Date:          Mon, 30 Dec 1996 01:41:31 GMT-700
Subject:       Re: BHA: catching up


Just wanted to add a few quick comments to Howard's post.

First, it is very important as critical realists that we keep the 
intransitive and transitive dimensions (at least, philosophically) 
distinct.  To this i am very much in agreement with Howard's 
comments.

Second, concerning Howie's warnings about social theory, and the 
changing structure, or better less-enduring(ness of) social structure 
is a very important limitation that confronts social science.  
However, i would tend to agree with Howard that (social) structures, 
like for example, *capitalism* itself, has a tendency to endure in 
spite of our theorizing or understanding and explanations of it.  For 
example the importance of "fetishism" (commodity, money, or 
otherwise) depends on Howard's point or emphasize.  But, again as an 
example, (the structure of) the stock market very much depends on, 
and is changed by our theories, understanding, and explantion of it 
(or the banking structure would be another example).  In such examples 
there is no getting around Howie's warnings (and Bhaskar's) and the 
very limitation of social science in general.

In this sense, i would think that "law" would be very concept-
dependent [Howard?].  Whereby, i would suggest that such a 
limitation is quite "usual" in the social science.  Although, the 
structure of capitalism, in its periodizational, quasi-
transformations, tend to endure in its "essential" character (e.g. 
the capital/wage-labor nexus, whereby the "*logic of capital*" 
dominates *practical* consciosness and *practical* activity).

In any event this (almost incidential) distinction between the 
intransitive and transitive dimensions turns out be of the utmost 
importance (espeically in these Pomo conditions and consciousness).  
This is no small matter, and although postisms often will insist they 
"of course" do not deny the existence of the real world, their 
philosophizing tends to realitivize it (especially in the social 
sciences), i.e. collapses the two dimensions (that is to say they 
absolutely [tend to] commit the epistemic fallacy).

(This is actually quite surprising in that there is an honest attempt 
to theorize (ontological) *change* (i.e. Foucault)).

My example, might be something like this: philosophical we know, that 
social structures must exists for the possiblity of human agency.  Or 
to to follow Marx, a mode of production must be in place for the 
reproduction of human beings themselves.  This will constitute the 
(philosophical) intransitive dimension.  Now how we come to 
understand, explain, and refer to the particular structure in place, 
or past structures which existed (i.e. feudalism) belongs 
to transitive dimension.  Hence, even the capital/wage-labor nexus 
properly belongs to the transitive dimension, although we have "good" 
rational reasons to believe its capture something "essential" about 
the social structure and mode of production that does (and 
must) exist.  But, i would add, our "scientific" ontology might very 
much be committed to the last sentence.  Whereby, such a 
understanding and (real) explantion would constitute our (scientific) 
intransitive dimension.

Third, and finally, i am in agreement with Howard, but was not sure 
how to express, let alone defend, the idea that "science is [not] a 
contingent phenomenon".  Has Howard suggested, i would want to defend 
the notion that science is necessiated by the constitution (or better 
*liabilities* [and *powers*]) of being human.  

i say liabilities in that human beings are not (relative to other 
animals) fast, strong, or otherwise very specialized in any 
exceptional attribute.  Safe their *power* to reason and organize.  

Now, it will depend on what we are willing to call "science".  But for 
example, anthropologists suggests that paleolithic human beings's 
burial rituals suggest a certain ability to abstract and imagine, 
which becomes extermely significant in their ability to survive as 
species.

These (burial) rituals suggest a type of "science", for example, 
leaving the body with food and fire.  That is, it demonstrates a 
certain understanding that the human body requires food and warmth.

If we understand "magic", "myth" and "ideology" as a *type* of 
science, i believe Howard's suggestion can be given rather strong 
grounds.  That is science is *necessitated* for the survival of human 
beings as a speices, although it is contingent (to a great degree) 
how science develops.  And to be clear, let me repeat Howard's 
heedful comments: the existence and emergence of human beings on 
planet earth was and is a contingent phenomenon, and the form of 
science (to a great extent) also was and remains contingent; while 
its (i.e science) general appearance is necessiated for the continued 
existence of human beings as a speices.

hans d.


 


     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---