From: Colin.Wight-AT-aber.ac.uk (Colin Wight)
Subject: Re: BHA: DPF & Absence, Change and closure
Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 10:31:14 +0100


>Hi all, 

Interesting though this discussion is and as the one who started it, I would
still like to get on with the reading of DPF. So maybe I can bring make some
points that might facilitate this.

1.       We all seem to agree that absence should _not_ be analysed in terms
of change. And really the debate between Louis, Tobin and I is one about
change not absence. It is an interesting debate but since it is about change
I don't think it should impede us.

2.      Bhaskar's notion of 'real negation' is open to many interpretations.
I disagree with Gary's reading of it, but this doesn't make me right.
However, since I now have Dialectic in the office I can  cite RB on it:

"I want to argue for the importance of the concepts of what I am going to
call 'real negation', 'transformative negation' and 'radical negation'. Of
these the most basic is real negation. Its primary meaning is real
determinate absence or non-being (i.e. including non-existence)." (DPF, p.5)

So maybe we can just use this as a working definition. RB fleshes this out
somewhat, but, to me, nothing that he says implies that every presence must
become an absence. However, maybe later in the book he does make this
stronger claim, but then again, we can never find this out if we don't get
moving.

Thanks,



------------------------------------------------------------------

Dr. Colin Wight
Department of International Politics
University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Tel: (01970) 621769

----------------------------------------------------------------



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