My sentiment exactly. val daniel E. Valentine Daniel Professor of Anthropology 958 Schermerhorn Ext., Columbia University New York, 10027
(212_854-7764 [email protected] > On Jun 16, 2016, at 10:12 AM, [email protected] wrote: > > Hi, > 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. > > This way of putting the question I do find somewhat trivial and 'seminary > minded'. Something CSP abhorred, being a laboratory minded philosopher > himself. > > Of course there must be a continuity in what one and the same person writes, > IF he/she proceeds logically. Not just hopping from one theme and question to > another. Of course there also must be changes, IF the person in question > truly makes some progress. > > It is not that I found Kelly Parker's book disappointing as such. I found it > mislabelled. Which is something the publisher should get the blame rather > than Parker. > > Best, > > Kirsti > > Clark Goble kirjoitti 13.6.2016 20:34: >>> On Jun 13, 2016, at 11:27 AM, Jerry LR Chandler >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> The recent mention by Clark of Parker’s book, “Continuity…” >>> re-opens the question of how Parker categorized CSP’s writings. >>> Of particular interest is Parker’s division of the three periods >>> of meanings: >>> Fig. 6.2: 1865-1885 >>> Fig. 6.3: 1885-1902 >>> Fig. 6.4: 1902-1914 >> I don’t have time to delve into all this as it’s honestly been a >> long time since I last read his book. So I’m going by distant memory >> here. >> While I loved the book, I remember my few qualms to be over how he >> mixed views from various periods of Peirce’s thought in key places. >> In particular in some places he makes use of the very early Peirce >> where his more neoplatonic tendencies are manifest in his reworking of >> Kant. However in other places he makes use of texts from later >> periods. However my memory just isn’t good enough to recall exactly >> where this was a problem. I also vaguely recall him agreeing to my >> critiques in a few points. But I’d not want to hang a criticism on >> such a distant memory. >>> How do Parker's separation of the forms of CSP logics relate to FS's >>> views of Natural Propositions? >>> Can one find an illation between Parker’s reading of CSP and >>> FS’s reading of CSP’s propositional functions? >> I’d want to reread both before delving into that question. It’s a >> good one and hopefully someone else can chime in. > > > ----------------------------- > 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 . > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
