Date: Tue, 02 Jul 1996 23:50:10 +0000
From: lisa rogers <lrogers-AT-burgoyne.com>
Subject: Re: Derrida, Bhaskar, etc.


I guess I should introduce myself - I'm a grad stu in anthropology, BS 
was evolution and animal behavior, and my increasingly diverse/related 
interests include phil of science and marxism.

I've read no Bhaskar yet, but have picked up some bits from Despain and 
Ehrbar in other contexts, such as on other lists.

I can follow a lot of the discussion, but need some translation, and 
some basic stuff along the way is very helpful.  For instance, somebody 
asked asked what is Bhaskar after, and here Derek says "to explain the 
acquisition of scientific knowledge."  It may seem elementary, but thank 
you.

Derek also wrote that Decon is not able to explain such knowledge.  From 
what little I know of Decon, that is not what it's for or what it is 
attempting to do.  Am I right?

Thanks,
Lisa


Derek Hrynyshyn wrote:
> Now, as I
> understand RB, the reason for the postulation of the ontological depth of> the transitive and intransitive dimensions is to explain the 
acquisition of> scientific knowledge. If we accept these arguments, and 
I do, then we are> left with Deconstruction not being able to explain 
knowledge or progress in> it.
>