From: "Howard Engleskirchen,WSU/FAC" <howarde-AT-wsulaw.edu>
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 20:59:30 -0800PST
Subject: Re: BHA: DPF Reading ch 2.4 Full reading...



John --

Some weeks ago you thoughtfully responded to my questions on 
C2.4 as to whether contradiction was pervasive.  I have thought 
about your points  a lot since and wish I could work out a whole 
systematic argument in response.  For failure of that I thought the 
best I could do would be to let you know what my thinking was now 
and then perhaps we could keep the question alive as the reading 
progressed.  Here are excerpts from your post presenting the issue:


ohn.Ridgway-AT-env.qld.gov.au (John Ridgway)
To:             	bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Subject:        	Re: BHA: DPF Reading ch 2.4 Full reading...
Send reply to:  	bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Date sent:      	Thu, 25 Feb 1999 14:23:44 +1000


HE had written,
> > The thing I=92ve been concerned with is the concept which I took
> > from Mao about the pervasiveness of contradiction.  There is a very
> > interesting critique of the Deborin school of philosophy.  Mao writes:
> > =93This school does not understand that each and every difference already
> > contains contradiction and that difference itself is contradiction.=94  This is
> > what I=92m interested in.  I take it Bhaskar=92s argument is different

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