Ex-nihilo? was Re: For Ruth was Re: BHA: de-onts

[Gary MacLennan <g.maclennan@xxxxxxxxxx>]

> Mervyn wrote
>
> So really, we're back to the old CR/DCR divide. I think this has little
> to do with the frequently alleged extreme difficulty and obscurity of
> DPF, and much to do with a determination to resist dialectics at any
> price.

Yes it would seem so.  But I am inclined to think we have made some
progress, despite a tendency to 'kick against the pricks' as the Good Book
puts it. There is simply no getting away from DPF.  As Phil has said it is
Bhaskar's magnum opus and as the years pass its philosophical boldness and
brilliance become clearer.


> BTW, I think DPF pp46-7 (including footnote) make it clear that Bhaskar
> does *not* accept that 'in the beginning there was nothing'.

OK, Mervyn.  I have never though been able to understand what the footnote
on page 47 means by

"(c) that the cause of its [the cosmos] beginning cannot be considered
without antinomy or vicious regress...

In respect of (c), note a polyadic-fissuring of a Schillerian dialectic
would give it a minimum five-term structure, without allowing for
indeterminate or subsequent multiple negation."

Enlightenment eagerly sought as always!!

regards

Gary




    --- from list bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---