Re: [Critical-Realism] Breaking news:Copernican breakthrough in thesocial scienc

[<gdemetrion@xxxxxxx>]

Thank you Fred,

As a neophyte attempting to learn something about CR it's difficult for me to enter the substance of these discussions in a profoundly substantive way, though I am seeking to expand my knowledge of this area in a way I can reasonably incorporate into my life in the midst of the several current projects which require the bulk of my attention.  On politics I'm more of a Deweyan meliorist than a marxist, even as I appreciate the value of a marxian critique of capitalism, a repressed voice in our (USA) political culture. On that I appreciate at least some of what Hayek has to see even as I do not go all the way with him and am basically working through an ideal of reform within capitalism through a more central role of the value of stewardship. I also build on Jurgen Habermas' important "Between Facts and Norms:  Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy," which I believe is one of the most significant books on constitutional democracy and representative government of the past decade.  Thus, to the concept of stewardship is conjoined the importance of strengthening mediating institutions and the stabilization of a communicative infrastructure that can exert powerful and sustainable influence in and on the public sector.  These, themselves are more or less unrealized tendencies inherent in the structure and value system of constitutionally-based capitalist political cultures, which, under the right circumstances could reasonably stimulate the generative structures that could bring them into closer approximation even as the gap between any given reality and the ideal, by definition remains infinitely unrealized. Unlike the neo-conservatives I have little illusion of the prospect of any realization of such a value any time soon in the US political culture.  Allow me to recommend fro your consideration John Dewey's (1939) short test, "Freedom and Culture.

Let me say, too, that I find your prose quite clear and I appreciate as well the nature of what you are seeking to accomplish, which, like any bold experiment deserves to be heard on its own merit, neither to be uncritically embraced, nor uncritically rejected, but examined, as you say, through reasoned analysis.  Let me be a little polemic here on the matter of the indecipherability of at least a decent proportion of CR prose.  In working through my Critical Realism reader, I began reading one of Bhaskar's essays titled Dialectic:  The Logic of absence--arguments, themes, perspectives, configurations." (pp. 589-640).  I read a few pages which I thought I more or less understood, and then came across the following conversation stopper:

"The transmission of positivity from knowledge to being, covered by the epistemic fallacy and then reflected back in its ontic dual, takes place at a posited or hypothesized point of categorical duplicity, which is actualistically generalized into eidetic eternity" (p. 598).

I'm sure this means something. I bet it's an important thought, and I bet it could be said with a great deal more clarity.  To the extent to which prose like that unnecessarily encumber philosophical work in CR, the discourse community can only be but exceedingly small.  Your prose, on the contrary Fred, is much more readable.

Fred, there are many reasons why one would not take your project on.  I, for example, read your posts but have resisted taking the time, simply because I don't have the time now to read your paper in the manner that it deserves to be read, which you generously sent my way.  Even this note took me close to an hour that I took from somewhere else, though I spent the time because I believe the issues I am speaking of are worth saying.

>From what I did pick up both from your paper and from the comments of your critics is that your paper does reflect a degree of hubris, which is not unusual often when people seek to break into some new ways of thinking.  That, however, is eminently correctable through further critical attention on your part, and in my view, should not be a reason in itself why people should not look into your ideas.  Moreover, in the scheme of what you are saying, it is a minor, rather than major refrain, but one, nonetheless, worthy of correcting.  I would also urge caution against any inclination of thinking that there is a magic bullet that provides THE answer to our problems.  One may make a contribution, to be sure, one may advance the argument, a bit, but I agree with Tim here that there are better minds than all of us both in the past and the future and there are many within the CR community who are grappling with the same dilemmas that you are seeking to address in your paper.

You have a set of ideas, a theoretical framework, something worthy of analysis, yet a project that may or may not reach anything remotely resembling the audience you would like to engage in substantial discussion.

My recommendations:

1. From time to time present short pieces that can be comfortably be read in 10 minutes from your larger project accompanied by some prefacing remarks or questions.
2.  Continue to work on the paper, continue to push the boundaries of your own understanding in the process and consider scholarly perspectives that might challenge your own but which are still within the range of your boundary thinking
3. Continue to read both widely and deeply the CR literature, but also other, related critical perspectives
4.  Try to get feedback from other networks in addition to this one (believe me, I know it's lonely out there)
5.  Make sure to the extent possible you're balancing this project with other important areas in your life.
6.  Try to put together some shorter pieces reflective of your broader project where you can find some venues either on-line or hard print

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