File spoon-archives/bhaskar.archive/bhaskar_1997/bhaskar.9710, message 73


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 ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005