Date: Sun, 20 Apr 1997 01:15:51 -0700 (PDT)
From: LH Engelskirchen <lhengels-AT-igc.apc.org>
Subject: Re:  BHA: Re: RTS pages 91-105


 
 
Tobin --
 
What is there just now you lack?
 
I can simultaneously affirm and deny that I lack nothing right now
as I type.
 
Non-contradiction characterizes the problematic of analytical
reasoning.  It would characterize actualist integrity, not alethic
integrity.  
 
I wonder if, as has been suggested to me, a more thorough going
evaluation of the analytic problematic in Archer would not be
warranted.
 
Anyway it would be worthwhile for us to spell out the connection
between the critique of the analytical problematic in DIALECTIC and
the critique of actualism in RTS.
 
Howard
 
Howard Engelskirchen
Western State University
 
     "What is there just now you lack"  Hakuin


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 > From owner-bhaskar-AT-jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU  Fri Apr 18 09:05:19 1997
 > From: "Tobin Nellhaus" <nellhaus-AT-gwi.net>
 > To: <bhaskar-AT-jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU>
 > Subject: BHA: Re: RTS pages 91-105
 > Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 11:25:32 -0400
 > X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
 > X-Priority: 3
 > Sender: owner-bhaskar-AT-jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU
 > Reply-To: bhaskar-AT-jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU
 >
 > Apropos a comment Chris makes regarding the RTS section:
 >
 > > b) RB proposes that the empiricist has an impossible choice
 > > if he wishes to preserve his "philosophical integrity":
 > > 
 > > "The empiricist, when confronted with the phenomena of open
 > > systems, i.e. the non-availability of universal closure,
 > > is faced with the trilemma of choosing one of the forms
 > > of actualism ["strong actualism" or "weak actualism"]
 > > (which involves either preserving his philosophical integrity
 > > at the expense of science or abandoning his integrity
 > > to justify science) or succumbing to transcendental
 > > realism. My strategy will be to argue that weak actualism
 > > is not a genuine alternative and if pushed must collapse 
 > > into one of the other two."
 > > 
 > > Now the words "integrity" and "philosophical integrity"
 > > do not appear in the index, and I assume are culture-bound
 > > conventions of the late 20th century. They would have a 
 > > different meaning to a Hindu follower of Lord Krishna
 > > admiring the many contradictory superlative qualities of 
 > > the God. Much depends therefore on RB meeting readers who 
 > > value their own sense of "philosophical integrity" the way he
 > > does, and then listening to his gentle but remorseless logic. 
 >
 > Would the notion of "philosophical integrity" here essentially be a matter of
 > not contradicting oneself (which can take various forms, such as having your
 > cake and eating it too)?
 >
 > I raise the issue partly because Archer (in *Culture and Agency*, and I think
 > briefly in *Realist Social Theory*) argues that the law of non-contradiction
 > is a basic and *universal* element of all possible forms of logic.  In other
 > words, where *reasoning* is concerned, all people will reject attempts to
 > affirm two mutually exclusive propositions.  (The law is specifically
 > violated in some areas: in religion, for example, faith is supposed to
 > triumph over reason, and so the notion of a triune God is not open to
 > rational critique.)
 >
 > I'm debating using this argument in an article I'm working on.  I think the
 > argument is forceful, but somehow I'm still a bit hesitant.  Bhaskar at least
 > doesn't seem to go in for (Hegelian?) "X is both A and not-A" arguments, even
 > in the depths of *Dialectic*.  Anyway, I'm wondering what people think.
 >
 > ---
 > Tobin Nellhaus
 > nellhaus-AT-gwi.net
 > "Faith requires us to be materialists without flinching": C.S. Peirce
 >
 >
 >      --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---