From: "Andrew Brown" <Andrew-AT-lubs.leeds.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 11:48:33 +0100
Subject: Re: BHA: Re: Positivism, Realism, Materialism


Hi Jamie,

> 
> perhaps identity should be understood as something achieved since this
> would be mire in accordane with the idea of an emergent power, rather
> than simply residing within mind,

I actually suggested this in a prveious post but it still leaves the 
nature of the identity, and its ramifications, unanswered.

> 
> in terms of truth, identity could perhaps be not a synonym but a
> possible characteristic of knowledge that is true and the content of
> mind that holds something that is true - in which case identity would
> be part of the criteria of an epistemology i.e. the justification
> process that contributes to true belief

This seems to imply an actual one to one identity? An identity of 
real essences, of powers, or what?

> 
> you state blatant contradiction, again, and let's not keep repeating
> this since it really isn't going anywhere, it isnot a contradiciton to
> state that a philosophical positon that posits non reductive powers
> but not what those powers will be could entail a paricular power that
> is the possibility of the acheivement of identity. I maynot wish to
> endorse the position but I wouldn't discount it.

Well presumably we can accept that 'nonreductive' entails 'non-
identical'. Hence we can accept that you are, in effect, saying 'it is 
not a contradiction to say that non-identical powers to other strata 
are identical powers to other strata'. You are saying, then, that 
these powers both are, and are not, identical with other powers, 
and you are also saying that this is not a contradiction?

> 
> As for logic, it seems dangerous position to express ignorance of a
> body of knowledge but then also to confidently discount it.

True and would never do such a thing!

 I would
> tend to agree that formal logic has definite limits - Tarski's work on
> Boolean mathematics in higher order logic languages is a case inpoint
> - but limits is not the same as grandly desiregarding the whole of
> professional philosophy 

I didn't. I said it (professional philosophy in the UK) marginalises 
materialist dialectics and it cannot be trusted to adequately 
demarcate domains of philosophy. Actually the second statement 
is corrolary of the first, if you happen to be on the side of 
materialist dialectics.

- some of it is interetsing in itself, some of
> it is useful, particularly workon argumentation which tends to
> highlight the rather poor lack of consistency in the ways we dispuite
> things

agreed

 (and I'm willing to bet if we were to read back over this
> debate we're both guilty of that - I'm pretty sure I am).

> 
> PLease describe your notion of dialectical logic and how it differs
> from ordinary logic

A couple of apsects of dialectical logic relevant to our discussion:

1) Dialectic logic discriminates between different types of 
contradiction, and does not put a blanket ban on it. Some 
contradictions are interesting and lead to fruitful development. 
Perhaps the contradiction that I keep pointing out you appear to be 
making is fruitful, perhaps, for example, recourse to the wider 
literature on emergence to which you refer will reveal it to be so.

2) More generally, dialectical logic is not a formal system (and 
cannot be captured by one), it is a grasp of the general and 
abstract laws of thinking, of knowledge, themselves a reflection of 
the most general and abstract laws of reality. In more familiar 
terms, it has ontological as well as epistemological status. (For 
this to be the case, SEPM must be rejected, on my view). 

>
> On isomporphism - I'm not sure why you think distinguishin behaviour
> and identity is important - I haven't got time to address this issue
> now and expect we'll become embroiled in uncessary misunderstandign
> which seems to already be the case- are you going tot he August
> conference - perhaps you might be able to set up some kind of panel to
> discuss these issues - I'd be happy to participate - we'd get throught
> his a lot easier.

I am going to the conf - a bit late for a panel (though I am flattered 
that you suggest the idea, even if only so you can demonstrate the 
error of my ways!), but there is always the bar...

Many thanks,

Andy


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