, idealy it is respectful and ethical
                    to invite those who wish to contribute to the proceedings to have a
                    say on its rules as I'm now doing, because I don't see how I've
                    fallen fowl of them. So if I don't like your reasons and you do not
                    want to budge on this issue, I will happily unsubscribe as a matter
                    of principle.

                    Regards,

                    Paul Healey

                    Wed, 27 Jun 2007 16:43:27 +0100 (BST)
                    From: "Paul Healey" <paulmsrf@...> Add to Address Book
                    Subject: Re: [hegel] Aufhebung / Sublation
                    To: hegel@yahoogroups.com

                    Great stuff.

                    Perhaps the question should be what word best describes what is
                    entailed by using aufhebung that fits with the contemporary debates?

                    Answer: not 'sublate' as its opposite could be subsume(to take in as
                    opposed to casting out) and fails to be within the scope of dialectic
                    constituting the image of a real processes, but a >>counterfactual
                    conditional<< as this is constitutive of the nomic ideas of preserve,
                    count, pick up, reject, eject, negate, add, eliminate and make etc.
                    for law-like relations; the counterfactual conditional is a bearer
                    for a kind of ontological function; the partial zipping and unziping
                    and trashing anything that is possible for thought.

                    And hence to demonstrate the necessity of those laws and chances as
                    generalised relations for all the terms relevant to some language;
                    the measure of compositions and their elements to serve some end;
                    aufhebung has an absolute value as Begriffe


