File spoon-archives/bhaskar.archive/bhaskar_2001/bhaskar.0108, message 5


Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 10:45:55 +0100
From: Mervyn Hartwig <mh-AT-jaspere.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: BHA: Religious sensibility??


Hi again Tobin

>Agonizing as it may be, I'd rather have a tough reader than a
>soft one -- that's *real* charity.

I agree with this. Toughness is of course most effective when it's
applied to the strongest possible interpretation.

>I think for him
>> consciousness is both present at all levels of the cosmos and emergent
>> in roughly the following sense. Absolute being (God), among whose
>> infinite attributes is consciousness, suffuses (creates and sustains)
>> all levels of the finite world of relative being qua 'pure
>> dispositionality' (possibility) and 'ultimate categorial structure'.
>> Consciousness is thus present at all levels *as possibility* - which is
>> entirely compatible with emergence.
>
>This seems partially tautological and partially paralogical.  Since X exists
>at some level, it obviously *must* be a possibility at lower levels.  But
>from this RB concludes that it is also *present* at the lower levels??  If
>so, we can equally argue that murder is present at all levels of existence.
>And chocolate eclairs.  (If only!)  To conflate possibility with presence is
>basically a form of actualism.

There is a difference between presence *as possibility* (i.e. at the
level of the Real) and presence as actuality (level of the Actual - your
sense.) It is possibility that Bhaskar imo worships - think of his God
as above all that.

Best, 

Mervyn




Tobin Nellhaus <nellhaus-AT-gis.net> writes
>Hi Mervyn--
>
>> >Perhaps it's not *all* of TDCR, but certainly it's the most important
>> >element in it, the aspect in which it most differs from DCR (which, in
>turn,
>> >made CR dialectical).
>>
>> It could only be the most important element if, as you suggest, it
>> *transforms* DCR. I argue, however, that it is *by and large*, not a
>> transformation, but a consistent dialectical *development*, of it. I'm
>> now in print in detail to this effect in JSTB 31:2 June 2001, so won't
>> repeat myself any further here. If I'm right, the T is no more the most
>> important element in T-D-CR than the recent growth is the most important
>> element in a maturing tree - it presupposes and embraces most of what's
>> gone before. I could of course be wrong...
>
>I suppose I'll have to dig up the JTSB to get the story of why you think the
>T is consistent with the D-CR, and doesn't make for a great change.  But I
>for one, and I suspect many others, see the T as a rather big step.  (Is
>marxism a natural and consistent linear development of hegelianism?  You
>decide.)  Without question the T has been more controversial than the D ever
>was.  And I must confess, your image of the T as a natural growth makes me
>wonder how you personally can consistently remain an agnostic.
>
>> >when it comes to critical analysis, charity may be in the mind of
>> >the beholder.
>>
>> Charity is a key principle of immanent critique - ie putting the most
>> favourable or strongest possible construction on the position being
>> critiqued if you want your critique to carry much weight.
>
>Maybe.  On the other hand, a theory that can withstand serious pounding
>*has* weight.  Agonizing as it may be, I'd rather have a tough reader than a
>soft one -- that's *real* charity.
>
>> No, I don't accept reductionism. But it's not me - I'm trying to present
>> a plausible interpretation of what Bhaskar's saying. I think for him
>> consciousness is both present at all levels of the cosmos and emergent
>> in roughly the following sense. Absolute being (God), among whose
>> infinite attributes is consciousness, suffuses (creates and sustains)
>> all levels of the finite world of relative being qua 'pure
>> dispositionality' (possibility) and 'ultimate categorial structure'.
>> Consciousness is thus present at all levels *as possibility* - which is
>> entirely compatible with emergence.
>
>This seems partially tautological and partially paralogical.  Since X exists
>at some level, it obviously *must* be a possibility at lower levels.  But
>from this RB concludes that it is also *present* at the lower levels??  If
>so, we can equally argue that murder is present at all levels of existence.
>And chocolate eclairs.  (If only!)  To conflate possibility with presence is
>basically a form of actualism.
>
>>                            Whatever you think of its
>> premises (that possibility + categorial structure = God)
>
>Just what is RB's rationale for this assertion, anyway?  It strikes me as
>either deflationary (of God) or inflationary (of RB's own thinking), but in
>any case I don't get it.
>
>Gotta go.  Cheers, T.
>
>---
>Tobin Nellhaus
>nellhaus-AT-mail.com
>"Faith requires us to be materialists without flinching": C.S. Peirce
>
>
>
>
>
>     --- 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