File spoon-archives/bhaskar.archive/bhaskar_1999/bhaskar.9911, message 13

Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 13:00:22 GMT0BST
Subject: Re: BHA: Transcendental argument


Thanks alot for the interesting post:

1. Your interpretation of RB in terms of working at the level 'greatest 
generality' and organising his philosophy in terms of levels of generality 
is very interesting. Does RB himself put his work in these terms? I 
hadn't noticed that he did (though I haven't read Plato etc.).

2. There is a difference between CR and DCR in that, by DPF, RB 
claims to derive (D)CR from any human act, as you point out. But, 
apart from this, I don't see a great gulf between CR and DCR; rather, 
I agree with RB's characterisation of their relation (deepening, 
enrichment, 'mostly preservative sublation', etc.). Your interpretation 
also seems to back up such a view. Yet at one point you seem to 
suggest that CR and DCR are very different. Surely, a non-
conceptual, non-empirical reality is as much part of CR as DCR? (you 
seemed to suggest otherwise, but this maybe a mis-reading - I know it 
is so annoying to keep having to write 'CR/DCR' or (D)CR or some 

3. Do you think RB provides an adequate account as to why all 
philosophy (except CR/DCR) has made such a stupid mistake as to 
fail to recognise a non-conceptual / non-empirical realm? I'm not sure 
that he does but am ready to be convinced otherwise.

4. That DCR can be derived from any human act comes back to the 
critique I suggested a while back. For it would suggest that it is 
possible to deduce CR/DCR from a great number of 
preconceptualisations (sorry Colin!) such that there is indeed a one to 
one mapping between non-conceptual, non-empirical objects and 
concepts/objects. Ie it would entail an isomorphism of subject and 
object. Any thoughts on that?

Many thanks, 

     --- from list ---


Driftline Main Page


Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005