Thanks Vic, It seems my observation is fairly common in the field, but, having recently finished reading Penrose's "Road to Reality", I'm simply delighted to find something I can actually get my teeth into w/o needing 10 years post-doc training in Mathematics (especially as I've but a BA Psych/Math from ASU, your arch-enemy in the field of football).
On Sun, Aug 3, 2014 at 5:30 PM, Jack Curtis <[email protected]> wrote: > On reading a collection of Peirce's writings in parallel with Whitehead's > "Process & Reality" I'm struck with the similarities between them, even to > the point of suspecting Whitehead cribbed most of his ideas from Peirce, > perhaps desperate to salvage his reputation after the "Principia > Mathematica" fiasco with Russell, altho his only reference to Peirce in P&R > is to dismiss the idea that we think in symbols as "absurd" & diss Peirce > as a pea-brained logician who can only see the world in black & white, > rather than the colorful rainbow emerging out of a myriad of miniscule > relationships that it is. Recognizing that the similarities I see may, at > least in part, be a result of reading the 2 in parallel, interpreting what > Whitehead says in the light of my interpretation of what Peirce has just > said, & vice-versa, I'm wondering what you all might think of Peirce v > Whitehead? >
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
