Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 14:34:14 +0100
Subject: Re: BHA: test


Hi Hans,

I have a feeling that I am being projected into the other of Popper here,
but I'll accept the role for now.

It seems to me that we are dangerously close to a position where all
statements are correct (true?) according to dialectical reasoning. I have
no quarrels with the fact that rain is shot through with absences, but so
what? Does the presence of an absence legitimate the dialectic? 

>
>Think about it this way: standing in the rain is different
>from standing under a waterfall or standing at the bottom of
>the ocean. 

Of course, rain is not the ocean nor a waterfall. That is, it is rain or it
is not rain. Actually it is defintely not raining today in Aberystwyth
despite the fact that there are spots of liquid on the ground outside my
door (I spilt some water). 

This transition between regimes is
>something analytical reasoning cannot handle.

Well I'm not convinced that anyone has ever claimed it could, well
certainly not me. But given the denial of the logicisation of being why
does dialectical reasoning fare any better? I suppose my question is that I
am sceptical of why the distinctions you draw and the transitions Howard
draws can be understood as dialectical. 


Cheers,


------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dr. Colin Wight
Department of International Politics
University of Wales
Aberystwyth
telephone: +44 (0)1970-621769
fax      : +44 (0)1970-622709
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


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