Re: [Critical-Realism] One last review

["Louis Irwin" <louisirwin9@xxxxxxx>]

Hi Tobin,

You are right - I focused on one side of RB's characterization of the
transitive/intransitive distinction and neglected the reading that you point
out. 

I tend to think of the transitive/intransitive divide as a division within
ontology.  Part of what is real (or actual, or possible) includes things
which can be conceived in terms which are independent of how they relate to
thinking subjects, and the other part includes things which by contrast
cannot be conceived except in terms of how of how they relate to thinking
subjects.  This is, I think, a very clear-cut distinction.  I note for the
record that it would be a gross error (one I know that you, Tobin, do not
commit) to construe the intransitive as the domain of ontology and the
transitive as the domain of epistemology.  Both sides of the division belong
to the ontological, with the transitive constituting the "ontology of the
knowing process" (whether that process be individual or social).

The reading of the transitive/intransitive distinction that I neglected is a
relative concept in which something is considered intransitive in relation
to its being an object of knowledge.  In your example, RB's theory is a
transitive construction, but when it becomes an object of (transitive)
knowledge, it takes on an intransitive aspect.  That reading is certainly in
the text, but I never cared for it much.  Why not just say that when one
studies a theory, one is studying a transitive entity AS a transitive
entity?  I don't see why we have to declare that a studied theory must be
intransitive, and I don't see much value in saying that. 

Maybe I am misconstruing the reading I don't like. It is one thing to use
antecedent knowledge as a "transitive object of knowledge" in the transitive
dimension to construct new knowledge.  It is another matter to study a
theory in terms of its causal impact on our (transitive) thinking and on
other parts of reality - one considers a theory as a material reality with
its own causal effects.  I think that must be behind the relative view.  I
just think the same purpose can be achieved without the confusion attending
use of the relative understanding. Proof of the confusion: read current and
previous threads!!!  

The non-relative reading may also avoid assimilating the type of causality
that theories and knowledge have to the type of causality that physical
objects, gravity, etc. have.  In my reading, a theory cannot be conceived
except in terms of how of how it relates to thinking subjects, and this
essential subjectivity of theories affects the type of causality they have -
theories are examined in terms of how well they explain things, so the
causal effects of acceptance of a theory is at least partly bound to
consideration of the prevailing rationality by which theories are examined
and accepted.  Just to be completely clear for the record: I'm talking about
a theory which might be about non-subjective objects - say a theory in
physics - and I am considering such a theory as in turn a causal object
which has effects, and I am suggesting that the causality there has to take
subjectivity (part of reality) into account.  Saying that whether or not
such a theory becomes accepted has to do, at least in part, with rational
standards that are current.  Further, acceptance may lead to views that are
available for critique, moreover acceptance may lead to altering the
previously existence rational standards, again available for critique.

Louis


-----Original Message-----
From: critical-realism-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:critical-realism-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tobin
Nellhaus
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2007 8:07 PM
To: Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List
Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] One last review

Hi Louis--

Exceedingly quickly:

> Theories and
> knowledge are transitive, whether in one's head, in a book, distributed
> collectively in social institutions, etc.

If something is an "object of study," then it is intransitive.  Someone can 
analyze Bhaskar's writings, but do so from a positivist point of view.  In 
this case Bhaskar's writings are intransitive, and the reader's positivism 
is transitive.  My own thoughts become intransitive as soon as I think 
something like "Can that be right?"

Cheers,

T.

---
Tobin Nellhaus
nellhaus@xxxxxxxx
"Faith requires us to be materialists without flinching": C.S. Peirce



_______________________________________________
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