Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1998 09:59:02 -0400 (EDT) From: Ruth Groff <rgroff-AT-yorku.ca> Subject: BHA: absence Okay, so I wrote a whole long carefully worded message that couldn't possibly be misconstrued and then my f*&%#$g computer froze and insisted that I sacrifice the message. Then I started *this* message and accidentally deleted it. So it's not been a good morning. I'll cut to the chase. Sorry about the no nuances part. You'll just have to trust me that they *were* there, and pretend that they still *are* there. (And I'll spare us the meta-commentary on that last sentence...) Here's what I wrote: 2 questions, one need for definitions. Question #1: If I am right in understanding that Bhaskar believes thoughts to be emergent phenomena of actual physical beings, upon what (or whom) are the ideas that I determinately do not have, and/or the fact of my not having had such an idea, emergent? These real but non-existence absences seem to be free-floating conceptual entities. For that matter, if the answer is that a new one is generated every time I think about something (determinate) that didn't happen, then how are these ideas different from any other ideas? You don't have to say that absences are entities to say that the idea of absence is crucial and as real as any other idea. The whole thing still seems like just so much reification, to me. Question #2: If you really want to have a *negative* dialectics, do you not need a category of genuinely thorough-going negation? To add that absences are in fact real albeit non-existent "de-onts" -- that everything determinate is real -- seems to weaken the force of the negative considerably. [Besides, what does it mean to say that something is real but non-existent (as opposed to real but not actual)?] Definitions: I'm not clear about the meanings of and logical relations between the concepts of "real", "existent", "present" and "to be" (and, by extension, their opposites). Again, if the concept of absence is to have meaning, and if we are also to say that absence is/absences are "real", then it seems to me that real-ness can have nothing to do with existence. The meaning of which, as I've just noted above, I don't understand. It's starting to seem like I'm kind of a physicalist, actualist weenie, eh? Seriously, though, if my "persistence", as Colin so sweetly put it, is taxing your collective patience, feel free to drop this. I can happily grumble about it to myself. R. --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005