File spoon-archives/bhaskar.archive/bhaskar_1997/bhaskar.9705, message 15


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 ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005