File spoon-archives/bhaskar.archive/bhaskar_2001/bhaskar.0101, message 94


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 ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005