scholarly journals Two distinct perspectives on pneumatology – similarities and differences between The Romanian Pentecostal and Evangelical theology

2015 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 243-255
Author(s):  
Eugen Jugaru
Keyword(s):  
Common Ground ◽  
Spiritual Gifts ◽  
The Gift ◽  
Working Together ◽  
The Common ◽  
Similarities And Differences ◽  
Evangelical Theology

Abstract This article aims to compare and analyse two different perspectives of pneumatology: within the Pentecostal and the Evangelical perspective. In spite of many doctrinal tangents with the Evangelical theology, the Pentecostal has its own spirituality and theological accent, especially in the field of pneumatology. The two differences centre on baptism in the Spirit and the gift of prophecy. From a Pentecostal practical perspective, the spiritual gifts continue to play an important role for the contemporary church. Although there are differences in their theological approaches, the Pentecostals and the Evangelicals found the common ground in forming the Evangelical Alliance of Romania and working together for about a quarter of Century.

How actions and words come to make sense in a continuously changing world of work: A case study from software development

Semiotica ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Wolff-Michael Roth ◽  
David Socha ◽  
Josh Tenenberg
Keyword(s):  
Software Development ◽  
Common Ground ◽  
Test Case ◽  
Joint Work ◽  
Working Together ◽  
Group Members ◽  
The Common ◽  
Successful Collaboration ◽  
Changing World

AbstractTo be successful, collaboration at work requires its participants to have a common sense about what is happening and where things are heading. But how can collaborators have such a sense in common if what is going on continuously changes? This study investigates the joint communicative work participants in collaborative activity do to remain aligned on how things are going and where things are at for the purpose of maintaining a ground in common. Our test case for illustrating this joint work is the fluid and constantly changing world of software development. Our study uses a transactional approach to show how software developers working together continuously make available what they are attuned to, which constitutes their common ground that allows actions and talk to make sense. The common ground enables a common, inherently shared sense of what is happening and how things are going. Rather than having “meaning” in themselves, signifiers (words, gestures, body movements, cursor movements) create and are part of the common ground against which they make sense. Signifiers are motivated by and produce an accented visible that is available to all group members; and this accented visible (including the signs) makes for the common ground.

History, Ethics and Philosophy: Bernard Williams’ Appraisal of R. G. Collingwood

2011 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 36-53
Author(s):  
Stephen Leach
Keyword(s):  
Common Ground ◽  
The Other ◽  
Bernard Williams ◽  
The Past ◽  
The Common ◽  
Similarities And Differences ◽  
Analytic Philosopher ◽  
Moral Attitudes ◽  
The Relationship

AbstractThe author examines Williams’ appraisal of Collingwood both in his eponymous essay on Collingwood, in the posthumously published Sense of the Past (2006), and elsewhere in his work. The similarities and differences between their philosophies are explored: in particular, with regard to the relationship between philosophy and history and the relationship between the study of history and our present-day moral attitudes. It is argued that, despite Williams usually being classified as an analytic philosopher and Collingwood being classified as an idealist, there is substantial common ground between them. Williams was aware of this and made clear his sympathy for Collingwood; but, nonetheless, the relationship between Williams and Collingwood has not previously been explored in any detail. After establishing the common ground between these philosophers, and the areas of disagreement, the author suggests that both may have something to gain from the other.

The Semantics of Evidentials

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah E. Murray
Keyword(s):  
Recent Work ◽  
Common Ground ◽  
Formal Semantics ◽  
Empirical Support ◽  
Propositional Content ◽  
Primary Data ◽  
Truth Conditional ◽  
The Common ◽  
Issue Content

This book gives a compositional, truth‐conditional, crosslinguistic semantics for evidentials set in a theory of the semantics for sentential mood. Central to this semantics is a proposal about a distinction between what propositional content is at‐issue, roughly primary or proffered, and what content is not‐at‐issue. Evidentials contribute not‐at‐issue content, more specifically what I will call a not‐at‐issue restriction. In addition, evidentials can affect the level of commitment a sentence makes to the main proposition, contributed by sentential mood. Building on recent work in the formal semantics of evidentials and related phenomena, the proposed semantics does not appeal to separate dimensions of illocutionary meaning. Instead, I argue that all sentences make three contributions: at‐issue content, not‐at‐issue content, and an illocutionary relation. At‐issue content is presented, made available for subsequent anaphora, but is not directly added to the common ground. Not‐at‐issue content directly updates the common ground. The illocutionary relation uses the at‐issue content to impose structure on the common ground, which, depending on the clause type (e.g., declarative, interrogative), can trigger further updates. Empirical support for this proposal comes from Cheyenne (Algonquian, primary data from the author’s fieldwork), English, and a wide variety of languages that have been discussed in the literature on evidentials.

Can Groups Assert That P?

