File spoon-archives/bhaskar.archive/bhaskar_1997/bhaskar.9709, message 33


Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 12:47:36 -0700 (PDT)
From: LH Engelskirchen <lhengels-AT-igc.apc.org>
To: bhaskar-AT-jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU
Subject: Re:  BHA: Re: Dialectic


 
 
I'm sorry I was not able to comment sooner on Gary's Dialectic
proposal and Marshal's response.  At Warwick there was a real,
though informal, Saturday night meeting of the Bhaskar virtual
community and we raised a couple of concerns.  One was why we do
not have more women participating on the list.  This is a mystery
to me.  I don't recall much coming out of the discussion, but if
there is anything any of us can do to change this, anything in the
manner in which discussions on the list are conducted, I hope
people will raise the issues and put them on the table.  Women
certainly played a very full role in all aspects of the conference,
and, in particular, Margaret Archer's contribution was
extraordinary.  But participation on the list is unbalanced. 
Ruth's contributions are enormously valuable, but there are not
other women's voices that participate at all regularly.  Anyone
have any thoughts?
 
The other thing discussed was how we should proceed with the
reading.  At first the suggestion was made, agreed to by Gary,
generously, and myself, that we should finish RTS quickly and then
throw ourselves into Dialectic.  But overall the sentiment was that
we should begin immediately with Dialectic, and so for my part I
will now support that decision wholeheartedly.  
 
Still, Marshall, the only barrier to proceeding with RTS at the
same time was the sense that it would simply be too difficult to
sustain both readings; there was no sense that there was any law
against proceeding with both.  Now for my part I have made the most
progress in my understanding of the foundation of critical realism
from the work we have done on the list on chapters 1 and 2 of RTS. 
I was particularly surprised how important chapter 2 was after I
really got into it.  Chapter 4 is very short and chapter 3 is not
to be missed.  So I would love to finish it.  I don't think it
takes any more than the two of us, frankly.  The problem before was
that there was really no one else who was interested in
systematically proceeding with RTS so the reading never proceeded. 
So if you are willing, I suggest the two of us continue with the
reading of RTS, starting with Chapter 3, and if others want to join
in from time to time they are more than welcome.  At the same time
we can all proceed with the reading of DIALECTIC.  But I was
delighted with your insistence on finishing RTS, because I really
feel the need to continue a close study group reading of that book
through to the end.  What do you think?  I honestly don't think it
takes more than the two of us, if we are committed to it, to finish
the book.  I'm sure Colin will have some things to say.  And there
will be others also.
 
One of the things that made the conference first rate was the
quality of questions rasied at the plenary sessions from the
audience.  Again, if you have Margaret Archer in any audience to
which you deliver a presentation, get yourself prepared.  But for
my money the most interesting question was one asked by Tobin of
Roy Bhaskar at his presentation on the Dialectical Development of
Critical Realism.  Bhaskar had said "All is real; non-being exists;
the structures of absence are all within being; everything is,
including that which is not."  If anyone understood differently,
please correct me, but I think that's accurate.  Tobin's question
was, "If you say everything is real without remainder, haven't you
closed the system?"
 
Hmmmm
 
Howard
 
Howard Engelskirchen
Fullerton
 
     "What is there just now you lack"  Hakuin


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

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005