Volume 43, issue 2-3 of the JIP is available, guest edited by our own Elisa Freschi. Congratulations, Elisa! The issue theme is the reuse of texts in Indian philosophy.
Table of contents is here: http://link.springer.com/journal/10781/43/2?wt_mc=alerts.TOCjournals
Many thanks, Matthew! I have been working on this project since January 2008 and I invested in it way more energy than in everything else I did (apart perhaps from my first book), thus, I am still tense and hope that nothing went wrong at the last step… but I also look forward for many interesting discussions on what it means to be an “author” and to be “original” in Classical Indian Philosophy.
I look forward to reading many of the articles. Hopefully some will provide grist for our discussion-mill here.
Thanks, Matthew. I payed for the Open Access version of the Introduction to the volume exactly because I hoped that many people —also the ones who do not have a library at their home institution— could read it.
Forgive my ignorance on this: I should be more informed on how this works. You payed Springer yourself so the intro would be open access? Am I getting this right?
In any case, why not have a link to the intro here on this thread if it is not beyond the pay wall?
Dear Matthew,
several articles of the issue have been published Open Access, which means that the authors retained the copyright (and may republish their articles or modify them) and the article is freely accessible to everyone online:
—My Introduction to the volume: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10781-014-9232-9
—Ewa Debicka-Borek on Pāñcarātra: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10781-014-9248-1
—Alessandro Graheli on Bhaṭṭa Jayanta: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10781-014-9234-7
As for OA in general, it works as you say: The author pays (a lot —more than 2,000 E—, in the case of Springer) and in this way the article is available for everyone to download. Many institutions reimburse this sort of expenses. You can find any further information you might want on Dominik Wujastyk’s blog, especially here: http://cikitsa.blogspot.co.at/2013/07/my-post-some-oa-journals-that-publish-s.html and here: http://cikitsa.blogspot.co.at/2012/02/some-oa-journals-that-publish-s-asia.html
I haven’t thought much of a distinction brought up by Graheli in his article, that it is possible that śabda is a term that is fundamentally about oral statements and not written statements. Obviously, it can be easily analogized as such by us (as Mohanty does in his “utterer conditions”). Interesting thing to consider.
Thanks for the links.
Matthew, you are right, the oral vs. written status of śabda is an interesting topic. Jayanta, for instance, concludes that written words only inferentially lead to their meaning (via the medium of the inferred oral śabda). I remember you and I have discussed this topic already in regard to non-oral examples of witnesses (such as that of speaking machines), see here: http://elisafreschi.blogspot.co.at/2013/05/requisites-of-listener.html
By the way, Graheli will discuss this topic more in depth at the panel organised by Malcolm and me at the next Atiner conference (http://elisafreschi.com/announcements/cfp-language-as-a-tools-for-acquiring-knowledge-atiner-conference/#more-989)
To repeat, I was definitely trying to think about my Naiyayika in my own head in that discussion on your blog (about clocks, etc.), that is consistent with Gangesha, but not necessarily his view. I worry about the consistency of Jayanta’s concession here. It may be hard not to just reduce testimony entirely to inference at that point.