Re: BHA: Re: starting up DPF readings again.

[Gary MacLennan <g.maclennan@xxxxxxxxxx>]

At 02:11 PM 5/8/98 -0400, you wrote:
>Colin,
>
>No point is too minor to stop me from quibbling with it. :) You disagree
>with Gary's explanation of real negation, which is:
>
>>>I understand "real negation" as simply meaning that everything that is will
>>>not be. Or to put it in Bhaskarian terms, everything that is present now
>>>will be absent.
>
>Then you complain this implies a determinism in which every presence is
>destined to become an absence, and you say that is not required in an open
>system.
>
>Here is my quibbble with yours.  I think we can assume that SOME things
>change in the world, since the alternative assumption is a static universe,
>rejected by critical realism.  It follows that EVERYTHING is bound to
>change.  Consider just spatial relations.  Suppose Howard is standing to
>your left and then moves to your right, while you do not move at all.  At
>the start you have the property of being to the right of Howard, but after
>he moves you no longer have that property.  Or suppose Howard leaves your
>presence altogether, in which case the chnaged property is being in the
>presence of Howard.  Therefore you have changed, whether you know it or
>not, whether your mental state has changed or not.  So any spatial change
>at all will result in a change of a spatial thing's properties.  I suspect
>we can generalize this point to all types of properties: any change at all
>in the world will result in a change in everthing.  Not necessarily an
>essential change, of course, although even purely spatial changes can
>result in essential mental changes, say the reaction to an earthquake.
>
>Louis Irwin
>

Louis,


Just exactly what I was about to say. I swear it!

But seriously Colin doesn't determinism have to do with suggesting that
event B was inevitable, due to something that happened at A or because of
properties of A?


The fact of change seems so obvious to me.

Ruth raises a point about the speed of reading DPF.  We had ground to a
total halt Ruth! Ruth feels the book needs to be read sentence by sentence.
 I agree with that and I have the advantage of the Reading group here at
QUT and we do exactly that - go over it all sentence by sentence.  Some
days we win.  A lot of days we lose.

In the absence of such a group, Ruth, is part of the answer to go back over
the readings and posts on the introduction and then join us on chapter 2?

BTW John Ridgway has volunteered to do the next section which from memory
is on emergence. John could you get in touch with me?

Gary


     --- from list bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---