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

["Mark Johnson" <johnsonmwj1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks for that Dave.. it occurs to me a bit of this advice on industrial
relations would be very apt for some list-ers, rather than fighting over
windows!

On Dec 7, 2007 8:44 AM, Dave Taylor <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Thanks for this Howard.
>
> Follett, since you don't know her, is worth my reflecting on a little
> since,
> writing in a delightfully feminine way in the late 1920's on how to foster
> good industrial relations, she links "breeze" and "windows" in what is
> fairly obviously a Hegelian dialectic, by anticipating a Bhaskarian
> interpretation of that.  Here's the passage:
>
> "In the Harvard library one day, in one of the smaller rooms, someone
> wanted
> the window open, I wanted it shut.  We opened the window in the next room,
> where no one was sitting.  This was not a compromise because there was no
> curtailing of desire; we both got what we really wanted.  For I did not
> want
> a closed room, I simply did not want the north wind to blow directly on
> me;
> likewise the other occupant did not want that particular window open, he
> merely wanted more air in the room".
>
> As I read that, she is stepping back from thesis and antithesis in what
> the
> two think they want, to the "deeper" level of what they REALLY want (which
> from an idealistic perspective is a more "abstract" level), the result
> being
> to "integrate" their needs rather than to synthesise a compromise.
>
> Best
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: critical-realism-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:critical-realism-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Howard
> Engelskirchen
> Sent: 06 December 2007 19:29
> To: Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List
> Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] How can a de-ont exist or an absence
> bepresent?
>
> Thanks,. Dave.
>
> Yes, of course, on (1);  molecule should have an 's' attached.
>
> If you take away the Universe and are left with
> expanding energy, then that's stuff, that is, being.
>
> Coincidence with respect to Follett, I'm afraid,
> and yes, there must be some engagement in the
> brain, that, as far as I understand it, we have
> yet to explain.  We know our actions are
> semio-causal, but we don't know what the hyphen stands in for.
>
> howard
>
>
> At 02:48 AM 12/6/2007, you wrote:
> >Hi Howard
> >
> >This again is a lovely letter.  At (1), though, don't you mean "different
> >arrangement of water molecules causes steam or ice"?
> >
> >I can go along with (2), but suggest it implies that "being" is thereby
> >restricted to things within the universe capable of affecting observers.
> >Take away all from the Universe all the matter  and detectable
> >electromagnetic waves which have emerged, and one is apparently left with
> a
> >sizeable proportion of expanding energy which as a whole is not lacking
> >structure (c.f. Hubble's Bubble) and from an earlier state of which
> >localised being has in fact emerged, probably at the interface with
> >non-energy.
> >
> >At (3), isn't this where 'referential detachment' comes in? (and in
> >computing languages the emergence of "types" or structure definitions
> >distinct from objects which are to be interpreted as so structured)?
> >
> >At the end of (4), are you quoting Mary Parker Follett's example from
> >"Constructive Conflict" in "Dynamic Administration", or is this just a
> >coincidence?  But in any case, the fact that my liking a breeze does
> >sometimes cause me to open a window implies that in the context of my
> brain
> >they ARE engaging ordinary social mechanisms, so the question is, How?
> >That, I suggest, is where seeing how changing the arrangements of logic
> >circuits is effected in computer hardware becomes instructive.
> >
> >Best
> >
> >Dave
> >
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: critical-realism-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >[mailto:critical-realism-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Howard
> >Engelskirchen
> >Sent: 06 December 2007 01:47
> >To: Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List
> >Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] How can a de-ont exist or an absence
> >bepresent?
> >
> >Hi Mervyn,
> >
> >I had already noticed that the water molecule is
> >composed of gaps between its constituent elements, but thanks anyway.
> >
> >1.      One way to talk about this, simpler,
> >really, is to say that the things of the world
> >are composites of matter and form.  As I
> >suggested in my response to Nick, arrangements of
> >matter and its gaps can vary enormously with the
> >result that the same constituents can have very
> >different causal effects.  The water molecule
> >differently arranged causes steam or ice.
> >
> >2.      Non being is without causal
> >structure.  Because it lacks causal structure it
> >has no causal potency, force, efficacy,
> >consequence or "impact";  no amount of rhetorical
> >shock and awe can obscure that.
> >
> >3.      Ruth is absolutely right to call
> >attention to the terrific utility of our ability
> >to linguistically redescribe the world, including
> >our ability to imagine things that aren't
> >there.  Our success as a species is an important
> >consequence of our ability to imagine a future
> >(absent) different from the present.
> >
> >4.      But it is important not to confuse
> >linguistic redescription with the way the world
> >is.  Any actual transformation of the present
> >into the future requires the efficacious
> >operation of ordinary causal mechanisms.  See
> >point 2.  Meanings are causal, but they are so
> >only in virtue of engaging ordinary causal
> >mechanisms.  My idea that it would be nice to have a breeze opens no
> >windows.
