Title descriptionIn "What is Meaning" (1903) the author elaborates on the fundamental tenets of her theory of sign, to which she gave the overall term ‘significs’. One of the main obstacles to an adequate theory of meaning, in Lady Welby’s opinion, is the unfounded assumption of fixed sign meaning. "There is, strictly speaking, no such thing as the Sense of a word, but only the sense in which it is used – the circumstances, state of mind, reference, ‘universe of discourse’ (...) belonging to it. The Meaning of a word is the intent which it is desired to convey – the intention of the user. The Significance is always manifold, and intensifies its sense as well as its meaning, by expressing its importance, its appeal to us, its moment for us, its emotional force, its ideal value, its moral aspect, its universal or at least social range."This facsimile of the 1903 edition of "What is Meaning" is accompanied by an essay on "Significs as a Fundamental Science" by Achim Eschbach, and "A Concise History of Significs" by G. Mannoury. (shrink)

... significs and the signific movement in the Netherlands which derived from it from the standpoint of the history of science stems from my esteemed ...

Noting how Bloom displays a rare capacity to see Dublin through the eyes and minds of other people, this article aims at unravelling the skein of perspectival shifts in the book. Although Bloom and Stephen exist only as black marks on white pages, our brains are able to invest emotion in them as well as to attribute a weighty degree of truth-value to their introspective contemplations. Ulysses thus turns out to be the ultimate study in the twin concepts of Theory (...) of Mind and Meta-representation, constantly requiring readers to pick up complex cues as to the intentionality of characters, to read not just their minds but the minds represented by these characters’ minds in an endless process of mental mise en abyme. (shrink)

The widespread and elaborate use of new financial instruments among corporate entities and financial institutions requires justification. It faces the charge of increasing both the level and complexity of risk in the financial system under the pretext of reducing it. It is a prodigious user of management resources and IT. It obscures the integrity of the nature of the non-financial user.It is not mere academic argument to question the ethics of certain instruments. Both in the US and the UK certain (...) forms of financial instrument are deemed too risky to be used by all and sundry. Other forms of instrument may be banned outright, even though many financial professionals will be perfectly capable of measuring the risk involved. The force of this attack is recognized in the financial industry. One defence frequently put forward is similar to that of the National Rifle Association in the US about guns. It is the users, not the product, that are the problem. “One misconception is that derivatives are risky instruments that are used for speculation. It is more accurate to say that derivatives are instruments that can be used to alter risk profiles”. The mere fact of an instrument existing is no reason to use it. The biggest advocates of exotic options are bankers. Practising Treasurers spend much time seeking to distinguish between the fascinating idea which the bank’s rocket scientist wants to try, and the derivative that will genuinely benefit the company. The fact that many of these instruments are harmful or spurious does not mean they should be banned, but neither does the absence of a ban make them ethical.The ethical question to ask for the non-financial corporation has to do with the proper balance of courage and prudence. Will this instrument enable the company to carry out its proper task with more focus and self-awareness, or is it an attempt to neutralize the proper risks that we are paid to take? For financial corporations the inevitable presence of derivatives poses two issues. First, are they intrinsically valuable or simply so complicated that no client could use them and monitor the new exposures involved? Secondly, will the active management of our positions created by this activity result in a change in the nature of our business, and if so, has this been clearly communicated to the world around?On reading this again I am once more struck by a remark made to me by a clergyman long before I was ordained. “What is an ethical Treasurer?” One of the major challenges in the field of financial ethics is the development of an adequate, and clearly communicated, measure of the intrinsic ethics of finance.This paper is not arguing that derivatives are wrong, but that they are powerful, and power needs monitoring and controlling. The events of October 1987 are often referred to as the meltdown of the markets. My clear memory is of the whole executive board of directors standing in my office gazing in awe at a Topic Screen as waves of red chased across the screen. The use of nuclear metaphors was apt. A system that seemed safe had assumed a life of its own. There is little doubt that derivatives fuelled the reaction. (shrink)