From: "Marshall Feldman" <marsh-AT-uri.edu>
Subject: BHA: RE: Re: How is New York Today- fate of [Social Science]?
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 11:01:47 -0500


Mervyn Hartwig wrote:

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
[mailto:owner-bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu]On Behalf Of Mervyn
Hartwig
Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2000 7:27 AM
To: bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Subject: BHA: Re: How is New York Today- fate of [Social Science]?


Hi Colin, all

As you know, I think Bhaskar uses words very precisely and never even
verging on the perverse. The transitive/intransitive distinction has
been adapted from grammar. A transitive verb changes its object
('expresses an action which passes over into the object' according to
the Concise OED), an intransitive verb does not. Is not this the exact
distinction between the two dimensions Bhaskar wishes to convey - one is
changed by ongoing human action, the other not?

Mervyn

=> This was my point regarding such things as cities. Both urban theory and
cities themselves are changed by ongoing human action. Tobin's earlier point
that the intransitive is the starting point for science seems a bit more
consistent, although I'm not sure how useful it ultimately is since here we
are talking about an ontology that depends on epistemology. That's why I
think the "quasi-" prefix is useful: it alerts us to the humanly constructed
nature of things that act as if they were independent of human thought.

	Marsh Feldman



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