RE: BHA: what's next

["Phil Walden" <phil@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Ruth and listers,

I'll settle for Ruth's suggestion, because it doesn't rule out comparisons
with Marx and Hegel. Perhaps we could start by looking at what DPF says
about Marx and Hegel. But if people find a particular passage/concept
fascinating/incomprehensible we can start with that. I'm easy provided we
get round to what Roy says about Hegel and Marx. I think Roy makes a great
contribution to how we avoid imposition of dialectical logic on objective
reality (Hegel's ultimate problem). But I think we still need Hegel as a
model, but not a mould, for the systematic development of philosophical
dialectics. (Though I understand very little of the SCIENCE OF LOGIC).
Whether Roy's DCR is compatible with Marx's GRUNDRISSE and DAS KAPITAL is
something I'm still not decided upon.

Thanks for your comments, Mervyn. I joined the list too late to be involved
in the first discussion about DPF and I guess I've read DPF in a different
way to most people. I haven't focussed on its ethico-political theory but on
how much of it is compatible with materialism (as I understand it). Like
Ruth I need to re-read DPF to clarify my ideas.

Phil


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Ruth Groff
> Sent: 26 January 2001 21:34
> To: bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: BHA: what's next
>
>
> Hi guys,
>
> I'm not opposed to dealing with more than one book at a time, I
> guess, but I
> myself would only be able to engage with DPF.  So I'll confine myself to
> suggestions about how we might proceed on that front.
>
> I thought that our first go at DPF was useful, but ... well ... I think it
> was a first go.  For me, the weakness of our earlier effort was that the
> material was new enough to a lot of us that we were not as
> successful as we
> might have been in explaining the key points clearly and precisely.  At
> least, that's how it was for me.  I enjoyed people's posts, but I didn't
> find that reading them was *that* much different from reading the original
> text.  [I may *very* well just be bringing up the rear here,
> comprehension-wise, but on the other hand there may be others
> who, like me,
> still don't feel confident that they understand the thing very well.]
>
> So I'll toss out the idea that we start over from the beginning,
> but that we
> try to extract from each chapter, part, section, or whatever, the key new
> idea(s), and hone in on them.  Rather than starting things off with fairly
> lengthy re-statements of the text, we could try for each unit (chapter,
> section, whatever) to work, as a group, to identify and explain (and
> ultimately assess) the key points.  I'm imagining (in this little fantasy)
> lots of posts that begin "Here's what I figure is going on here: ..."
>
> What do people think?  Is this too elementary?
>
> Warmly,
> Ruth
>
>
>
>      --- from list bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>



     --- from list bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---