> On Jun 16, 2016, at 8:12 AM, [email protected] wrote: > > My distant memories tell me that I took up Parker's book in the hope of > finding there something essential & important about the concept of continuity > in CSP's work. I was quite disappointed in finding out that the book was > about continuity between the phases of theorizing in the writings of CSP.
I’m not sure I’d agree with that. A lot of it is tied to Parker’s thesis about Peirce’s fundamental ontological cosmology which is completely wrapped up with his philosophy of continuity. All of part two deals with Peirce’s mathematics of continuity - particularly as it relates to infinities. That from pages 60 to 103. Again going by memory there are a few places here in the discussion of Cantor that people disagrees with Parker. Doing a quick Google search I found Jerome Havenel’s paper “Peirce’s Clarifications of Continuity” which takes a few exceptions to Parker. For example, in his interesting attempt to reconstruct The Continuity of Peirce’s Thought, Parker states that “Peirce’s definition of the continuum went through several revisions, but it always involved the notion that there are no ultimate parts to a true continuum, and that infinitesimals are real” (Parker, 1998, p. 23). This claim is not true and it is misleading. Commenting on Parker’s claim, Tiercelin writes that “as a result, the argumentative links Parker draws between the issues are very often artificial” (Tiercelin, 1999, p. 218). http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.473.9336&rep=rep1&type=pdf This issue of the continuum and parts is still debated I believe. (Again not a topic I’ve really followed of late so perhaps there’s more consensus) Parker sees more consistency on the continuum in Peirce’s various phases. Havenel and others tend to see Peirce as having more incompatible positions. The main period of contention is 1884-1892 which some see as marking a shift from a more Aristotelian phase of thinking about continuity. Admittedly a lot of Parker’s book reads like an introduction or overview of Peirce. That is it’s not starting from the premise one already has the basics of Peirce down. It’s also not a narrow book in that I think his point is about how continuity ends up relating to most parts of Peirce’s thought. Which as I recall still wasn’t quite as agreed upon before Parker. Of course I should note again that it’s been a long time since I last read it. So my memory perhaps is a bit faulty. (I’m still embarrassed over that Derrida/Lacan screwup) I’ll check it out again when I get home this evening to see what I think.
----------------------------- 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 .
