From: Colin.Wight-AT-aber.ac.uk (Colin Wight) Subject: Re: BHA: Re: starting up DPF readings again. Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 09:04:53 +0100 Hi Gary, And let me thanks you for getting this going again (are you going to make the conference?) Anyway, you write: >But seriously Colin doesn't determinism have to do with suggesting that >event B was inevitable, due to something that happened at A or because of >properties of A? Well, we have to distinguish regularity determinis (which CR rejects) from ubiquity determinism (which CR accepts). The one I am pointing to is the latter. But I see no reason to make the apriori assumtion that every presence must become an absence. But even if it is the case that every presence must become an absence, this still doesn't mean that this is what RB means by 'real negation'. > > >The fact of change seems so obvious to me. Well me too. But as I said in my reply to Louis, absence can't be analysed as change. Anyway look, this was a minor point and let's not get hung up on it since it might slow down the reading. 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