File spoon-archives/bhaskar.archive/bhaskar_2001/bhaskar.0102, message 215


Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 00:41:49 +0000
From: Mervyn Hartwig <mh-AT-jaspere.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Ex-nihilo? was Re: For Ruth was Re: BHA: de-onts


Dear Gary,

>I have never though been able to understand what the footnote 
>on page 47 means by
>
>"(c) that the cause of its [the cosmos] beginning cannot be considered 
>without antinomy or vicious regress...
>
>In respect of (c), note a polyadic-fissuring of a Schillerian dialectic 
>would give it a minimum five-term structure, without allowing for 
>indeterminate or subsequent multiple negation."
>
>Enlightenment eagerly sought as always!!

Here's trying, but I too pray for Enlightenment (you beast!)

I take (c) to mean that the cause of *our* cosmos (universe) can be
considered without antinomy or vicious regress - ie it's just one little
big bang within the beginningless infinitude of cosmoi (cosmos plural);
it's origins are quite likely of a 'fusing kind ... involving ... a
compression of pre-existing forces'.

My first (desperate) stab at the 'note' a few years ago was (for the
embarrassed record) in terms of 'modes of production' -  I thought he
might have been saying that a primitive communism / class society /
communism schema decidedly won't do (the Schillerian dialectic is a
three-term one) - you have to have (minimally) five terms:  primitive
communism / the Ancient MP / the Asiatic / the Feudal / and the
Capitalist!

But *that* clearly won't do, not only because it leaves eudaimonia out!
How's about:

The (three-term) Schillerian dialectic = 1) Eden/primitive communism  
2) the Fallen world/ class society  3) Paradise/ eudaimonia. (This I
think is a matter of record).

The Schillerian dialectic, however, is 'monadic', not 'dyadic' or
'polyadic' ('singular', not 'dual' or 'multiple'). For a world that is
now more adequately apprehended by the diffracted dialectic and all that
goes with it, the schema must be minimally 'dyadic', viz:

                1) Eden etc 
2a) Fallen world One    2b) Fallen world Two
3a) Paradise One        3b) Paradise Two

comprising five in all. This, to repeat, is *minimal* only, 'without
allowing for indeterminate or subsequent multiple negation' (each
'level' negates the preceding one, and proliferates). In FEW the
diffraction is polyadic (multiple) *to infinitude*. (NB. There are still
three 'levels' ie it's still Schillerian, but the 'terms' have
multiplied indefinitely - 2a to infinity, 3a ditto.). The ultimate
heaven (where alienation and split are overcome) is inter alia infinite
multiplicity and (I think) diversity.

Some say Bhaskar's lost the plot, but then modern science does suggest
that there are multiple universes, and that the whole show is
exponentially expanding....

Mervyn

PS. Re 'cosmoi': my OED doesn't give a plural for 'cosmos', since
presumably it didn't anticipate the need for one, so I use the Greek
plural. - 'Cosmoses' sounds like a disease. (Maybe we should reserve
'cosmos' for the polyadic thing and 'universe' for our little neck of
the woods. I think there's some warrant in FEW for this.)






Gary MacLennan <g.maclennan-AT-qut.edu.au> writes
>
>>Mervyn wrote
>>
>>So really, we're back to the old CR/DCR divide. I think this has little
>>to do with the frequently alleged extreme difficulty and obscurity of
>>DPF, and much to do with a determination to resist dialectics at any
>>price.
>
>Yes it would seem so.  But I am inclined to think we have made some 
>progress, despite a tendency to 'kick against the pricks' as the Good Book 
>puts it. There is simply no getting away from DPF.  As Phil has said it is 
>Bhaskar's magnum opus and as the years pass its philosophical boldness and 
>brilliance become clearer.
>
>
>>BTW, I think DPF pp46-7 (including footnote) make it clear that Bhaskar
>>does *not* accept that 'in the beginning there was nothing'.
>
>OK, Mervyn.  I have never though been able to understand what the footnote 
>on page 47 means by
>
>"(c) that the cause of its [the cosmos] beginning cannot be considered 
>without antinomy or vicious regress...
>
>In respect of (c), note a polyadic-fissuring of a Schillerian dialectic 
>would give it a minimum five-term structure, without allowing for 
>indeterminate or subsequent multiple negation."
>
>Enlightenment eagerly sought as always!!
>
>regards
>
>Gary
>
>
>
>
>     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

-- 
Mervyn Hartwig
13 Spenser Road
Herne Hill
London SE24 ONS
United Kingdom
Tel: 020 7 737 2892
Email: mh-AT-jaspere.demon.co.uk


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

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005