Hegel list recently saw a message from Andy Blunden, which was by
an error posted to that list. So I ask you to not continue
to discuss it on the hegel list, except only when it comes to
Hegel interpretation questions it may lead to.
Hegel list is concerned with discussing Hegel, HegelNet list is
discussing HegelNet (see the footers of every mail to the lists).
Both lists have different goals, a different member list, and
different copyright policy, so they should not be mixed up.
You can subscribe to any of these lists (as well as to more),
by visiting http://hegel.net/res/ml.htm.
At the HegelNet list, we have started a call for a hegel.Net
"mission statement" some time ago. So far we have not got any
officla submission. What has happend is that some people have asked
for a confidential review among the group of contributors for
prelimnery drafts of such statements they wrote.
For example, I wrote myself such a draft which I presented to
all active contributors of hegel.Net web site as well as to our
major cooperators (like Andy), with the note "confidential" in the
topic line as well as in the text.
As this is work in progress and people do share their thoughts among
few selected people in that process just because they *do not* want
to discuss it in public, as they think it is not in a mature state,
but in an atmosphere of trust, it should be treated confidential.
The result of this first review will be published for discussion on
the HegelNet list probably in one or two week (but everyone is
free to post something on the HegelNet list earlier then this, there
is no *rule* that says you need to let HegelNet contributors review
your statements before).
When the statement(s) are published as drafts at hegelNet mailing list
for "official" discussion and review, we have all the possibility to
go into details.
At the moment, such a discussion is not fruitfull without the
publication of the drafts. I tend to think that the remarks of Andy
and Janko may also lead to a very wrong impression on these
drafts, which is unfair as we can not correct that impression at the
moment. Also, as the authors of the draft where asking for an internal
review first, they should be handled as what they are, a first attempt
which is subject to corrections after this first internal review.
As this message concerns HegelNet proceedings, pls. write your answers,
in case you need to comment, to the HegelNet mailing list only.