Re: [Critical-Realism] deon

["Tobin Nellhaus" <nellhaus@xxxxxxxx>]

Hi Mervyn--

Since you seem to be missing part of my point, let me restate the whole kit 
and kaboodle:

1) You argued that the CR concept of absence encompasses constraint and lack 
(need).  I *don't* dispute that.  I do however think you overstated their 
place within the overall scope of absence.  As universes go, constraint and 
(still more) need are pretty small potatoes.  Moreover, constraint and need 
are not "meanings" of absence but species of it.  So I held that you were in 
effect conflating the very big realm that is absence into some very small 
portions of it.  Eventually you decided that I had something there, and that 
you would draw back a little if/when you revise the dictionary.  Good 
enough, although now you sound a little like you're reverting to your 
previous stance.

2) You argued that "deon" has two meanings, binding and need.  I can't and 
don't disagree, since these are the primary definitions given the most 
authoritative classical Greek dictionary.  I did however raise a warning 
about how one interprets "need" in this instance (and I notice now that you 
also draw on a rather restrictive meaning of "binding," namely "fetter," 
which is scarcely the dominant connotation of "deon," which is more like 
"ought" or "incumbent upon").  In addition I argued that the meaning "need" 
was historically and semantically subsidiary and derivative, so posing it as 
equal to "binding" was misleading.  Since that time I noticed that Liddell & 
Scott indicate that the two senses may have come from different but 
homophonic words.  I don't consider this little surprise to be decisive 
about anything, because L&S appear rather tentative about the matter; but I 
do think it should instill further hesitation about doing too much with the 
apparently double meaning of "deon."

3) You argued that the double meaning of "deon" parallel RB's concept of 
absence.  My position is that to a small extent this is true, but the extent 
to which you take it doesn't hold up: it requires the conflationary 
interpretation of "absence" and a distorted rendering of the meanings of 
"deon," as discussed above.

4) You argued that the connection between the double meaning of "deon" and 
RB's concept of absence (which I think you severely overstate) is supported 
etymologically, as shown by the pair deontology/de-ontology.  I maintained 
that this is flat-out wrong.  There is no etymological relationship 
whatsoever between the Greek "deon" and Bhaskar's "de-onts."  "Deon" is a 
participle of "dei" and has no connection with "ont"; "de-ont" isn't even 
all Greek, and Bhaskar could have chosen another privative than "de-". 
Consequently, there may be a coincidental parallel between the meanings of 
absence and the meanings of "deon" -- or rather, such a parallel comes into 
existence only if one conducts the conflationary distortions I identified in 
(1) and (2) and in reality it's pretty minor -- but this coincidence is 
completely *coincidental*.  It's no more meaningful than the relationship 
between "resent" and "re-sent," and probably less.  There may be an 
"interesting" parallel there (one achieved only through force), but there is 
no *real connection*.  So one can't do anything more with this carefully 
invented parallel than notice that it's pretty cute.  And it is.  But that's 
all!

Gevalt already!  Seriously, I don't understand why you've got your teeth so 
sunk into this thing, Mervyn.  The Journal of Critical Realism: big 
contribution to CR.  The Dictionary of Critical Realism: should be on 
everyone's desk.  This particular proposition: well, nobody's perfect.  But 
the fate of critical realism is scarcely in the balance.  Shoot, I've 
published things that later others demonstrated were incorrect (Howard 
himself convinced me of one).  Well, that's life in the food chain.  If you 
get the opportunity, you either correct it or cut it.  If you don't get the 
opportunity, you don't.  And either way, life goes on.

Tobin


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mervyn Hartwig" <mh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "'Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List'" 
<critical-realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, 10 December 2007 5:04 PM
Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] deon


> Hi Tobin
>
> The interpretation I put forward (leaving aside the issues of "de-"  and
> plurality of meanings, re both of which I've taken your points [the former
> unacknowledged]) is that two of the meanings of the Greek words "on which
> deontology ... is formed: (1) to bind, fasten, fetter; and (2) to want,
> lack, need ... come together in the pivotal CR concept of absence ... as
> constraint (fetter) and as lack or ill-being (need), thereby unifying 
> ethics
> with the theory of being." That is, inter alia, I find it significant that
> what Bhaskar derives analytically from the concept of "absence" and from
> transcendental analysis of human praxis as such is mirrored (doubtless in 
> a
> complex way) in the linguistic praxis of ordinary (ancient Greek) life. It
> would be interesting and constructive to explore the extent to which this 
> is
> so in other languages.
>
> The main thrust of your intervention has been to call  this interpretation
> into question, or at any rate diminish its significance. As you yourself
> summarised: "I showed that you were producing a forced interpretion of the
> Greek in order to support your fanciful analysis." If you now want to 
> resile
> from that, that's absolutely fine by me, but there's no call while you're 
> at
> it to stoop to the ad hominem.
>
> I interpreted your omission, on this occasion, of "need" from the 
> definition
> of "deon" and your calling attention to the fact of two separate entries 
> on
> "deo"  in the context of your somewhat hostile and unconstructive attitude
> to my overall interpretation. The fact of separate entries does not of
> course entail lack of etymological  connection, and it remains unclear 
> what
> significance you do attach to it.
>
> Mervyn


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