> >
> >best,
> >
> >howard
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >At 10:01 AM 12/5/2007, you wrote:
> > >Hi Howard
> > >
> > > > tell me where to look and what to look for
> > >
> > >Try starting in the US of A with two of the most momentous absences and
> > >absentings in recent world history: the holes in the New Orleans levees
> and
> > >in the cityscape at Ground Zero. You want to say they don't/didn't have
> >real
> > >causal powers?
> > >
> > >The main problem seems to be that you're thinking in a monovalent
> rather
> > >than a polyvalent way about being in general - you're tacitly assuming
> that
> > >it's all pure positivity ("material"). So if "something material is
> shot
> > >through with with positivity" this must somehow preclude its being shot
> > >through with negativity. What about the level-specific gaps or voids in
> it,
> > >and the deep structure that is absent from the level of the actual?
> > >
> > >In like manner, you're (presumably, as a CR) thinking in terms of real
> > >emergence (e.g. of the Twin Towers), but not of real dis-emergence. The
> >Twin
> > >Towers were a complex, emergent reality. They're now absent, absented,
> >gone.
> > >The positive bits and pieces (together with the multitudinous gaps and
> >voids
> > >in the original complex) doubtless still exist somewhere somehow, but
> that
> > >is rather different from the emergent reality that was, and is now not
> > >(non-existent). This real non-being causally both impacts on people in
> > >multifarious ways and will (other things being equal) help to enable
> new
> > >emergent structures (shot through with voids).
> > >
> > >This is not to say that something can come out of just nothing (any
> more
> > >than out of just something, in the sense of pure positivity). In the
> > >polyvalent world we know, there's no such thing as "pure negativity"
> (any
> > >more than "pure positivity"), nor probably was there before it came to
> > >exist. It's true that, if the question of the coming to be and ceasing
> to
> > >exist of any world containing presence is posed in the context of
> current
> > >cosmological theory, it could only be from absence to absence. But this
> >does
> > >not entail that there was ever absolutely nothing: there may be degrees
> and
> > >modes of absence we do not fully comprehend. We need to take the
> > >implications of modern science seriously in this area, not ignore them.
> > >
> > >But you want to say that the causal impact in the example I give is all
> to
> > >do with the states of mind of those present. What is it then that
> impacts
> >on
> > >these minds? Not the presence of the Towers (or of Pierre) but it's
> >absence.
> > >You can see it (along with many other gaps and non-gaps). Ah, but we
> > >remember the presence. What then is a memory if not of something past,
> now
> > >gone - absent?
> > >
> > >Another problematic thing you're doing is forgetting that people are
> > >causally co-responsible for events in the transitive dimension. So your
> > >failure to turn the heating on (inaction) has nothing to do with
> causing
> >the
> > >water in the pipes of your heating system to freeze. What can one say,
> this
> > >is absurd, like the metaphysics of pure presence in general (which is
> in
> > >fact pure superstition). The causal mechanisms in the H2O could not
> have
> >had
> > >a freezing effect if they'd been offset by heat in the system. Human
> action
> > >is crucial in heating systems, as in experiments, and if you leave it
> out
> > >you've got problems!
> > >
> > >But you're real problem with the heating is that you think of causal
> > >mechanisms in a purely positive way. But it's impossible to give an
> account
> > >of mechanisms in purely positive terms. Without gaps between the
> molecules
> > >nothing could happen and analytically a mechanism is a power to negate
> an
> > >existing state of affairs.
> > >
> > >You seem to think that you can't be a "materialist" unless you cling to
> a
> > >conception of a purely positive world. But this is not so. Ideas and
> > >relations are not in themselves "matter", and the materialist analysis
> of
> >eg
> > >Marx fully allows their causal force, besides of course having
> negativity
> > >and negating at its very centre. Your own materialism seems, in the
> end,
> > >very reductive and monist - everything must in the final analysis come
> back
> > >to just matter, which is all positivity.
> > >
> > >Is your actual death present or absent? Is it a real possibility? Are
> >social
> > >worlds conducive to generalised free flourishing real possibilities?
> Are
> > >they actually present? Do you have a shadow? Is there night as well as
> day?
> > >
> > >Mervyn
> > >
> > >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: critical-realism-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >[mailto:critical-realism-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
> Howard
> > >Engelskirchen
> > >Sent: 05 December 2007 05:14
> > >To: Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List
> > >Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] How can a de-ont exist or an absence
> > >bepresent?
> > >
> > >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
> > >
> > >__________ NOD32 2702 (20071204) Information __________
> > >
> > >This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
> > >http://www.eset.com
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >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
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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