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

[Colin.Wight@xxxxxxxxxx (Colin Wight)]

Hi Gary,

And let me thanks you for getting this going  again (are you going to make
the conference?)

Anyway, you write:
>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?

Well, we have to distinguish regularity determinis (which CR rejects) from
ubiquity determinism (which CR accepts). The one I am pointing to is the
latter. But I see no reason to make the apriori assumtion that every
presence must become an absence. But even if it is the case that every
presence must become an absence, this still doesn't mean that this is what
RB means by 'real negation'.

>
>
>The fact of change seems so obvious to me.

Well me too. But as I said in my reply to Louis, absence can't be analysed
as change. Anyway look, this was a minor point and let's not get hung up on
it since it might slow down the reading.


Thanks,




------------------------------------------------------------------

Dr. Colin Wight
Department of International Politics
University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Tel: (01970) 621769

----------------------------------------------------------------



     --- from list bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---