File spoon-archives/bhaskar.archive/bhaskar_1998/bhaskar.9812, message 5

Date: Sun, 06 Dec 1998 15:39:32 +0100
Subject: Re: [Fwd: BHA: dpf ch 2.3 second part]

At 18:10 1998-12-01 +0100, you wrote:

The first is that it produces an immediately 'self-deconstructive'
character, because, on the side of practice it involves performative
contradiction (saying one
>thing and doing another).  

 This is exactly what is happening in economics theory. Take the example of
efficiency wage theory, which states that more wages above real wages can
improve labour productivity and efficiency.  On the other side generating
employment since firms and companies cannot create "efficiency profits" to
cover efficiency wages thus unemployment ! Now we do not stop to this mambo
jambo of "rational choice" misconceptions of intricate nature theory /
practice differential.

The very fact , which shows that marginal productivity, does not reside in
the labour force thus differing committe to different types of work.
Cleaning ones house is not the same as observing a comet across the sky or
pygmy hunting for food in the jungle. Therefore in execution of different
jobs then we can argue marginal productivity, theoretical economics talk a
lot about resides in the work!
Within institutional development, economics science will reason the
Keynesian theory liberated Europe from the ravages of war! From a world
historiography in the real world war has been part of human nature were
ravage and destruction has been accompanied with construction and
development. ( I do not applaud war thought ). This is a critic of
economic theory in light of historical contradictions. 

In fact from a sociological point of view, the human agent has got emergent
mechanisms, which in fact are precursors to her own emancipation from her
own permanent naivety. But that is not to argue that theory is nonsensical.
But rather to erase 
the argument that there is a duality between theory and practice.

On the other side, geographers will argue, demographic problems are about
to bust the already optimal  sustainability of the world scarce resource.
They will preach and pray a necessity for human nature to life within the
sustainable limits such as " enough food"  resources for all and on top of
that viable economic geographical regions..

            Just thoughts though.


>Fourth, Bhaskar now anticipates as a result of T/P inconsistency the
>existence of forms of knowledge which will seek to cover up the problem as
>an inherent characteristic.  He calls these 'compromise forms': later on
>(ch2.7), he will call them 'TINA formations'.  
            I think that is what I say above.

>Most fundamentally perhaps is the fifth layer of interest: that the subject
>involved is shown to be 'internally riven, alienated and/or untrue to
>itself'.   This point perhaps alludes to the question of the alienated
>phenomenal forms that Bhaskar picks up from the early Hegel, of the
>'Beautiful Soul and the 'Unhappy Consciousness', which I mentioned in my
>previous email.  On p.71, Bhaskar mentions these again when he refers to
>the 'prototype of dialectical generative separation' as 'the Hegelian
>'Beautiful Soul'', but on this occasion, he is talking about Marx's
>particular development of such a separation through his conception of 'an
>original generative separation' of the producers from the means of their
>Thus problems in either theory or practice, or their relationship, may
>reveal much more than initially appears to be the case.  This way of
>putting it, though, must recognise the 'duality of theory and practice',
>and this is an important and positive point from which significant
>conclusions flow.  The duality results from the fact that all theory is
>practical and all practice is 'quasi-propositional' (p.66). (Why the
>'quasi'?  Because practice is 'dependant upon, but not exhausted by, its
>conceptual, and thus belief expressing aspects'.)  This duality of T and P
>is explained by Bhaskar in terms of the possibility of what he calls a
>'transcendental perspectival shift' by virtue of which 'each can be seen
>under the aspect of the other'.
>Nor is there a simple reduction at the core of the 'switch': changing
>perspectives is a real issue grounded  in another dialectical figure: the
>wonderfully named 'hiatus-in-the-duality', which Bhaskar canvasses later,
>in ch 2.7.  End of Digression.)
>2.	The relationship between dialectic and contradiction (67-72)
>>From this, it follows, says Bhaskar, though I don't think it is
>immediately obvious why it follows, that dialectic and logical
>contradictions are not coterminous, though they do intersect.  Page 68
>contains a couple of diagrams which indicate his thinking.  For me, Figure
>2.6 is the more helpful, and here Bhaskar is sketching what he argues as
>propositions 1-6 on p.67.
>The argument here is somewhat schematic, but the essence of it, I think,
>comes out in the final pages of this section when Bhaskar is talking about
>Marx's use of dialectics.  On p.70, Bhaskar describes five uses of the
>concept 'contradiction' by Marx.  The first of these (a) is 'logical
>inconsistencies or other intra-discursive theoretical anomalies'.  These
>are in essence logical contradictions.  

Yes this one is interesting too from rather a remote biological or medical
point of view. Just imagine that human nature too has difficult to release
the purpose for which all bacteria have to exist and co-habit in given
locations and region together with their superior and complex friend the
human being. In some   nations allergy has increased partly condemned on WE
being so clean and tidy ! What an argument! Yes logical contradiction
between how of being clean and living with those necessary life giving
bacterium! Medical doctors what is cleanness or is it tidiness? 

>Alan Norrie
>Professor Alan Norrie
>School of Law
>King's College London
>London WC2R 2LS
>tel 0171 873 2919
>fax 0171 873 2465



     --- from list ---


Driftline Main Page


Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005