Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 10:02:45 -0700 (PDT) From: LH Engelskirchen <lhengels-AT-igc.apc.org> To: bhaskar-AT-jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU Subject: Re: BHA: Startingg DCR > > But couldn't it be claimed that these were all, especially agency, already > in CR? Non identity is prefigured in the relation between the transitive and > intransitive; absence in the intransitive yet to be known; and totality is > clearly, at least to me a necessary concept for society. Isn't it better to > say that DCR, more than changing CR deepens and extends it, that is, makes > explicit and develops more fully what was already there? Is this what you > mean by not getting over excited? Colin, I don't understand your point about absence. Surely absence does not depend on our knowledge of it. We know perfectly well that something is absent, and it remains absent, e.g. good health, Jean not present in the cafe, etc. Is this an example of the epistemic fallacy? Absence is itself an ontological category, not an epistemological one, isn't it? If I read section 5 of RTS right, totality is prefigured by the concepts of autonomy and intrinsic structure presented there. Howard Howard Engelskirchen Western State University --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005