Re: [Critical-Realism] rts2-11

["Tobin Nellhaus" <nellhaus@xxxxxxxx>]

Hi Mervyn--

I'd like to try out a thought experiment; let's see if it makes sense.  To 
start, let's assume a newborn who thinks (in a vague, newborn sort of way) 
"I'm the only thing in existence," or more accurately, since there is no "I" 
yet, that her existence is utterly continuous with everything.  Then, waving 
her little arms, she bumps into the crib.  Suddenly, in a single stroke, 
there's an "I" and a "not-I," which simultaneouly produces both knowledge 
("There's an I and a not-I") and error ("My idea that existence was utterly 
continuous is false").  Allow me to emphasize, I am not actually talking 
about psychological development, but rather a logical development.  The 
child's awareness of I and not-I could begin in the womb, and probably 
does -- it makes no difference for the logical issues.

Okay, I've been arguing that this logical development starts with a 
negation, a sort of "No, wait, what?!"  But in this thought experiment, we 
just saw the *simultaneous* emergence of both knowledge and error.  That 
double emergence is more or less what you've been arguing for, yes?

If I've got that right, then let's look at the fact that our logic-infant 
has made a distinction: "There an I and a not-I, and they aren't the same"). 
She's found that there's a difference, and for her, existence now has a 
determinate character in at least one respect.  Here's the problem, then: 
Bhaskar argues (with Spinoza, against Hegel) that all determination is 
negation (DPF 240).  If he's right about that, then my claim that error 
(negation) is primary would seem to be correct.

What do you think?

Tobin


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mervyn Hartwig" <mh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List" 
<critical-realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2007 3:01 PM
Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] rts2-11


> 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 


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