From: "Marshall Feldman" <marsh-AT-URIACC.URI.EDU>
To: <bhaskar-AT-jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU>
Subject: Re: BHA: Re: Dialectic
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 16:25:04 -0400


 Howard,
I've finished reading RTS, but I would gladly go through Ch. 3-4 with you
(and hopefully others on this list). Also, since I'm relying heavily on RTS
in my current methodological writing, I'd hope those who are reading other
things in CR (including Dialectic) would monitor the RTS musings and share
their thoughts with us. Comments from the perspective of RB's later works
would be particularly useful.

One question about RB's comment about everything being real. In a certain
sense this is necessarily true (Oz REALLY is a city in literature), but
certainly everything does not have the same ontological status. What's the
point of any sort of realism if we take RB's statment literally? As he
himself says, "the crucial questions in philosophy are not whether to be a
realist or anti-realist, but WHAT SORT of realist to be" (original emphasis,
RR: 153 -- I found the quote I was looking for some time ago). So without
some ontological differentiation, how can we justify one sort of realism
over another. Can someone who attended the conference put RB's quote in
context?



-----Original Message-----
From: LH Engelskirchen <lhengels-AT-igc.apc.org>
To: bhaskar-AT-jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU
<bhaskar-AT-jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU>
Date: Friday, September 26, 1997 3:56 PM
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 ---
>



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