Re: [Critical-Realism] rts2-11

["Mervyn Hartwig" <mh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Tobin

Interesting. I'll think about it.

I still want to say I think that her erring and not-erring are distinct 
sides of the same coin -- an aspect of the duality of praxis. In putting her 
hand in the flame she errs but also makes a real discovery about the world. 
How her reception of this discovery is to be conceptualised is moot. But I 
can't see that one can derive anything from error alone here.

Mervyn


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tobin Nellhaus" <nellhaus@xxxxxxxx>
To: "Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List" 
<critical-realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2007 4:17 PM
Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] rts2-11


> Hi Mervyn--
>
> Sorry, the way I phrased it wasn't quite clear.  I wasn't referring to 
> what
> might be passing through the infant's consciousness.  What I had in mind 
> was
> your apparent statement that what's passing through her mind "comprises
> genuine knowledge," in this case the knowledge she exists.  In other 
> words,
> I don't mean that she herself is thinking "cogito ergo sum," but rather 
> that
> your outside judgment -- that her thinking "I'm here!" (or however you 
> want
> to say it) contains a true statement about herself -- appears to rely on 
> the
> cogito.  That would contradict your statement below, that the cogito 
> doesn't
> show there's an indubitable "I" (which is correct).  So it's unclear what
> can be identified as genuine knowledge in her thinking.
>
> Tobin
>
>
> 


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