Who Lives Here?

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Henrik Hogh-Olesen
Keyword(s):  
Social Status ◽  
Public Domain ◽  
Sexual Partners ◽  
Street Art ◽  
Evolutionary Information ◽  
The Public ◽  
Full Circle ◽  
Human Need ◽  
Personal Fitness ◽  
The Aesthetic

Chapter 6 follows the aesthetic impulse full circle and explores the human need to decorate objects and surroundings, as well as the marking of property and status in the public domain. Furthermore, it looks at phenomena such as folk art, street art, and graffiti. The purpose of the chapter is to show that such extravaganzas too make biological sense and thereby strengthen the argument that aesthetic behavior is natural for humans. Decorations signal personal fitness, ability, care, effort, resources, as well as power, because they ensure social status, for instance to attract more sexual partners. Like our body ornamentation, decoration is immediate communication transmitting key social and evolutionary information to the surroundings.

BRIEF COMMENTS ON STAFLEU’S PROPOSAL FOR A NEW POLITICAL ASPECT

2005 ◽  
Vol 70 (1) ◽  
pp. 70-75
Author(s):  
Andrew Basden
Keyword(s):  
Public Domain ◽  
The State ◽  
The Political ◽  
Social Aspect ◽  
Political Aspect ◽  
The Public ◽  
Social Communities ◽  
The Social ◽  
Aesthetic Aspect ◽  
The Aesthetic

In “On the character of social communities; the state and the public domain” [Philosophia Reformata 69(2):125-39, 2004] Dick Stafleu has suggested that the social aspect as currently constituted under Dooyeweerd, covers two distinct things: ”¢ companionship ”¢ authority and discipline, and that the latter should become a new aspect, the political, placed after the economic and before the juridical. (Stafleu seems to have dispensed with the aesthetic aspect that currently lies between those two aspects, largely taking Seerveld’s line that it should be redefined and placed earlier; see footnote 9 on p.130) I would like to briefly suggest some issues that need to be discussed and resolved before his suggestion is adopted. I have long felt the tension between the two parts of Dooyeweerd’s version of the social aspect that Stafleu refers to — companionship and authority — and I think Stafleu is right to open up discussion about it. But I am not happy that his proposal either is necessary or solves the problem. Moreover, I can also understand something of Dooyeweerd’s own thinking as he kept the two together.

scholarly journals Aesthetic Performance Products as a Basis For Non Novelty of Industrial Design Based on The Public Domain Principle

Notaire ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 75
Author(s):  
Desy Rizki Ramadhani ◽  
Puteri Melati ◽  
Camellia Anand
Keyword(s):  
Industrial Design ◽  
Public Domain ◽  
Product Performance ◽  
External Appearance ◽  
The Public ◽  
Public Property ◽  
Photographic Evidence ◽  
Design Law ◽  
The Aesthetic ◽  
Protection Period

Comparative products are very important and must be considered about it because, Industrial Design assesses the performance of products that can be proven from evidence that can be seen or assessed by clear eye such as photographic evidence, catalogs or other evidence that can be proved bye Industrial Design which has existed before. Industrial design is based on its external appearance which does not have an aesthetic impression and contradicts Article 1 point 1 of the Industrial Design Law and article 25 Paragraph 1 of the TRIPs agreement, which is form creation, solely for function or technical configuration. Aesthetically cannot be registered. In the absence of aesthetic elements, the product performance can be used as the basis for the absence of new industrial designs based on the principle of "Public Domain", considering the aesthetic elements are one of the requirements of an item that can be categorized as Industrial Design. In the other hand, the protection period has expired and became a "Public Domain" then it can be registered as an Industrial Design if it packed with an aesthetic elements. If an item does not have an aesthetic impression, it can be ascertained that the item is not an industrial design and can be possible not to have novelty and become public property. Aesthetic impressions do not contradict with the laws and regulations, but this is an important requirement so the design can be categorized as an industrial design. In ordinance No. 31 in 2000 concerning Industrial Design itself does not limit of the notion novelty and aesthetics so, the multiple interpretations are often occur.

Rewritten or Reused? Originality, Intertextuality, and Reuse in the Writings of a Buddhist Visionary in Contemporary Tibet

2017 ◽  
Vol 33 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 203-231
Author(s):  
Antonio Terrone
Keyword(s):  
Public Domain ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Way

The study of Buddhist texts can inform us of the way scriptures were composed, as well as illuminate the reasons behind their production. This study examines the phenomenon of borrowing and reusing portions of texts without attributing them to their ‘legitimate authors’ within the Buddhist world of contemporary Tibet. It shows that not only is such a practice not at all infrequent and is often socially accepted, but that it is used in this case as a platform to advance specific claims and promote an explicit agenda. Therefore, rather than considering these as instances of plagiarism, this essay looks at the practice of copying and borrowing as an exercise in intertextuality, intended as the faithful retransmission of ancient truths, and as an indication of the public domain of texts in Tibet.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document