File spoon-archives/bhaskar.archive/bhaskar_1996/96-10-21.081, message 35


From: "Tobin Nellhaus" <nellhaus-AT-biddeford.com>
Subject: Re: Anthropomorphic language
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 21:32:36 -0400


Michael wrote:

> I suppose what is meant by the "anthropomorphic roots" of
> the word "determine" is the morpheme "term," which seems
> to issue from the uniquely human use of language.

I'm still unclear about this, since the use of the word "term" and its
cognates to refer to language appears (according to my etymological
dictionary) to have emerged rather late; the earliest sense of this
morpheme (*terminus* in Latin, *terma* in Greek) concerns boundary stones,
limits, etc.

I agree with Michael's caution regarding argument by etymology (though
occasionally I indulge in it myself).  Actually, I find Derrida's use of
etymological argument to be amusing in an ironic way.  The etymology of
"etymology" is "the true and original meaning of words"--in other words,
the truth is in the origins.  Given Derrida's critique of origins, and of
truth, you'd think he'd be ashamed to employ this sort of argument.  But so
much for theory/practice consistency.  (Let me guess here--he'd say that
just like his working within the Western metaphysical tradition, "there is
no alternative": Bhaskar's TINA formation.)

Turning back to our reading, in RTS 50-51 Bhaskar fusses over a distinction
between powers statements and normic (law) statements.  I think I see the
difference, but not entirely, because I'm not sure why this distinction is
important, or what it's important for.  Although he writes that he'll
develop this point in more detail later, could anyone clue me in?

PS: Now that we have the three conference sessions in place, is there
anything we can do to cajole Bhaskar to attend?

---
Tobin Nellhaus
nellhaus-AT-biddeford.com
"Faith requires us to be materialists without flinching": C.S. Peirce



   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005