Letter from M.J. Daly, Publications Officer, SOAS, to Adrian Teng, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, to ask for further information regarding Graham's publication. With the letter is a compliment slip from the Publications Officer.
Sans titreMohism
29 Description archivistique résultats pour Mohism
"Were there Chinese philosophers who distinguished the sentence from the name?" by A.C. Graham, - an article refuting Chad Hansen's rejection of this hypothesis as examined by Graham in Later Mohist Logic, Ethics and Science. Two copies, one typed with handwritten annotations, in English and Chinese, 5 pieces, one typed, 62 pieces which includes an "Appendix: The Separability and Distinguishability of Form and Content".
Sans titreDescription - proof copy with handwritten annotations. Identified as Sample page.
Sans titreLetter from T.C. Lai, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, to Angus Graham to confirm approval for the manuscript and to ask concerning the specifics of printing.
Sans titreLetter from Angus Graham to T.C. Lai to express his delight that the manuscript has been approved and to give some thoughts on layout and printing. With the letter are some notes on determining the location of sunrise and sunset.
Sans titreLetter from Angus Graham to Adrian Teng, Publications Office, Chinese University of Hong Kong, to give more editorial comments particularly on the Chinese typesetting and the graphs.
Sans titreLetter from Angus Graham to Adrian Teng, Publications Office, Chinese University of Hong Kong, in reply to Teng's letter concerning funding. Graham informs that he has passed the letter to his Publications Committee. With this letter is a copy of one that Graham sent to the SOAS Publications Committee.
Sans titreLetter from Christoph Harbsmeier to Angus Graham concerning Harbsmeier's relief on receiving Graham's letter concerning his review of Graham's book. He writes about points of disagreement on 'gu' and his unsurety regarding 'fan'.
Sans titreLetter from Angus Graham to Christoph Harbsmeier to argue his case to the interpretation he has included in the book and to raise other points concerning the Mohist canon.
Sans titre