From: HDespain <HDespain-AT-aol.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 11:28:44 EST
To: bhaskar-AT-jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU
Subject: Re: BHA: Absence


Hi Terence,

First with respect to Absence ... Bhaskar's most extensive discussion is
chapter 2 of Dialectic.  But i don't know that i would describe this as
"reasonably clear".  The best way to understand the role of Absence in
Dialectical Critical Realism is to get a feel for how it (Absence) functions
within the text(s); and how it seems applied.  In this sense, Absence
functions something like the notion of contradiction functioned for Hegel and
Marx (although contradiction is very different for Hegel and Marx).  btw, i
would suggest you are correct to say Hegel's Spirit as concrete universal is
not an Absence in Bhaskar sense.  i didn't understand your concerns withe
meontology etc.

Bhaskar has described his Realism as: Transcendental, Scietific, and
Metaphysical.  If we take metaphysical to mean 'the existence of X independent
of any consciousness', Bhaskar and Critical Realism is certainly a
metaphysical realism.  However, often metaphysical realism is a term used to
in reference to a commitment to a strict correspondence theory of truth ... or
the idea that there is always a "matter of fact" for any idea or thing ..., in
this case i would argue Bhaskar is not a metaphysical realist.  Espeically in
light of his plural (and vague) notion of truth; epistemic relativism ... also
the notion of Absence imports all sort of limitations to Knowing.
 
i tend to be suspect of the idea that critical realism is "grounded in the 
 existential world of people, things and scarcity".  Moreover, although
Bhaskar may be argued to have some sort of  "ethics of
responsibility/accountability", it would be a qualified one.  Bhaskar insists
(in a metaphysical realist sense) on the existence of _Social Structure_  as a
necessary condition for (human) Agency (i.e. his TMSA).  

If social structures exists, than *all* cannot be reduced to the individual,
espeically a strict notion of responsibility and accountability.  There is
structural responsibility and structural accountability.
   
Also, the ontic and epistemic fallacies are certainly to Critical Realism,
first as a critic of other position which commit one or both fallacy; second
to understand what Bhaskar is up to with critical realism itself.

hans d.


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