From: "Brian Dick" <alethic_truth-AT-hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: BHA: path dependence, critical realism and marxism
Date: Tue, 07 May 2002 16:37:58 -0700
<html><div style='background-color:'><DIV>
<P> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal>Hi Tobin</P>
<P class=MsoNormal>Perhaps the TMSA can help in this matter. The TMSA gives two diametrically opposed positions, which it attempts to unite. One the one hand, we have society determining the individual (Durkheim), while on the other we have the individual determining society (Weber). Now Bhaskar shows that to hold one or the other of these positions alone is to commit the fallacies of reification and voluntarism respectively. Rather, we have to see society as both constraining and enabling the individual as the individual (normally) reproduces and (sometimes) transforms society (with society and the individual mediated by a set of positioned-practices). </P>
<P class=MsoNormal>Now, as regards the causal efficacy of writing a book, I see that the same two fallacies can arise.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>If we say that only the author/book has causal efficacy we fall into the trap of reification, while if we say that only the reader does we end up with a form of voluntarism.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Thus, holding onto the 'primacy of the reader' may lead to voluntarism.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>It might be better said that the reader is constrained and enabled by the book (whether that be in cognitive or other terms), while, as you point out, it is up to the reader to change (or reproduce) the world. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal>*Note: Please take my comments with a grain of salt, as I’m a bit new to the server, but this seems to make sense.</P>
<P class=MsoNormal>Best,</P>
<P><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">Brian</SPAN><BR><BR></P></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>From: Tobin Nellhaus <NELLHAUS-AT-GIS.NET>
<DIV></DIV>>Reply-To: bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
<DIV></DIV>>To: bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
<DIV></DIV>>Subject: Re: BHA: path dependence, critical realism and marxism
<DIV></DIV>>Date: Tue, 7 May 2002 17:47:46 -0400
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>Something of a tangent....
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>Marsh wrote:
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>> > What, for instance, are the
<DIV></DIV>> > contingencies that enhance or impede the spread of ideas? You say they
<DIV></DIV>> > spread via "agency"? Can we be more specific?
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>I'm musing on the role of indirectness in the diffusion of ideas, e.g.
<DIV></DIV>>through books. In what sense and to what extent does a writer exert agency
<DIV></DIV>>through texts? Did Bhaskar do anything to make me read? Not that I know
<DIV></DIV>>of. He has only limited control over how I interpret his texts or whether I
<DIV></DIV>>agree with them or do anything further based on what he says. The main
<DIV></DIV>>agent is really the reader. Which casts a curious light on the formula:
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>> > CR -> spread of idea -> emancipation
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>Strictly speaking, the primacy of the reader holds for all mediated
<DIV></DIV>>communication (radio, TV), and probably for direct communication too.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>T.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>---
<DIV></DIV>>Tobin Nellhaus
<DIV></DIV>>nellhaus-AT-mail.com
<DIV></DIV>>"Faith requires us to be materialists without flinching": C.S. Peirce
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>> --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
<DIV></DIV></div><br clear=all><hr>Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. <a href='http://g.msn.com/1HM105401/47'>Click Here</a><br></html>
--- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005