                    Paul Healey




                    --- In hegel@yahoogroups.com, froeb-list@... wrote:
                    >
                    > > Nevertheless, I will examine the quotation you provided
                    > > above (as Kai now says this is an unmoderated list, with
                    > > no requirement to quote Hegel himself or deal specifically
                    > > with his texts).
                    >
                    > Well, I thought that the list policy was clear, but I will
                    > try to clarify it and, in some cases, also to be more
                    > precise:
                    >
                    > a)
                    > Technicaly, this list is unmoderated, except for new members,
                    > were we need to wait wether they are "real persons". (This
                    > restriction needed to be introduced after some clever people
                    > programed some robots which automaticaly sign in at
                    > yahgoogroups to distribute their spam), after this they are
                    > also turned into unmoderated.
                    >
                    > So the folowing rules are basicaly calling for your
                    > self discipline, as we have no moderator. They should be
                    > quite self evident, I hope.
                    >
                    > However, real persons that forcefully contradict the folowing
                    > rules, especialy continue to send mails which fall under
                    > the "black list" (see b), may become moderated (this applies
                    > to only one person at the moment).
                    >
                    > b)
                    > So the absolute minimum to write to this list is to keep
                    > it off spam (black list):
                    >
                    > b1)
                    > Spam in the context of this list is not only
                    > advertisments, but also any mail that has no special
                    > relevance to a fruitfull *Hegel* discourse is out of place.
                    > Of course, Hegel, as an encyclopedic thinker has writetn
                    > about nearly any topic. However, before you make this an
                    > excuse to post in this list your essay on Darwin, your protest
                    > against or in favour of the Bush administraion etc, you better
                    > make clear in the mesage itself, what relevance this message
                    > has in advancing Hegel studies, our knowledge, understanding,
                    > upgrade and application of Hegel thoughts.
                    >
                    > b2)
                    > Also, we call for a minimum of standards by asking for the
                    > usual netiquette rules (And, if possible, for the even higher,
                    > scientific standards): meaning that messages whith insults,
                    > people/position bashing (a meaningfull critique in the *content*
                    > is OK) etc. should not be posted. No need to be nitpicking,
                    > a good polemic here and there, in order to help make a point
                    > clearer and better readable than the prudent language of
                    > usual scientific discourse may help soemtimes, but personal
                    > insults should be avoided and we need to take into account
                    > that in this international forum people from different cultures
                    > participate, so some remark that are totaly acceptable in
                    > one society, may still sound rude in another one.
                    >
                    > I think that everyone is adult enough to find the adequate level
                    > himself, no need for us to nany you (only people who constantly
                    > offend the rules woithout any cooperationm will be set to
                    moderated,
                    > at the moment only one).
                    >
                    > b3)
                    > We also ask you to use the newly createdc mailinglists for specific
                    > topics. This especialy applies to discussion on Marx (hegel-marx),
                    > post hegelian philosophy (hegel-php), politics (hegel-os) and
                    hegelians/
                    > hegelreception (hegel-hegelians), as these topics tend to create a
                    lot of
                    > traffic and not everyone is interested in them.
                    >
                    > So e.g. the current discussion on marx should realy be moved
                    > to the Hegel-Marx list instead.
                    >
                    > Also, beginners questions and discussions about Hegel should be
                    > placed in the hegel-intro list, at least as long as they are not
                    universal
                    > interest to the Hegel "professioanls".
                    >
                    > c)
                    > So mails that do not violate to the black list above should be OK
                    here,
                    > as long as we don't find a moderator for this list.
                    >
                    > If asked for a "white list", mails I especialy would like to read
                    here
                    > in this list, my answer would include:
                    >
                    > - reviews of Hegel related literature
                    > - anouncment of Hegel related congresses
                    > - scientific discussion of Hegel related problems
                    > - this could also include informal exchange on
                    > specific Hegel questions
                    >
                    > Topics of such discussions could include
                    > - Hegel's life and his contempories
                    > - his time and its discourses
                    > - relation of Hegel to other philosophers, theologians, scientists,
                    artist
                    > and otehr thinkers before him and of his time
                    > - systematic questions of Hegels philosophy, e.g. relation between
                    different
                    > parts of teh system, architetucral questions
                    > - discussion of any part of Hegel's system for which we dont have a
                    specific
                    > list yet, including lesser known parts of the system, including
                    philosophy
                    > of nature, philosophy of subjective spirit, etc
                    > - critical revision / reaxamination of any of Hegel's teachings etc.
                    >
                    > In order to avoid an unfruitful replication of already solved
                    debattes /
                    > questions, in order to contribute to the progress of Hegel studies,
                    the mails
                    > should at least have a knowledge about the relevant parts of the
                    work of Hegel
                    > and if ever possible also of at least parts of the relevant
                    secondary
                    > literature.
                    >
                    > As a last aspect, the self discipline of applying the rules fo
                    that "white
                    > list" mor or less restrictive is dependent on teh amout of trafic
                    we face here
                    > on the list. As long as we have little traffic (less than, say, 100
                    messages
                    > a month), we can relax the rules, when we get many traffic, everyone
                    > intending to write to the list is asked to have a closer look
                    wetehr his message is
                    > helpfull for the otehrs.
                    >
                    > I hope these rules make sense. The only reasons for these rules is
                    to create
                    > for you, the participants, a mailing list that makes it attractive
                    for
                    > professionals to participate and for everyone rewarding to read,
                    and to advance
                    > Hegel studies above their current level. If you want to discuss
                    these rules,
                    > such discussions, like any other rukles / goald / actions of
                    Hegel.Net related
                    > activities, is possible and welcome on the hegelnet mailing list.
                    >
                    > HTH (hope that helps) and all the best,
                    > Kai
                    >
                    > --
                    > Kai Froeb, Muenchen
                    > http://kai.froeb.net
                    > http://hegel-werkstatt.de
                    >
                  • froeb-list@gmx.net
                    ... Hi Paul, I don t know why your mail has not been sent to the list, it seems that it has been lost. I have not seen it and not moderated/deleted it. The
                    Message 9 of 11 , Jun 28, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment
                      paul81755 schrieb:
                      > Dear Kai Froeb,
                      >
                      > Why was my email copied below not posted?
                      >
                      > Also, if you are list owner, idealy it is respectful and ethical
                      > to invite those who wish to contribute to the proceedings to have a
                      > say on its rules as I'm now doing, because I don't see how I've
                      > fallen fowl of them. So if I don't like your reasons and you do not
                      > want to budge on this issue, I will happily unsubscribe as a matter
                      > of principle.
                      >
                      > Regards,
                      >
                      > Paul Healey


                      Hi Paul,

                      I don't know why your mail has not been sent to the list, it seems
                      that it has been lost. I have not seen it and not moderated/deleted it.

