🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Dec18.115809.18669@husc3.harvard.edu>, zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
|> In article <1grsg8INN563@ariel.ucs.unimelb.EDU.AU>
|> jcollier@ariel.ucs.unimelb.EDU.AU (John Donald Collier) writes:

|> JDC:
|> >And a good antidote to _that_ bullshit (VI doesn't even understand
|> >why David Lewis uses counterparts rather than trans-world identity), 
|> >can be found in the writings of John Bishop, od Auckland.

I haven't really been following this thread, but this claim strikes me
as a bit strong based primarily on my knowledge of both Lewis and Van
Inwagen and on conversations with them both independently and together.
Peter and I were both at Rochester in the early days of Counterpart
Theory, and David came to give a symposium (I think in '69/'70).  Peter
then went on to Syracuse the next year I believe, and I subsequently
gave a paper on essentialism in modal logic and CT at a meeting of the
Creighton Club which (as I recall) he was administering at the time.

So through a number of conversations and debates I certainly acquired
the impression that Peter grasped quite clearly the use of counterparts
in favor of trans-world identity.  Of course, you might argue that my
understanding was deficient as well, but at least this was never pointed
out to me by Lewis.

Consider this simply as a testimonial for a old friend I haven't seen
in years, but terms such as "bullshit" and "doesn't even understand"
just don't square with my experience.
-- 
Gary H. Merrill  [Principal Systems Developer, C Compiler Development]
SAS Institute Inc. / SAS Campus Dr. / Cary, NC  27513 / (919) 677-8000
sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com ... !mcnc!sas!sasghm