Subject: BHA: Re: idtd
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 21:47:02 -0500


Howard wrote (quoting me):

> Tobin --
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  > Sorry, I can't follow you in converting the TD/ID distinction into a
>  > material/conceptual and causal/noncausal distinction.  The transitive
ideas
>  > of science are still causally efficacious. 
> 
> I'm completely open on this, but not so fast -- I thought I learned 
> perspectival from you.  If a thing is one thing, does that 
> mean it can't be another?  With respect to referential detachment, that 
> seems, under any account, not so.

Okay, I'm confused now, Howard.  In your previous post you wrote:

> 1.   Anything that is material is intransitive.  This is because
> matter exists in any form independent of us.  We transform matter,
> but transform it according to laws we do not transform.  The
> telescope is intransitive.  [...]
>
> 2.   Anything which causally intervenes in the material world is
> intransitive.
[...snip...]
> 4.   The transitive cannot include anything material as a
> consequence of the first proposition above.  Stated positively,
> anything in the transitive dimension is meaning abstracted from its
> material embodiment.  

Does this not say that material = intransitive = causal, transitive abstract, and since transitive <> material, therefore transitive <> causal,
and hence the material/causal/intransitive and the abstract/noncausal/
transitive must be mutually exclusive?  If that's not what you're saying,
please try again.

---
Tobin Nellhaus
nellhaus-AT-gwi.net
"Faith requires us to be materialists without flinching": C.S. Peirce



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