File spoon-archives/bhaskar.archive/bhaskar_1998/bhaskar.9805, message 9


Date: Fri, 08 May 1998 14:11:30 -0400
From: Louis Irwin <lirwin1-AT-ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: BHA: Re: starting up DPF readings again.


Colin,

No point is too minor to stop me from quibbling with it. :) You disagree
with Gary's explanation of real negation, which is:

>>I understand "real negation" as simply meaning that everything that is will
>>not be. Or to put it in Bhaskarian terms, everything that is present now
>>will be absent. 

Then you complain this implies a determinism in which every presence is
destined to become an absence, and you say that is not required in an open
system. 
  
Here is my quibbble with yours.  I think we can assume that SOME things
change in the world, since the alternative assumption is a static universe,
rejected by critical realism.  It follows that EVERYTHING is bound to
change.  Consider just spatial relations.  Suppose Howard is standing to
your left and then moves to your right, while you do not move at all.  At
the start you have the property of being to the right of Howard, but after
he moves you no longer have that property.  Or suppose Howard leaves your
presence altogether, in which case the chnaged property is being in the
presence of Howard.  Therefore you have changed, whether you know it or
not, whether your mental state has changed or not.  So any spatial change
at all will result in a change of a spatial thing's properties.  I suspect
we can generalize this point to all types of properties: any change at all
in the world will result in a change in everthing.  Not necessarily an
essential change, of course, although even purely spatial changes can
result in essential mental changes, say the reaction to an earthquake.

Louis Irwin



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

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005