Davidson, Lallah S., Manuscript, 1939

Typed manuscript of “Children of Lead,” published in 1939 as South of Joplin: Story of a Tri-State Diggin’s (W.W. Norton). This manuscript was donated by Lallah Davidson Blanpied to Pittsburg State University in 1975. This copy belonged to famous literary agent, Marion Saunders, who was also Margaret Mitchell’s agent for Gone With the Wind. This copy does show some changes from the published version, notably in the Introduction, and the original title. Lallah Sherman Davidson Blanpied was born in 1897and grew up in Southeast Kansas and Southwest Missouri. She attended the Kansas State Teachers’ College in Pittsburg, Kansas (today’s Pittsburg State University). She graduated in 1925, and with a master’s degree in 1927 from Columbia University (New York). In 1921 she married Merle Lee Gustin, who died in 1923. In 1924 she married her classmate in Pittsburg, Cecil Cline Blanpied (1897-1976). After they graduated they moved to New Rochelle, New York, where Cecil worked as an educator. Lallah studied anarchist philosophy and met anarchist Harry Kelly, who set her up as the director in the Mohegan Modern School in 1935, which he had founded. This position only lasted one year. In 1939 she published a “non-fiction novel,” South of Joplin: Story of a Tri-State Diggin’s” (W.W. Norton & Co., NY) a social-protest work based on her knowledge and observations of the mining fields and communities in Southeast Kansas, Northeast Oklahoma, and Southwest Missouri growing up. It was published under her maiden name, L. S. Davidson. Lallah also worked as a teacher, and as a writer, writing articles for magazines and for television. She retired from teaching in 1964. Lallah Blanpied passed away in New Rochelle in 1982. There is more material related to Lallah Blanpied in the Gene DeGruson Collection.https://digitalcommons.pittstate.edu/fa/1419/thumbnail.jp

Cultural Memory and Survival: The Russian Renaissance of Classical Antiquity in the Twentieth Century

In this first publication of the UCL SSEES Inaugural Lecture Series, Pamela Davidson dedicates her professorial lecture to the memory of two "outstanding Russian scholars and remarkable individuals, whose contribution to our understanding of classical antiquity and Russian literature has been immense: Sergei Averintsev (1937-2004) and Mikhail Gasparov (1935-2005)." Professor Davidson's survey falls into three parts. She looks back and examines what classical antiquity meant for Russians in the period leading up to the revolution know as the Silver Age; in the second part, she considers what happened to the legacy of this interest in Soviet times; and finally, she comments on the present situation. In doing so, Professor Davidson hopes to demonstrate that the reception of classical antiquity has been marked by, and is even the source of some surprising continuities. Pamela Davidson is Professor of Russian Literature at the UCL School of Slavonic and East European Studies

Water as a Social Opportunity edited by Seanna L. Davidson, Jamie Linton, and Warren E. Mabee

Review of Seanna L. Davidson, Jamie Linton, and Warren E. Mabee\u27s Water as a Social Opportunity

Davidson and Chinese Conceptual Scheme

In one of his influential works ‘One the Very Idea of a Conceptual Scheme’, Donald Davidson argues against conceptual relativism. According to Davidson, ‘we could not be in a position to judge that others had concepts or beliefs radically different from our own’. Davidson’s thesis seems to have a consequence for comparative philosophy, particularly in a comparative study between Chinese and Western traditions of philosophy which are often considered to differ conceptually. If Davidson is correct, it is not clear whether or not we can have insight into how and why concepts differ between these traditions. In this paper, I philosophically reflect on Davidson’s argument against conceptual relativism. Though this paper retains the backbone of his argument, I reject Davidson’s thesis that different ways of conceptualisation cannot be compared. I do this through a discussion of the comparative studies conducted by David Hall and Roger Ames. In conclusion, I self-reflectively examine the nature of the demarcation between different traditions of philosophy and show how the activities of comparative philosophy can proceed

Civil Practice—Preference in Docketing Denied Though Party Aged, Infirm, and Destitute

Bitterman v. 2007 Davidson Avenue, Inc., 278 A. D. 759, 104 N. Y. S. 2d 81. (1st Dept. 1951)

Leptogenesis Below the Davidson-Ibarra Bound

The observed baryon asymmetry of the Universe is suitably created in thermal leptogenesis through the out-of-equilibrium decay of $N_1$, the lightest of the three heavy singlet neutral fermions which anchor the seesaw mechanism to obtain small Majorana neutrino masses. However, this scenario suffers from the incompatibility of a generic lower bound on the mass of $N_1$ and the upper bound on the reheating temperature of the Universe after inflation. A modest resolution of this conundrum is proposed.Comment: 7 pages, 1 figur

Cruise Report 59S7-Crab

(PDF contains 6 pages.

Questing for happiness: augmenting Aristotle with Davidson

Original article can be found at: http://www.ajol.info/journal_index.php?jid=211 Copyright Philosophical Society of Southern Africa (PSSA)Drawing heavily on Aristotle, Tabensky attempts to establish ‘an ethic that flows from the very structure of our being’, but he also calls on Davidson’s arguments about the essentially social character of rationality to shore up Aristotle’s claim that we are essentially social beings. This much of his project, I argue is successful. However Tabensky takes this a step further and proposes a pluralist ethic on the grounds that a ‘fully’ or ‘properly’ instantiated account of the ‘ideal’ conditions for rationality requires encountering innumerable other points of view. Firstly, while confronting alternatives is essential to truth-seeking it hardly follows that an unconstrained pluralism represents an ideal condition for this kind of inquiry, since such an approach risks falling into mere clash of perspectives on practical grounds. Secondly, it is unclear how confronting more and more perspectives is supposed to help in enabling us to lead our lives well. In conclusion, picking up on this theme and looking again at Aristotle, I give reasons for questioning that the kind of rational choice involved in leading the good life, for reasons in part highlighted by Tabensky, benefits from analogy with the modes of conceptual rational inquiry in other domains in any case.Peer reviewe