Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 22:03:09 -0500 From: lynne engelskirchen <lhengels-AT-igc.org> Subject: Re: BHA: our options Hi Ruth! I think we have to take into account the reality that we have never finished a book. We did pretty well with RTS, but let that drop for the then option 3 variant -- read both DPF and RTS. That failed. It put an end to the reading of RTS and we never did catch our stride with DPF. Gary's proposal with Archer participating is a good one and worked well on the marxism list with John Bellamy Foster's book, but that was here and gone and not sustained. In any event I have not tried to get BH, but if there is anything like the trouble in gettin FEW, this would be a downside. More importantly I am skeptical that many people will buy a new book and add the reading of it to their otherwise overloaded schedules when it may or may not apply immediately to their research and teaching demands. Somebody called DPF RB's magnum opus. Maybe. Certainly it presents itself as such, but also maybe not. Strong competing claims could be made for either RTS or SRHE. Collier thought very highly of SRHE. What might work is some variant of 4. Our discussions could be thematic. We could take a topic such as agency and then systematically review RB's contributions, starting with RTS and running through DPF and FEW. This would provide a common foundation for discussion. Then we can take up other CR contributions from folks such as ARcher, Harre, Lawson, Norrie, etc. We could invite them to participate. Some of us will have read things, some of us won't, but everybody can participate meaningfully. And it would allow a fuller survey of the world CR has become. Also, it might be worth thinking not only of reading something collectively but of *doing* something collectively. For example, a full discussion of agency could lead to a summary that, together with critical comment, could be posted to a web site. Then we could move to B, C, and so on to Z, etc. You promised your thoughts on ontological stratification. I'm looking forward to them. I have been taken with the distinction between laws and mechanisms in this respect and have looked briefly at both DPF and RTS (which has the fullest discussion) and Collier and I think there are large questions here. But I have to put these things on hold a bit and I'm not sure exactly when I will be able to get to them. Howard At 09:20 AM 1/30/01 -0500, you wrote: >Okay, so far the options that have been indentified are: > >1) discuss *Being Human* > >2) discuss *DPF* > >3) do both > >4) discuss certain key theoretical problems related to cr &/or dcr &/or tdcr > >5) other > >One last time, I hope, what's everyone's pleasure? Don't be shy. > >I'm for #2 or #3. > >Ruth > > > > > --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- > --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005