RE: BHA: Writer-Reader relation; Aristotelean causes

["howard Engelskirchen" <lhengels@xxxxxxx>]

Hi Brian,

Primarcy of the writer or primacy of the book?

Howard

> [Original Message]
> From: Brian Dick <alethic_truth@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
 > Date: 5/8/2002 11:51:41 PM
> Subject: BHA: Writer-Reader relation; Aristotelean causes
>
> Hi All,
> 	Tobin, I see your point and the context it was made in.  I guess I was
> playing more of a devil's advocate role in my argument as I pretty much
> agree with your point, but I am still a little shaky on it.  Now, and
this
> may have some relevancy for the debate on Aristotelean causes, Bhaskar
> states that on the TMSA, "the ontological structure of human activity or
> praxis is conceived, after Aristotle, as consisting in the transformation
by
> efficient (intentional) agency of pre-given material (natural and social)
> causes" (RR, 92).  Thus, I see the objectification of a book as a
> cultural/social form as what might be called the 'material cause' of
> emancipation (or science).
> 	Now to relate this to the CR -> spread of idea -> emancipation schema
laid
> out by Marsh.  Bhaskar attacks the position of "rationalistic
> intellectualism, which sees social theory as (actually or potentially)
> immediately efficacious in practice" (RR, 89; I would be quoting out of
> SRHE, but I haven't had time to go back through it).  Thus, social theory
is
> a necessary, BUT INSUFFICIENT condition of human emancipation (as I
believe
> Bhaskar notes in chapter 1 of RR).  Social theory must be put into
practice
> (the 'efficient cause of emancipation').
> 	Therefore, I think that the book-reader relationship may be analogous to
> the base-superstructure metaphor.  As the foundation of a house does not
> fully determine the exact structure of the house, but does condition the
> form it may take, so the book, while not determining what the reader
does,
> conditions what is (cognitively, or otherwise) available to the reader
> (whether the reader accepts it or not).  Am I correct in proposing this?
If
> I am, then it would seem that we are beholden to the 'primacy of the
writer'
> (just as the economic base holds primacy (in the final analysis) over the
> cultural superstructure), rather than the primacy of the reader (even
though
> I am intuitively sympathetic to this argument).  Of course, if I hold
this
> position, then I may be liable, as I pointed out earlier, to fall into
the
> fallacy of reification.  I guess I still remain a bit confused as to what
my
> position is on this matter.
> 	On the matter of formal and final causes, could these perhaps be aspects
of
> both societies and individuals, while societies alone remain the material
> cause and individuals the efficient?  For example, I see directionality
> (final cause; or am I not putting it in strong enough language, i.e.
> teleological?) at both the level of society (history) and the individual
> (biography).  (With formal cause perhaps relating to the structure of
> society (mode of production?) and the habitus of the individual
> respectively?)
> Brian
>
>
>
> >From: Tobin Nellhaus <nellhaus@xxxxxxx>
> >Reply-To: bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >To: bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >Subject: Re: BHA: path dependence, critical realism and marxism
> >Date: Tue, 7 May 2002 21:55:19 -0400
> >
> >Hi Brian--
> >
> >It's true that texts have constraining and enabling features, and so
there
> >are limits to what can be argued as valid interpretations of a
particular
> >text.  The play *Hamlet* cannot plausibly be taken as a thesis on
quantum
> >mechanics.  But the question remains about how we see the propagation of
a
> >text as a causal element in social or cultural change.  I've read the
New
> >Testament, for example, but it didn't lead me to believe in the divinity
of
> >Jesus and to take him as my personal savior.  Lots of people (like
history
> >students) read *Mein Kampf* but aren't turned into Nazi sympathizers.
The
> >ideas spread, but to what effect?  Walter Ong's book *Orality and
Literacy*
> >had a profound impact on my research, but at least as much (and probably
> >more) through the ways I disagreed with it than through the parts I
thought
> >were on the mark.  An ordinary book on astrology probably sells far more
> >than anything by Bhaskar, but I'm not sure what one should say about
their
> >relative social impact.  In any case, once a book is "out there," the
> >author's agency is (more or less) over, advertising or in-person
pummelling
> >notwithstanding: any social impact it may have really starts from how
> >readers respond to it (if they do, and if they even read it).  My
comment
> >about the primacy of the reader was meant in that respect.  There is of
> >course an analogy here with TMSA, or maybe more clearly with Archer's
> >morphogenesis, since it emphasizes the agent's action undertaken within
> >historical preconditions.  Anyway, all I'm doing is underscoring the
> >difficulties facing a proposition like "CR -> spread of idea ->
> >emancipation" and, as Marsh recommends, subjecting it to just a little
> >research.
> >
> >T.
> >
> >---
> >Tobin Nellhaus
> >nellhaus@xxxxxxxx
> >"Faith requires us to be materialists without flinching": C.S. Peirce
> >
> >
> >   ----- Original Message -----
> >   From: Brian Dick
> >   To: bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >   Sent: Tuesday, 07 May 2002 7:37 PM
> >   Subject: Re: BHA: path dependence, critical realism and marxism
> >
> >
> >
> >   Hi Tobin
> >
> >   Perhaps the TMSA can help in this matter.  The TMSA gives two
> >diametrically opposed positions, which it attempts to unite.  One the
one
> >hand, we have society determining the individual (Durkheim), while on
the
> >other we have the individual determining society (Weber).  Now Bhaskar
> >shows that to hold one or the other of these positions alone is to
commit
> >the fallacies of reification and voluntarism respectively.  Rather, we
have
> >to see society as both constraining and enabling the individual as the
> >individual (normally) reproduces and (sometimes) transforms society
(with
> >society and the individual mediated by a set of positioned-practices).
> >
> >   Now, as regards the causal efficacy of writing a book, I see that the
> >same two fallacies can arise.  If we say that only the author/book has
> >causal efficacy we fall into the trap of reification, while if we say
that
> >only the reader does we end up with a form of voluntarism.  Thus,
holding
> >onto the 'primacy of the reader' may lead to voluntarism.  It might be
> >better said that the reader is constrained and enabled by the book
(whether
> >that be in cognitive or other terms), while, as you point out, it is up
to
> >the reader to change (or reproduce) the world.
> >
> >   *Note: Please take my comments with a grain of salt, as Im a bit new
to
> >the server, but this seems to make sense.
> >
> >   Best,
> >
> >   Brian
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Joi




     --- from list bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---