Re: [Critical-Realism] How can a de-ont exist or anabsencebepresent?

["Mervyn Hartwig" <mh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Louis

OK, you weren't attributing the notion of "pure absence of action" to me, so
I should have just responded that imo there's no such thing.

I didn't discuss the specifics because there didn't seem a lot of point
given that our basic presuppositions seem to be so different. You seem to
want to say that positive existences are causal, negative existences aren't
or can always be parsed as positive. I think they're always both involved in
causation. Think of the causal power of a motor. Now abstract all the spaces
inside it that would be visible to the naked eye were you to be able to see
inside. No causal power of that specific kind. Now abstract all the gaps
between the elementary particles. No causal power period, because nothing
could move. Now abstract its external boundary which defines it in relation
to things that it is not and you don't even have a determinate object. I
can't begin to make sense of the notion that just the positive bits are
causal. Nothing can come from just nothing, true, but there never is just
nothing.

If our basic paradigms are so different we likely won't be able to talk very
constructively about specifics. Needless to say, I might be wrong that they
are so different. The position that only the positive is causal is more
explicit in Howard than in you.

Re the origins of the thread or sub-thread: what I see when I go through my
files is that you asked me to post the dictionary entry on "ont/de-ont",
then Howard came in with the post headed as above.

Mervyn 
 

-----Original Message-----
From: critical-realism-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:critical-realism-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Louis
Irwin
Sent: 07 December 2007 22:37
To: 'Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List'
Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] How can a de-ont exist or
anabsencebepresent?

Mervyn,

If you actually read my post with minimal comprehension, you will see that
it attributes nothing whatsoever to you, contrary to what you assert, as in:
"...yet here you are attributing to me the notion of "pure absence of
action"".  I simply put out a possible analysis (not necessarily mine) for
discussion and asked if you agreed with it.  Certainly no basis for your
whining.  Why are you so defensive?  I note that you completely avoided
addressing the specifics of my post, saying where you think it goes wrong,
etc.  Instead you do what you always do: restate your general position and
ignore any attendant complications.

Also you are wrong about the origins of this sub-thread.  I made a comment
to Nick, and then you jumped in, and here we are.

Louis


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