Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 18:45:04 +1000
From: Gary MacLennan <g.maclennan-AT-qut.edu.au>
Subject: BHA: On Bhaskar's style...


This is my little bit on this thread.  In many ways I agree with what Ruth
and Tobin have to say about inaccessibility  etc of aspects of Bhaskar's
style.  Andrew Collier has said the same thing repeatedly.  But I will be
frank here.  The dumping on Bhaskar about his style can be a cover for
discrediting his books and discouraging people from trying to read them.

Let me be absolutely clear I am *not* suggesting that this is so of Ruth or
Tobin. (Repeat this a thousand times.)

Unfortunately I was unable to find the place where Raymond Williams said
that the pull towards ordinary language is the pull towards ordinary
thought, but there is a real truth buried in there.

Now I will be frank with my colleagues here.  For me there is absolutely no
doubt at all about Bhaskar's brilliance.  The more philosophy I read the
more I can see that.  That alone makes the books worth the effort.

Now Mervyn said something which has resonated with me.  The case of Hegel -
the little I have read does not compare at all with the glosses.  I have
read paraphrases by Marcuse , Hook, Kojeve and Bhaskar and then gone to the
original.  There is something profound about the original that cannot be
captured in paraphrases or cribs.  I cannot explain that.  But I get the
same experience when reading DPF.  I am now on my fourth time through it
and still it illuminates.

Now that for me is the important thing.  Debating the style, regretting
this or that infelicity or obscurity seems to me to miss the *magnificence*
of the book and I mean that word precisely.

But while we moan and groan about the difficulty of reading  DPF, we are
missing the opportunity to participate in the readings - are we not?


regards

Gary


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