                      The yahoo lists semetimes need some 24hours to post a message (that
                      also happend to me, system unknown), so may be your message will appear
                      in the next few hours (I have no influence on that).

                      HTH, all the best
                      Kai
                    • Kai Froeb
                      Sorry, the first version of this post escaped a bit too early and had a typo in the url given (and I added the reference to Levi Bryant, who is acting as
                      Message 10 of 11 , Jun 28, 2007
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Sorry, the first version of this post escaped a bit too early and had
                        a typo in the url given (and I added the reference to Levi Bryant, who
                        is acting as moderator to this list).

                        Hi Paul,

                        I just found out: the yahoo groups system (whose infrastructure we are
                        using to serve this mailing list) has identified your email as "spam".
                        I have no ideas how it came to that conclusion. It is the first time
                        ever that the yahoo spam filter was applied to one of our lists.

                        Funny enough, we get spam mails (produced automaticaly by spam programs)
                        to the lists nearly every day and these are *never* (so far) identified
                        as spam by the system.

                        It seems that I do not get a message when such a spam mail is identified
                        and hold back by the system, so it has escaped my notice. So please
                        take my apoligies for that.

                        As a general policy, I recomend that everyone waits for 24 hours if his
                        mail is *not* sent to the list. And only if it still does not appears on
                        the list after that time, write a private mail to Levi Bryant (who is doing
                        the lightweigth moderation of this list at the moment on my behalf, so your
                        reference to the policy mail is outdated) and/or me. And only if this does
                        not turn out to be satisfactory for you, mail to the list, if you like.

                        BTW, we also have a special unmoderated list,

                        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hegelnet <- notice the *net* at the end!

                        for discussing such meta issues, including moderation policy, in order
                        to keep the main lists free from too much meta issues.

                        HTH
                        Kai
                      • Paul Healey
                        Kai, my appologies for sounding too blunt, but I think the same thing happened before. Thank you for taking the time to clear up the matter. Regards, Paul
                        Message 11 of 11 , Jun 29, 2007
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Kai,

                          my appologies for sounding too blunt, but I think the same thing happened before.

                          Thank you for taking the time to clear up the matter.

                          Regards,

                          Paul Healey

                          Kai Froeb <froeb-list@...> wrote:
                          Sorry, the first version of this post escaped a bit too early and had
                          a typo in the url given (and I added the reference to Levi Bryant, who
                          is acting as moderator to this list).

                          Hi Paul,

                          I just found out: the yahoo groups system (whose infrastructure we are
                          using to serve this mailing list) has identified your email as "spam".
                          I have no ideas how it came to that conclusion. It is the first time
                          ever that the yahoo spam filter was applied to one of our lists.

                          Funny enough, we get spam mails (produced automaticaly by spam programs)
                          to the lists nearly every day and these are *never* (so far) identified
                          as spam by the system.

                          It seems that I do not get a message when such a spam mail is identified
                          and hold back by the system, so it has escaped my notice. So please
                          take my apoligies for that.

                          As a general policy, I recomend that everyone waits for 24 hours if his
                          mail is *not* sent to the list. And only if it still does not appears on
                          the list after that time, write a private mail to Levi Bryant (who is doing
                          the lightweigth moderation of this list at the moment on my behalf, so your
                          reference to the policy mail is outdated) and/or me. And only if this does
                          not turn out to be satisfactory for you, mail to the list, if you like.

                          BTW, we also have a special unmoderated list,

                          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hegelnet <- notice the *net* at the end!

                          for discussing such meta issues, including moderation policy, in order
                          to keep the main lists free from too much meta issues.

                          HTH
                          Kai






                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.