Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 08:56:59 +1000
From: Gary MacLennan <g.maclennan-AT-qut.edu.au>
Subject: replying to Pat was Re: Thoughts on ((T)D))CR and Kulchur was Re: BHA:


At 10:12  23/09/00 +0100, you wrote:
>Gary,
>
>please don't ignore my ignorance! But i am interested... all of these
>names...'alethia'... all of these schools of thought. How did u get into
>it? Is the argument everything? Why are u here writing about critical
>realism (in such an accomplished way0?
>:)
>pat quinn


Hi Pat,

My path into Critical Realism began with my reading the late Michael 
Sprinker's article on the Royal Road to Science (?) in New Left Review 
about 1993. Since then I have gone repeatedly through all of Bhaskar's 
books with varying degrees of understanding.  At that time I was totally 
isolated politically and intellectually.  Becoming part of the Critical 
Realist movement has been a wonderful solution to all that.


The best intro to Critical Realism IMHO is still via Andrew Collier.  Begin 
there and then dive in.


As to why I post on this list, well the Bhaskar list is  home to some of 
the most brilliant minds that I have met.  Moreover, as I teach at a 
university where there is the customary academic dislike of abstract 
thought and radical ideas, being on this list and going to the Critical 
Realist conferences have been truly exciting experiences for me.

As for Alethia that makes its debut as a concept in Bhaskar's Dialectic: 
The Pulse of Freedom. It is the fourth level of Bhaskar's four part model 
of truth.  The First level is called the normative-fiduciary level.`  I 
call this the communicative level.  It means that when I speak what I claim 
to be the truth I am asking someone to trust me and to believe me. the 
second level is epistemological.  I have discovered and articulated the 
truth.  It has become part of knowledge.  As such it can be mistaken or can 
be superseded.  this is known as epistemological relativism and those who 
accuse Bhaskar of wanting to be a world historical figure or guru would do 
well to ponder on his commitment to epistemic relativism.

The third level of truth is ontological.  It has an absolute dimension to 
it.  As Hobsbawm says, Elvis is either dead or he is not.

At the fourth level we get to truth or alethia as the reason for 
things.  This is extremely controversial and by no means a simple 
notion.  I like to explain it through reference to neuroleptic 
medication.   We know these medications can have an effect on 
schizophrenia.  But we do not know why.  They bind to certain receptors in 
the brain and interfere with the take up of chemicals such as dopamine and 
serotonin.  But they also increase the uptake of glutamate and may also 
have an anti-viral effect.  In addition there are some 20% of the 
schizophrenia sufferers who receive no benefit from the current crop of 
drugs. So the earlier notion that schizophrenia is due to an excess of 
dopamine for instance has not been established.  In other words we have not 
achieved alethia or the reason why the drugs have a (partial) efficacy) nor 
have we achieved alethia in terms of the causes of schizophrenia.

Finally all of the above is of course subject to argument!  BTW you ask 
whether I was here for the argument.  No one who knows me would even 
suspect that I simply argue for the sake of argument.

Would I argue just to argue?  Never!
Not ever?
Well, hardly ever.

warm regards

Gary





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