Re: [Critical-Realism] How can a de-ont exist or an absence bepresent?

[Howard Engelskirchen <howarde@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Mervyn,

It would help me a lot if you could explain this:

<An 'absence of causal structure and efficacy' is itself causal as the
examples imply.>

What I want to know is what it is that makes the 
absence of causal structure and efficacy itself 
causal.  It cannot be something material because 
that would be shot through with positivity.  Is 
there a substance new to science and philosophy 
being suggested here?  If I ask why water freezes 
I can trace it to the particular structure of the 
water molecule.  What do I trace the causal force 
of the absence of causal structure and efficacy to?

Of course, Dave has explained -- and Dave, far 
from disagreeing, I think you make my point -- 
what accounts for the causal impact of Pierre's 
absence from the cafe; it's the states of mind of those present in the cafe.

Incidentally what would be the rigorous 
distinction (ontological?) I need to make between 
'efficacy' and 'impact' insofar as efficacy can 
be absent and still have an impact.

Thanks, Nick for the response.  Mostly I have 
nothing to add to what Louis said.  The 
possibility that water might freeze, of course, 
depends on the way hydrogen and oxygen are joined 
in a water molecule, so possibilities do not 
raise for me the question I pose to Mervyn 
above.  Suppose I forget to turn on the heat when 
I leave the house for a weekend and the pipes 
freeze.  Then they freeze because of the 
structure of the water molecule, not because of 
what I forgot to do.  Suppose I intervene in 
nature, e.g. put litmus paper in acid.  It turns 
red because of identifiable processes.  Suppose I 
grab the wrong piece of paper.  It doesn't not 
turn red because of absence.   So I am interested in your point:

<"One of Roy's important insights is that there 
is no positive description of any state of 
affairs which necessarily entails the precise 
absence we are referring to when we speak of a 
determinate absence. We cannot describe inaction 
by refering solely to actions actually undertaken.">

I suspect that attention to the negative here is 
profoundly important, but I also don't want to 
get seduced away into explanations that depend on 
immaterial structures that can only be appealed 
to but never traced.  If determinate absence 
contributes a causal force to what happens in the 
world, then tell me where to look and what to 
look for.  What do I need to investigate besides 
the states of mind of those present in the cafe 
to account for deeply consequential impact of 
Pierre's absence.  To tell me the form of what 
persists is altered by absence won't do because 
then I am dealing precisely with the form of what persists.

best,

howard




At 06:16 PM 12/4/2007, you wrote:
>Louis
>
>An 'absence of causal structure and efficacy' is itself causal as the
>examples imply. Inaction that did not save a life is by no means the same as
>action that would have  saved it -- as you will discover if you are ever
>involved in a situation in which an action could have saved a loved one's
>life and didn't. Cf. Pierre's absence from the café - by no means the same
>as his presence somewhere else. It's palpable and causally impacts those
>present.
>
>The main thing is the world is polyvalent, not monovalent or filled with
>pure presence. Every action is also an absenting. To cause as such is to
>absent an existing state of affairs. The positive is shot through with the
>negative (not to mention surrounded by it - the bottomless and endless sea
>of negativity), and couldn't move without it. The negative enters
>fundamentally into the very constitution of 'causal structure and efficacy'.
>In the end it expresses the incontestable transience and finitude of what we
>think of as the positive.
>
>Mervyn
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: critical-realism-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>[mailto:critical-realism-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Louis
>Irwin
>Sent: 04 December 2007 23:26
>To: 'Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List'
>Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] How can a de-ont exist or an absence
>bepresent?
>
>
>Nick,
>
>Your examples don't seem to refute Howard's contention that absence means
>the absence of causal structure and causal efficacy.  For example:
>
>** "The inaction that could have saved the life?"  Is that not a case where
>what is absent is the causal structure and efficacy that an action would
>have brought with it?
>
>** "The money we didn't put aside for the holiday?"  Is that not a case
>where what is absent is a causal structure whose presence would have caused
>things to be different?
>
>** Howard did not say that droughts reduce to absence of rainfall.  He said
>rather that "What a drought causes is a result of the causal structures in
>place, not of absent non-structures that aren't there."  So your comment
>seems beside the point. All those various things you point out are absent do
>seem to be again absence of causal structures.
>
>Louis Irwin
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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