Subject: RE: BHA: essence and appearance
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 0:45:12 -0400



Mervyn and Ruth,

I'm afraid I can't help.  I'm sort of with you on this Mervyn, but I think
I accurately report what was said.

Howard

> [Original Message]
> From: Ruth Groff <rgroff-AT-yorku.ca>
> To: <bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>
 > Date: 6/4/2002 12:04:25 PM
> Subject: BHA: essence and appearance
>
> Hi  all,
> 
> Howard wrote:
> > >The answer to the question you ask, how they reject OS, is this: 
"essence
> > >must appear."
> 
> Mervyn then wrote:
> >Can I chip in and ask why this is held to defeat ontological
> >stratification? On Bhaskarian premises there is a sense in which essence
> >must appear, because it ultimately accounts for everything and once
activated necessarily has an effect
> 
> My admittedly simple-minded understanding of the issue is that it's the
admission of a "once activated" caveat that matters.  I am assuming that
Howard is saying that "Essence must appear" is at odds with the idea that
real powers exist but are not necessarily actualized -- with the idea, that
is, that the domains of the Real and the Actual are not coterminous.  Is
this right, Howard?
> 
> r.
> 
> 
> 
>      --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---


--- howard Engelskirchen
--- lhengels-AT-igc.org
--- EarthLink: The #




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