Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 13:44:37 +0100
From: Bwanika <Daniel.BwanikaH961-AT-stud.oru.se>
Subject: Re: BHA: Re: How is New York Today-  fate of [Social Science]?


Listers

I agree to Bhaskarian theory of explanatory critic based on the transitive,
intransitive dimension and it is quite important. However, this on going
debate with concepts, is adding new ideas to these facts.

If we take for example a trading centre, which is an [un] conscious (?),
creation of human actions commerce and trade- a city is a real entity in
space and time, if we take for example its changing characteristics. 

But it does disappear as Aristotle's Alexandria, Mesopotamia, Timbukutu
Kush Kingdom or Mayah cities of he Americas hence the double effects e.g.
people changing cities and cities changing people's way of doing things. 

Could we argue then those urban dwellers and all their actions in the city
are just 'passing' through? This seems to defy the logical analogy
emphasised in the theory!
  
We become conscious of the dangers of the city through our actions, thus
Bhaskarian transitivity and transfactuality of urban science, which in this
case, ground the geographical theories in Urban studies. Actions, taking
place into cities like creating parks, open spaces and the entire
definition of the city changes from being interpreted as an administrative
(political) and economic centre and we are forced to define a city also as
an environmental city - a green city with all attributes like green
technologies. 

We can actually argue the city is changing independent of our knowledge
about it, since it influences our actions apply those changes into the
city, but what about peoples action - which are cognitively derived  - let
us say people remain largely passive to change or move out of their
conditions from 1790 - 2000 into the city of New York and the misery
thereof? How can we explain this issue using the Bhaskarian explanatory
critical theory? Any help? 

Bwanika.


-----------------
At 10:13 2000-02-26 +0000, you wrote:
>A quick lurch out of lurking..
>
>
>Yes the terms are transitive and intransitive, and yes I think Tobin is
>right that and transitive objects can be intransitive to a given observer;
>i.e. what Bhaskar writes on page 3 of RTS is intransitive to any transitive
>comment on it. The terms are basically context dependent and relational. I
>have no idea of why these terms were chosen, in fact, from my dictionary
>definition they are verging on the perverse. Intransitive, for example, is
>in the Chambers Concise as: "representing action confined to the agent;
>i.e. having no object"...However, what I think he was wanting to get away
>from was the subject/object sense of the two domains Tobin alludes to. This
>plays some role, but for RB transitive objects are socially constructed
>(nor are they simply thoughts, but can be material models constructed of
>intransitive objects (models of DNA for example are transitive attempts at
>capturing something of the ID domain) and not pertaining only to
>individuals; although I know Tobin did not mean to suggest this.
>
>At 16:03 25/02/00 -0500, you wrote:
>>Marsh wrote:
>>
>>> I'm a bit confused by your comment. I don't equate transient with
>>material.
>>> Science is a material practice (just consider Los Alamos), but by my
>>reading
>>> of RB's work it's in the transient side of things.
>>
>>Sorry if I seem nitpicky, but the terms are actually
>>transitive/intransitive, not transient/intransient.  I bring this up because
>>I suspect that it's causing some unclarity.  The transitive dimension (TD)
>>is roughly equivalent to the epistemological sphere, and the intransitive
>>dimension (ID) more or less the ontological sphere.  I have to admit I've
>>never completely understood Bhaskar's choice of terminology here, but as
>>near as I can make out, the idea is that the TD is the "subject's" side of
>>knowledge ("I think about X," which is a transitive situation), and the ID
>>is the "object's" side ("the thing that's being thought about"), except that
>>thoughts and ideas can always themselves become objects of investigation.
>>So materiality is an entirely separate matter.  But perhaps someone has a
>>better grasp of the terminological choice.
>>
>>---
>>Tobin Nellhaus
>>nellhaus-AT-mail.com
>>"Faith requires us to be materialists without flinching": C.S. Peirce
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>>
>>
>============================================>
>
>Dr. Colin Wight
>Department of International Politics
>University of Wales, Aberystwyth
>Wales
>SY23 3DA
>Tel: (01970) 621769 
>
>
>     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>
>


__________________

Bwanika

Uganda  Home Pages Ltd.

url: http://www.uganda.co.ug
tel:     +256 (0) 41 235  910 
e-mail   uhpl-AT-starcom.co.ug
             Bwanika-AT-nero.oru.se




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