Re: [Critical-Realism] Critical-Realism Digest, Vol 32, Issue 89

["Mervyn Hartwig" <mh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Jason, all

I think this is basically right.

Bhaskar usefully distinguishes between *existential* intransitivity and
*causal* intransitivity.

Existential intransitivity holds in respect of anything that has come into
being (or passed out of existence) in our zone of being (space-time):
nothing can now alter why and how it did so; hence it is absolutely
independent of the TD. (And, pace Dave E-V and George, hardly just a 
pragmatic or heuristic distinction).

Causal intransitivity is absolutely independent only in regard to the
fundamental laws of nature, which we can't change. It doesn't by and large
hold in the social sphere, where the epistemological process, and  more
generally human praxis, causally affects its own objects. However, some
things in the social sphere may be relatively intransitive causally - e.g.
'the system', a demographic structure, the thawing ice-caps (the thawing of
which must be considered a social object insofar as it has been caused by
human activity). They are very difficult to change.

Re your related important point about a theory etc being both TD and ID, and
epistemology part of ontology: in DPF Bhaskar helpfully conceptualises the
TD as 'constellationally contained' within the ID, or better 'there is
epistemic-ontic non-identity within ontology' (DPF 8)'.

This suggests that, although the difference between the TD and ID is
absolute in some of its aspects, it must not be reified -- there is no
'divide'. This is likewise suggested by (1) the fact that the transitivity
is continuously passing over into to intransitivity existentially; and (2)
by the causal interdependence or at most only relative causal intransitivity
that obtains in the sociosphere (which includes its material substrate).

I think all this is already implicit in RTS.

Mervyn


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "J.A.Toynbee" <J.A.Toynbee@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List"
<critical-realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2007 6:35 PM
Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] Critical-Realism Digest, Vol 32, Issue 89


Doesn't the clinching argument for the radical distinction between
transitive and intransitive have to do with temporality? Sure there's
constant movement between TD and ID, but in the past all knowledge is
rendered intransitive, independent of any knowing by the passage of time.

Jason



_______________________________________________
Critical-Realism mailing list
Critical-Realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/critical-realism