From: Colin.Wight-AT-aber.ac.uk (Colin Wight) Subject: Re: BHA: Re: starting up DPF readings again. Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 08:47:46 +0100 Thanks Louis, I too (as everyone should know by now) am prepared to quibble with everything (often just out of pure devilment ;-)). I don't deny the force of your argument, but it seems to me to rest on two presuppositions that CR would challenge. First, you seem to be saying that everything is, in some sense, internally related. RB on the other hand wants to argue that some some relations are external. So I have a problem here. The second point is that you seem to be close to arguing (if you are defending Gary's reading of real negation) that absence can be analysed as change (or difference). RB is emphatic in denying this. Another related point strikes me. I have doubts about the understanding of absence as 'real negation', for this implies a present that was negated in order to produce the absent. If RB wants to argue the case for absence having ontological priority over presence then we need a stronger category of absence that is analysed as absence itself, not as a form of negation. However, I suspect that we may end up in an awfule mire here since almost every present can be descibed in terms of an absence, or vice versa. Thanks, ------------------------------------------------------------------ Dr. Colin Wight Department of International Politics University of Wales, Aberystwyth Tel: (01970) 621769 ---------------------------------------------------------------- --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005