Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 00:09:32 -0400 (EDT)
To: bhaskar-AT-jefferson.village.virginia.edu
Subject: Re: BHA: new dialectics and CR


Hi Andrew,

although, my immediate concerns have taken me away from dialectics, i have a
great interest in the topic, and like Ralph, i would very much be interested
in a such a discussion.  i too will not be in England in the next few days,
but would be quite pleased to discuss this over a beverage or two
nonetheless, i will be drinking single malts:-)

first, would it be possible for you to make available a copy of your paper?
 regardless, i have tended to give the advantage to Bhaskar over new
dialectics, espeically of the Smith/Reuten/Williams variety.  in brief i
would accuss new dialectics with a tendency toward committing the epistemic
fallacy, along with the ontic fallacy.  

Especially in the case of Tony Smith, new dialectics is quite explicit in
bringing forth Marx's relation to Hegel and Hegelian dialectics.  But this is
different than what Bhaskar is himself up to ... although of course an
implication of DCR.

There are of number of issues involved with new dialectics, first is the
interpretation of Hegel.  In general, new dialectics has a much more
sympathic interpretation of Hegel than does Bhaskar, although Bhaskar is
sometimes quite affectionate toward Hegelian moments.

Now having put forth my own baises, i will say that i have given some thought
to the Hegelian/Marxian notion of  intrinsic ordering categories emphasized
by Smith via and in turn emphasized by the "non-metaphysical" (Hartmann, also
Pinkard) interpreation of Hegel.  In short, i would maintain that Bhaskar
himself has an intrinsic ordering of categories (most explicit in his four
degree dialectic, i.e. 1M, 2E, 3L, 4D, 5C), but Bhaskar is much more general,
or not so epistemologically specific as is new dialectics.  This must have
something to do with Bhaskar commitment to "epistemological relativism".

i might suggest that the new dialecticians have gotten Marx (and Hegel)
right, but Bhaskar and DCR is a bit more critical than this.  Of course
espeically Murray and Postone have emphasized the Marxian essence/appearance
nexus,  i have tended to interpret this as a critical realist, as a
distinction between non-actual and actual, i suppose i have a much more
generous interpretaion of Bhaskar.  Actually i have a less pragmatic
interpretation of CR and the "dialectic of science".  Maybe it is just i
don't see your point about the limitation of CR.

Of course all of this itself would have great implications of the notion of
Value, which is of my immediate concerns.  in any event i look forward to
further discussions, and will brush of the dust of my new dialectic lit.:-)

hans d.


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