Re: BHA: definitions

[Colin Wight <Colin.Wight@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Matt,

Sorry, I have this awful habit of thinking that everybody must
automatically know what I am talking (writing about? - is the development
of email proof the Derrida is wrong about the relationship between speech
and writing BTW, since it seems to me that email is precisely the spoken
word written; just a small digression). PON refers Bhaskar's 2nd book, 'The
Possibility of Naturalism: A Philosophical Critique of the contemporary
Human Sciences' My copy is by a first edition 1979 printing. The second
addition has a postscript in which Bhaskar replies to critiques of his
position (anyone got a copy they would like to sell?). I have heard a
rumour that it may be republished, but I am not certain of this. However,
it is a must read for anyone into CR, certainly in terms of how Bhaskar
views the social sciences.

Ruth, sorry but I wasn't sure in my owm mind that Louis's helpful typology
constituted a set of definitions of these terms. I read them more as a set
of propositions about Sally, Socrates and Santa, which various members on
the list disputed. The main problem came over what is meant by 'Santa is
not real and does not exist'. I agree with both of these (of course, and
this hardly needs repeating, but I will, I do accept that there are social
relations which produce discourses of Santa, that there are discourses of
Santa and practices of Santa etc. For the sake of brevity let me call this
the "Santa complex" - this is real and exists).

Thanks,


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

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


     --- from list bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---