Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 10:47:39 -0400
Subject: Re: BHA: Re: Dick's post on essence and actuality


Hi Ruth and Mervyn,

I am sorry if I seemed to misinterpret either of you.  As I have mentioned 
before, I am interested in discovering convergences between Lonergan and 
Bhaskar.   Lonergan uses of the notion of probability in his 
ontology.  Events are not simply contingent, but more or less probable, and 
the probabilities of events change as conditions change.  From this 
perspective, whether or not an essence "appears" (is one of the causal 
mechanisms behind and event) is also not simply contingent, but more or 
less probable.

The idea that all essences must appear -- that everything possible must 
become actual -- seems to bear at least a family resemblance to the 
ontological proof for the existence of God.

Regards,

Dick

At 10:07 AM 06/10/2002 -0400, you wrote:
>Hi Dick,
>
>I agree with what you've said here.  I said the same thing a few posts 
>back.  I'm not sure what the confusion is.  "Essence must appear" seems to 
>me to be pretty straight-forwardly at odds with the idea that there are 
>many essences that do not, as it happens, "appear" (by which I mean either 
>or both "become actual" and "be objects of perception").  Am I missing 
>something?
>
>r.
>
> >It is one thing to say that there are essences which ultimately account 
> for all that occurs, quite another to say that every possible essence 
> must ultimately "appear."  Isn't this equvalent to saying that all 
> possible worlds (universes, pluriverses) will ultimately be actual?
>
>
>
>      --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---




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