@smithnd Hi, I’m the editor of the Phil Mind section. It sounds like your interests are spread over the chapters. Which chapter do you see yourself fitting into most at the moment? If you do early phenomenology, do you see a chapter on that for the volume? If so, what would it look like? If you haven’t already, please also submit a cv. I look forward to reading more about what you’d like to contribute.
@apurva Hello Eran, I replied to a later comment of yours before seeing this one. I see now that you prefer concepts and content. I would love to see your cv, but at the moment you seem like a very good fit for this chapter. It is one of my favorites. Might I ask you which philosophers you are interested in including?
@vajramadhu I have just viewed your cv and see that you have written on Indian philosophy of mind. If we were able to include a chapter on Indian philosophy of mind, what would you cover?
@robinlukevarghese I saw your cv and I think you would be a great fit for a chapter on the self or a chapter on subjectivity. I don’t have either in the official table of contents but think it would be a good idea to add both. Which do you prefer?
@heathersalazarom Thanks a lot for considering self/Subjectivity as an addition. As you know from my CV, it is one of my main focal and favourite areas of interest. Regarding the choice of the theme/title in this connection, my suggestion is to consider “Self” which I think can accommodate both the problems of personal identity and subjectivity to a great extent. The notion of Self as I see it is closely knitted to them, especially from a first person perspective. At the same time, it is too broad a notion to cover within the stipulated word limit, but hopeful that it can be done. I would certainly think over it and let you know, a somewhat concrete picture with respect to the detailed contents as we continue our conversation.
@heathersalazarom Hi Heather, thanks for your reply. I haven’t thought about specific philosophers yet, but I’ll definitely include discussion of the big names in the field such as Hilary Putnam, Saul Kripke, and Tyler Burge. I’d also like to include some discussion of Jerry Fodor’s work - he has written a great deal about the nature of concepts and where their content comes from. And then if space allows I’d like to discuss some of the lesser known (but still very insightful) work of people such as Frances Egan and Ruth Millikan.
@heathersalazarom Thanks for the reply and the suggestion. So, what I would propose is to do a historical chapter on the philosophy of mind. I would actually begin with Aristotle, since his hylomorphism has become an inspiration for some of the dual-aspect theories in contemporary philosophy and I think it provides a very interesting context for talking about Descartes. Then I would talk about Cartesian dualism and its arguments, including Descartes’ correspondence with Elizabeth on interaction and his debate with Hobbes. I would look briefly at other views, like materialism in Hobbes, Gassendi, and Margaret Cavendish (each of which has a different approach to materialism). Given that the topic of mental content is discussed elsewhere, it would be good to indicate the historical origins in Locke and Descartes’ theory of ideas as well as, perhaps, the primary/secondary quality distinction. And given the interest in personal identity, it would be interesting to mention Locke’s psychological view and Hume’s bundle theory.
As for phenomenology, I see this as linking to a section on mental content. I would discuss the notion of intentionality and intentional inexistence in Brentano. Also, I would look at criticisms of Descartes in Husserl, Heidegger, and Merleau Ponty only to point out that while phenomenology takes mental content as transparent to consciousness, but distances itself from Descartes’ substance dualism. I could expand this a bit with a discussion of the intentional stance in Dennett and the notion of non-representational mental content. I don’t think I have 3000 words here. Probably more like 1500 would be appropriate, given the audience.
Hi Heather,
This project looks great and I’d love to be part of it.
In particular, I’d like to write the chapter on Free Will. I’m a philosophy professor at Red Deer College . I completed my PhD in philosophy at Florida State University with a concentration in philosophy of action/free will. My research and publications have mainly focused on free will/moral responsibility and moral psychology. I teach an undergraduate survey on current issues surrounding free will annually.
Let me know your thoughts.
-Dan
@haasdd Hi Dan, thanks for your interest in the project!
