h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

OK.

Hi Grime

I dislike Alabaster, too, but it is faster than Goo, and a lot of researchers use it.. But don't change the look of your presentation on my account.. I think it looks fine, but perhaps the Question itself could be set off a bit more... just a matter of personal taste, and if you are happy with it, that's fine too!

Regarding the discussion of your question, I would be happy to explore this with you, but perhaps we should start another thread. It may be considered off-topic if we engage in such discourse in PR..

So, since it is your question, would you like to start the conversation on your page? If you do, say so here, and I'll pop over and visit you.

Or you are welcome to visit my 'back porch', for a or and a chat..

And of course you are welcome too, Frogbit

OK, Taliesin - it does seem to make sense as it's about me rather than about Heidegger. I'll open another thread n you can tell me what you meant by 'yes and no' (cos it's not clear what you meant). I think I'll leave my Heidegger Entry as it is as it's factual and accurate - and I don't think it's far from what Douglas Adams had on his mind, (hence the Entry).

NB Frogbit,

Grime

May I suggest you make it a journal entry, then, to start off the discourse, so to speak?

I must go offline now, but I'll pop by your page tomorrow, ok?

&

Tal,

I've opened a thread on my Home Page, which I very much hope you'll join in.

Don't worry, I'm very much turned off by protracted or clever-clever philosophival debates.

Thanx for the invitation, I'll definitely drop in to your back porch.


Grime

Hi, Frogbit. I've opened a new thread, on T's advice, on me Home Page to cover this subject (briefly I hope). Very much hope you can make it over and we can continue over there

Grime

Hi Tal,

I hope it's not committimg an outrageous solecism to ask, but did you recommend my Heidegger piece for editing or will I have to wait for anothert Scout to drop by?

Grime

Editorial Note: This conversation has been moved from 'Peer Review' to 'Heidegger's Ultimate Question - a mercifully short guide '.

It's nearly there - but not quite. We agree that it does what it says on the tin (it *is* mercifully short) but more info is needed - more discussion - to ground the entry a little bit more, especially for the benefit of the uninitiated. A few more facts, a little bit more work in providing more of a context and introduction, and a little less 'philosopher's in-joke vibe' and this entry will be a very welcome inclusion into the Guide.

Your view is not universal. Have you checked the thread?

Post: 2
Hi Grimethorpe. I think this should probably go into the guide *as is*, before people start asking for changes or more data. Simple fact is that it was supposed to be simple. (Frogbit)

Post 45
Don't worry, I'm very much turned off by protracted or clever-clever philosophical debates. (me).

And what can you mean by 'philosophers' in-joke'? The Entry is written in plain English, with any unavoidable technical terms explained. And I don't see where it's funny.

Does this betray some prejudice on your part? I'm sure you're not trying to be offensive...

Grime

Furthermore, what's the point of passing a very sympathetic Peer Review, only to have an unsympathetic sub weigh in and suddenly say it's not good enough?

If my peers like it, I'm sorry, but you're in the minority, sub or no sub.

Not improper at all. However, your article was recommended, but not, I fear, by me.. I actually intended to do so, but was forestalled by another

Glad to see you back

Hi Tal,

TYhanks for your message. Nice to hear from you again

Unfortunately, as you see, I seem to have got the wrong sub for the subject

Which is such a shame since we all spent so long on the topic together.

It's what's known over here as Murphy's (or less politely S*d's - rhymes with odds) Law.

Nice to hear that two scouts were interested, though.

Grime

It's just been explained to me that you're not a sub. My arguments still apply, though. Are you reading this at all, or just not answering?

Well, the machine seems to want more discussion.. I suppose I can help you out there.. although from my understanding of the article I really have very few questions.. perhaps we could ask some of the regulars at the FFFF? http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A254314

'More facts'.. well, that's the problem with philosophy in general, is it not? It has been my experience that most of the 'facts' of philosophy are shaky premises at best, and vain arguments at worst..

'context and introduction'.. ok, maybe give them a brief overview of Heidegger's socio/cultural milieu? Some brief lines from some of his other writings, just to kind of indicate what his prejudices and presumptions may have been.. Also, did any other thinkers attempt to answer the 'Great Question', and how did they go about it?

Also, perhaps the 'Great Question' could be rephrased in a couple of other ways, in order to remove any possible vestiges of ambiguity...

And if they dislike 'philosopher's in-jokes', I guess I will promise to restrain myself..

Hi Tal,

Thanks for your excellent suggestions, but it seems the machine doesn't like philosophy per se. It was quite an offensive remark. But I don't much like philosophy for philosophy's sake either. The article was meant for anybody with an interest and an open mind.

I'm a bit reluctant to resubmit it, though, because that would mean ignoring the help/remarks from you and Frogbit, John-the-Gardener, Hoovoloo and Shorn Canary, and starting again. Anyway, I don't agree with the rejection - I think the article has its own integrity, and like everyone else in its Peer Review (after including suggestions) I think it's more or less OK as it is.

I'm a bit worried that the question seemed ambiguous, though. Can you tell me what's wrong?

Grime

~I~ don't think it's all that ambiguous, and I see nothing 'wrong' per se, with your article.

But others obviously seem to have reacted differently, therefore you could consider using an accepted method of reducing ambiguity: by restatement of a particular concept, question, whatever, in different ways

Our language tends to be ambiguous.. Which is one of the reasons why simple, basic ideas and theories are often paradoxically more difficult to communicate.

Perhaps this is due to the nature of our method of communicating.. Reality is 'holistic' and 'non-linear'. But our language is linear, and dualistic, by and large. We cannot do 'parallel processing' or 'multi-threading' when we communicate with one another.

I don't think this article will require a massive re-write, or even much additional information. Just consider how you would restate the question, using other descriptive terms, or an analogy or two, if possible. You can still keep it short, because that is at least part of the charm of the article.. one or two additional sentences could do the trick..

I certainly don't believe this means you have to start all over..

Just checking - but it does mean I lose the thread and all the contributions an' nice comments though?

Grime

The thread will always be there, nothing is ever deleted. It's been moved to the entry, so you'll always know where to find it.

Thank you, Mina

Hi Mina,

Could you look at my new version at A626212 and tell me if it's more accessible to you? In a sense you're my ideal reader - intelligent but not previously clued-up or particularly interested (perhaps?) in such matters.

Thanx


Grime