2019 ◽  
pp. 326-344
Author(s):  
Deborah Tollefsen
Keyword(s):  
Common Ground ◽  
Speech Act ◽  
Single Individual ◽  
Constitutive Rule ◽  
The Past ◽  
Group Members ◽  
The Common ◽  
Declarative Statement ◽  
John Macfarlane

When a group or institution issues a declarative statement, what sort of speech act is this? Is it the assertion of a single individual (perhaps the group’s spokesperson or leader) or the assertion of all or most of the group members? Or is there a sense in which the group itself asserts that p? If assertion is a speech act, then who is the actor in the case of group assertion? These are the questions this chapter aims to address. Whether groups themselves can make assertions or whether a group of individuals can jointly assert that p depends, in part, on what sort of speech act assertion is. The literature on assertion has burgeoned over the past few years, and there is a great deal of debate regarding the nature of assertion. John MacFarlane has helpfully identified four theories of assertion. Following Sandy Goldberg, we can call these the attitudinal account, the constitutive rule account, the common-ground account, and the commitment account. I shall consider what group assertion might look like under each of these accounts and doing so will help us to examine some of the accounts of group assertion (often presented as theories of group testimony) on offer. I shall argue that, of the four accounts, the commitment account can best be extended to make sense of group assertion in all its various forms.

scholarly journals From the Philosophy of Cult to the Philosophy of History in the Work of Pavel Alexandrovich Florensky (* 1882 + 1937)

Religions ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (7) ◽  
pp. 533
Author(s):  
Daniel Porubec
Keyword(s):  
Human Activities ◽  
Historical Materialism ◽  
Philosophy Of History ◽  
Abstract Concepts ◽  
Interdisciplinary Work ◽  
Primary Activity ◽  
Human Ability ◽  
The Gift ◽  
The Common ◽  
Historical Periods

P. A. Florensky dedicated nine writings of his rich interdisciplinary work to the phenomenon of cult, which were first published in a censored form in 1977. We turn our attention to one of these writings called Cult, Religion and Culture, published under the common title Philosophy of Cult, in which the author elaborates a distinctive concept of the cult as the primary activity of man and at the same time as the gift offered to him for his own sanctification. It is the sacred cult—sacra from where, according to the author, two other human activities originate: namely, the ability to create tools—instrumenta—and the ability to create abstract concepts—notiones. However, both human activities have to be understood as a process of disintegration of the cult—sacra. Thus, by prioritizing one of the three human activities mentioned above, we can recognize three historical periods in history. According to Florensky, the human ability to create tools corresponds to the era of historical materialism, the ability to create concepts corresponds to the era of ideologism, and ultimately, the primary human activity—the life of man in the cult and its culture corresponds to the sacral materialism or concrete idealism.

scholarly journals Across the Divide: Looking for the common ground of Hindustani

2018 ◽  
Vol 52 (6) ◽  
pp. 2056-2079 ◽  
Author(s):  
DAVID LUNN
Keyword(s):  
Common Ground ◽  
Cultural Field ◽  
Literary Journals ◽  
The Common

AbstractThis article investigates some of the institutional and poetic practices around the idea of Hindustani in the period 1900–47. It charts the establishment of the Hindustani Academy in 1927 and explores some of its publishing activities as it attempted to make a positive institutional intervention in the Hindi–Urdu debate and cultural field more broadly. It then considers some aspects of poetic production in literary journals, including those associated with the Academy. Ultimately, it is an attempt to explore the grey areas that existed between Hindi/Hindu and Urdu/Muslim in the pre-Independence decades, and to make the case for studying the literature of both traditions simultaneously, along with emphasizing that attempts at compromise—including the perennially contested term ‘Hindustani’ itself—must be taken on their own terms.

Linguistic influences on gesture’s form

Gesture ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 157-195 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer Gerwing ◽  
Janet Bavelas
Keyword(s):  
Common Ground ◽  
Symbolic Form ◽  
Communicative Function ◽  
Face To Face ◽  
Original Action ◽  
New Information ◽  
Physical Form ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Given ◽  
Linguistic Influences

Hand gestures in face-to-face dialogue are symbolic acts, integrated with speech. Little is known about the factors that determine the physical form of these gestures. When the gesture depicts a previous nonsymbolic action, it obviously resembles this action; however, such gestures are not only noticeably different from the original action but, when they occur in a series, are different from each other. This paper presents an experiment with two separate analyses (one quantitative, one qualitative) testing the hypothesis that the immediate communicative function is a determinant of the symbolic form of the gesture. First, we manipulated whether the speaker was describing the previous action to an addressee who had done the same actions and therefore shared common ground or to one who had done different actions and therefore did not share common ground. The common ground gestures were judged to be significantly less complex, precise, or informative than the latter, a finding similar to the effects of common ground on words. In the qualitative analysis, we used the given versus new principle to analyze a series of gestures about the same actions by the same speaker. The speaker emphasized the new information in each gesture by making it larger, clearer, etc. When this information became given, a gesture for the same action became smaller or less precise, which is similar to findings for given versus new information in words. Thus the immediate communicative function (e.g., to convey information that is common ground or that is new) played a major role in determining the physical form of the gestures.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document