We’re currently asking people to submit CVs, and if possible, a brief summary of their experience teaching introductory courses on philosophy of mind. Can you share this with me (apurva@rebus.foundation)? I will pass along to @heathersalazarom who will make final decisions regarding authors.
Hi everyone! We’re pleased to announce that Rebus Projects is now live! This is our new platform that guides open textbook projects through the publishing workflow and makes it easy to find, recruit, and organize collaborators. The main listing for this project is now found on the new site.
To stay involved & updated on this project’s progress, head to Rebus Projects, log in with the same details you use on the Rebus Forum. Then, find this project in the listing, and click on “Join the Project” in the new platform! We look forward to seeing you there!
Here’s an update on this book–it’s nearly ready! The chapters have been peer reviewed and I as the series editor have reviewed them as well. When the authors have completed their final revisions we will put the book into Pressbooks and it will be ready for viewing and distributing, hopefully in the next couple of months!
1 Like
@metatechne @xolotl Thanks again for volunteering to help with finalizing the publication of this book! I am pulling us over to this thread to help organize discussions. I have been swamped with 6 weeks of conferences, and now finally have a bit more breathing room to get back to this project.
Colleen has graciously volunteered to help with copyediting, and Nate has volunteered to help with inputting chapters into Pressbooks (and proofreading too I think).
The chapters are currently all on Google docs; Colleen, would it be easier for you to do copyediting on the Google Docs or once the chapters are in Pressbooks? I don’t know what the best workflow might be for this.
We are still finalizing one chapter but the others are ready to go, and we just need to figure out whether to do the copyediting before or after importing them into Pressbooks. So any thoughts you (both) might have on this are welcome!
As much as I’d like to say copyediting would be better in PB (maybe using Hypothesis annotation too), my guess is it would be more efficient in gdocs. Perhaps folks from Rebus have best practices?
= Nate
I think the only preference I have is to be able to use a suggested-edits feature or track changes. I know gdocs can do that, and if PB can too, then great.
I don’t think PB can do that, so I’ve shared a gdocs folder with you both. It has the chapters that are ready to go into Pressbooks (still working on the Introduction and Chapter 1, so they’re not there yet), as well as a document called “Historical Commentary Boxes” with blurbs that need to go into boxes in some chapters. The first box needs to into chapter 1, but I need to double check on where the others need to go.
I also put a document in that folder with a link to the author guide and style sheet. The book is being edited according to Chicago Manual of Style.
One thing I’m not sure of–I don’t know if the footnotes are all in Chicago style or not. I can fix them if they’re not, but it will be a few days before I can get to that!
Please let me know if you have any issues with the folder (you can email me at christina.hendricks@ubc.ca if so.)
1 Like
Hi team, I agree that if the preference is to use suggested edits during the copyediting phase, Google Docs will be most efficient. It will be good to have Colleen jump in and copyedit the chapters in Google Docs, and have Nate proofread them after they are in Pressbooks – to catch any errors that may have arisen during the transfer.
Hoping you all have links to the folder now, and if you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to reach out.
It appears I have access to the folder and docs, thanks!
One question: How would you prefer I make edits?
(A) Silent edits: I was thinking I would make silent edits for those that correspond to the Author Guidelines (e.g. single quotes as scare quotes should be double quotes, so I would just make that change). As an exception, I may flag text as needed with a question as to whether you wish to follow the Chicago rule or adopt a new one if not already featured in the Guidelines. For example: Chicago uses no periods in academic abbreviations, whereas the Bios for Phil Mind doc consistently includes them.
(B) Tracked/visible edits: I can turn on the suggested-edits feature for any other edits or flags, so that they are both immediately visible and easily accepted/rejected.
If that works for you and @apurva , I can get started this evening.
Excellent!
I’m okay with option A, silent edits but flagging questions where necessary, but I’ll leave it to @christina.hendricks to confirm which she prefers best, as she will likely be the one reviewing changes and answering questions! 
Option A sounds good to me too. Thanks, all!
1 Like