Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 23:34:36 -0400 (EDT) To: bhaskar-AT-jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU From: Howie Chodos <howie-AT-magi.com> Subject: Re: BHA: theorya/theoryb Thanks to Louis for such a clear statement of Bhaskar's position. I'm not convinced, though, by his attempt to deflect my criticism of Bhaskar's formulation. I think that there is more at stake than simply whether perception is active or passive. It is a question of whether our action in the world is capable of innovation, not (exclusively) a matter of whether perception is active (which it seems to me it is). It was thus my intention to raise the question as to whether support for the formula D(r) > D(a) > D(s) ultimately implied denying the possibility of innovation. In an earlier post I used the future as an example of how the real is larger than the actual. It also illustrates how the subjective plays an essential mediating role in the actualisation of the future as the present. It shows how we use our cognitive capacities to anticipate possible scenarios and to guide our action with a view towards realising as much of our preferred scenario as is possible. This to me means that there important ways in which D(s) > D(a). This is not to deny that there are also ways in which D(a) > D(s), including the example Louis gave (and which I had also mentioned in my post). It would therefore seem to me that, at best, the full Bhaskarian formulation D(r) > D(a) > D(s) is sufficiently ambiguous to enjoin us not to embrace it unreservedly. Howie Chodos --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005