Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 22:43:45 +0000
From: Mervyn Hartwig <mh-AT-jaspere7.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: BHA: Voloshinov etc - response to Jamie/Marshall - Mervyn


>is John Roberts piece in Radical Philosophy  121 a fair representation 
>of  Bhaskar's position ?

I'll tell you when I've read it. Mervyn

In message <3FE876D0.8040204-AT-krokodile.co.uk>, steve.devos 
<steve.devos-AT-krokodile.co.uk> writes
>Mervyn
>
>Even if one accepts that aspects of a personality are part of the Real 
>- one also has to accept that the Imaginary both the in personal and 
>Social Imaginary senses, which contain collective values which whilkst 
>supplying unitary meanings are and will always be logically unprovable.
>
>Given that Mt Fuji for me, (whether I am looking at it on/in Shinji 
>Aoyama's movie 'Eureka', a Manga cartoon on at the ICA, or whilst 
>walking up the mountain through the detritous left by the 10s of 
>thousands of walkers up the side of the mountain),  is always an 
>ideological representation - perhaps the question should be asked the 
>other way round how on earth do you manage to get through these 
>constructions to the 'Real' ?
>
>I'm hoping to get time to read 'meta-reality' and ' science to 
>emancipation' over the next two weeks - but I admit to being allergic 
>to the transcendental ... is John Roberts piece in Radical Philosophy 
>121 a fair representation of  Bhaskar's position ?
>
>regards
>steve
>
>Mervyn Hartwig wrote:
>
>> steve.devos <steve.devos-AT-krokodile.co.uk> writes
>>
>>>what would be required for me to accept that we can interact directly
>>>with the Real in a non-ideological, non-discursive fashion.
>>>
>>
>>It's exceedingly difficult to know, since the causal mechanisms of your
>>own embodied personality *are* (aspects of) the Real. (If you managed to
>>cut yourself off from the Real when you emerged from Mt Fuji, do say
>>how).
>>
>>I don't think a CR which operates with a purely epistemic theory of
>>truth ultimately has any answers to your pomo position, because it can't
>>say *how* it's possible to get across the epistemological/ontological
>>divide you both operate with (in different versions), only that it must
>>be the case that we do. This is why the later Bhaskar has found it
>>necessary to supplement such a theory with an alethic or ontological
>>dimension and to elaborate a philosophy of identity without resiling
>>from the distinctions of the earlier CR.
>>
>>Mervyn
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>--- StripMime Warning --  MIME attachments removed --- This message may 
>have contained attachments which were removed.
>
>Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list.
>
>--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative
> text/plain (text body -- kept)
> text/html
>---
>
>
>    --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---




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