Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 13:55:52 +1000
From: Gary Maclennan <g.maclennan-AT-qut.edu.au>
Subject: Re: BHA: R.B. and subjective idealism


Interesting as always Phil.  But don't you think it you have been  a little 
unfair in terms of your formulation, comrade?  What Bhaskar says in FEW is 
that there is a god within and a god without.  He is not claiming to be 
*the* god.  Rather he is saying that there is something essentially 
god-like about himself and also me and also your self and all 
humans.   What ever  you think of that, it is a good deal less egotistical 
than how you phrase it.

warmest of regards

Gary

BTW

If you have time I would love to have an email from you on the petrol 
blockades. I wrote about this on the Marxism list saying it was wrong to 
regards it as a re-run of Allende versus the truck drivers.  What do you think?



At 20:31 12/09/00 +0100, you wrote:
>Hi Ruth, Gary, and listers
>
>Ruth asks shouldn't I be accusing Roy of absolute idealism rather than
>subjective idealism.  I assume that by "absolute idealism" Ruth means
>something akin to objective idealism, a la Hegel.
>
>But I think that Roy, with his "I am God" (FEW), has gone beyond (backwards
>from) Hegel and is at the level of Fichte and his transcendental ego.
>Hegel's interest in religion was from an analytical and political economic
>standpoint.  I do not say that what we are currently getting from Roy is
>mumbo-jumbo, for that fails to situate it philosophically.  What I argued in
>my paper to the CR conference is that Roy is operating at the level of a
>Fichtean ego.  That is subjective idealism, as classically understood.
>
>Regards,
>Phil
>
>
>
>
>      --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---



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