From catrin.egerton at gmail.com  Sat Sep  6 11:21:12 2008
From: catrin.egerton at gmail.com (Catrin Egerton)
Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2008 18:21:12 +0100
Subject: [Critical-Realism] Plural ontologies...
Message-ID: <8ed377e80809061021t5f9e3a63gdb9be685cf1ecc7c@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

I have also only recently developed an interest in critical realism,
and would like some recommendations for very clear and comprehensive
reading.  I hope you will bear with me, and excuse me for using the
list for this purpose!

I have a lot of confusion (some of which I think is might be due to
mixing up terminology and different concepts). Suggestions of articles
or chapters dealing with these issues in an overarching way (i.e.
explaining similarities and differences in these perspective) would be
especially useful:

Plural ontologies - are there all these pluralities? Are they
cross-cutting (e.g. could you have a specific reality/system/social
ontology distinct from others...)
a) according to different 'realities' - actual, real, empirical (Bhaskar);
b) different 'systems' in operation - e.g. racism, occupational
relations (Porter);
c) natural (intransitive?) and social (transitive?) worlds?;
d) within the social world between social and agential (Archer).

Also, is there a relationship between intransitive and closed system,
and transitive and open systems? (but natural systems are also often
held to be open?)

Many thanks and apologies for using the list for this purpose.
Hopefully one day I will be using it to contribute to the debate!

Regards,

Catrin

2008/8/10  <critical-realism-request at lists.econ.utah.edu>:
> Send Critical-Realism mailing list submissions to
>        critical-realism at lists.econ.utah.edu
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>        http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/critical-realism
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>        critical-realism-request at lists.econ.utah.edu
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>        critical-realism-owner at lists.econ.utah.edu
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Critical-Realism digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>   1. question (shiva hemmati)
>   2. Re: question (Wendy Olsen)
>   3. An Expos? of "Strict Determinism" (Fred Zaman)
>   4. Re: question (Karl Maton)
>   5. Re: question (Mervyn Hartwig)
>   6. Energy: The Elemental Being of Free Agency? (Fred Zaman)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2008 13:04:26 -0700
> From: "shiva hemmati" <shivahemmati at gmail.com>
> Subject: [Critical-Realism] question
> To: critical-realism at lists.econ.utah.edu
> Message-ID:
>        <adf9704b0808091304h6407366dh5fea26697d89da20 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Hello
> I,m a new member . I joined your group inorder to know what are the
> critiques of critical realism of social constructivism .
>
> --
> best wishes
> Shiva Hemati
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2008 22:35:52 +0100
> From: "Wendy Olsen" <wendy.olsen at manchester.ac.uk>
> Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] question
> To: "Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List"
>        <critical-realism at lists.econ.utah.edu>
> Message-ID: <20080809223552562.00000003272 at Workpcwo>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> Hello
>
> One of the important points was made by Bhaskar in his 1987 book, The Possibility of Naturalism.
>
> He argued that epiphenomena exist when there is evidnece but it is being interpreted in ways that are misleading about the reality.
>
> Bhaskar hints in this theme that social construcivists often make the same error that positivists were making, and promoting - of using evidence too naively.
>
> I would recommend this book "PON", which has been republished in a very slightly revised edition, I think 1998, even for you it's imperfect because its traetment of social constructivism is only tangential to th emain themes attacking positivism and determnist marxism.  I found it energising and I especially liked the points about epiphenomena.
>
> >From this we can work out that
> a.  the evidence from which a phenomenologist works out their social constructions are intrinsically weak and full of contradictions.  Many times the evidence has been shaped by a neoliberal knowledge-factory! The schools, government, ournalists churn out epiphenomena and call it descripton or fact.  Then the social constructivist starts interpreting this stuff.
>
> Fairclough's various books on discourse analysis are highly critical realist.  Chouliaraki and Fairclough  (book on late modernity) are helpful in setting out how the macro political economy actually relates to debates over how social construction should be carried out.  Their view is consistent with Bhaskar's.  That is, the understand-er is placed in the society so cannot do a neutral analysis, but can do a purposive analysis.  Deconstruction is a political act.
>
> many deconstructivists would agree with this point.  But their actual practice belies their agreement.  They, in pracice, try to deny the existence of real causal mechanisms in th ehistorically situated specific social structures and norms.
>
> Numerous socail constructivists exercise a 'performative contradiction'.  What they say is true is inconsistent with what needs to be true for their practice to be coherent.
>
> So c.r. has a deconstructive impulse but we implement it as political actors in a scene madde by history.  Our knowledge of reality helps us to work our way BEHIND the confusing images given to us by interviews, images, texts.
>
> b.  theorisations of social constructions need some kind of reference point with reality.  But most social construcivists do not agree, and just go into circles and spirals of interpretation.  Interpretation without reference back to the society and its nature (which is not fixed, and is not homogenous, but is to some extent given by history) is liable to go into error.
>
> Others may suggest other words to read, notably the attack on c.r. by Patrick Baert, and his constructivism, but PON came to mind.
>
> Wendy
>
>
> Wendy Olsen
> Senior Lecturer in Socio-Economic Research
> Cathie Marsh Centre for Census & Survey Research
> and Inst. for Development Policy and Management
> Univ. of Manchester
> Manchester M13 9PL
> tel 0044-161-275-3043
> web www.ccsr.ac.uk/staff/wo.htm
> See also
> www.humanities.manchester.ac.uk/socialchange
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: critical-realism-bounces at lists.econ.utah.edu [mailto:critical-realism-bounces at lists.econ.utah.edu] On Behalf Of shiva hemmati
> Sent: 09 August 2008 21:04
> To: critical-realism at lists.econ.utah.edu
> Subject: [Critical-Realism] question
>
> Hello
> I,m a new member . I joined your group inorder to know what are the critiques of critical realism of social constructivism .
>
> --
> best wishes
> Shiva Hemati
> _______________________________________________
> Critical-Realism mailing list
> Critical-Realism at lists.econ.utah.edu
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/critical-realism
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2008 14:41:39 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Fred Zaman <agent.redstone at yahoo.com>
> Subject: [Critical-Realism] An Expos? of "Strict Determinism"
> To: Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List
>        <critical-realism at lists.econ.utah.edu>
> Message-ID: <334559.46961.qm at web63606.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
> ?
> The work-in-progress below is a provocative--undoubtedly to
> many even outrageous--interpretation of what energy is
> ontologically. By virtue of this interpretation, however,
> it becomes possible to establish a nouveau foundation in
> physical theory for a naturalist explanation of phenomena
> both natural and social. It provides an ontological
> foundation for an essential unity of method between the
> natural and social sciences. And thus it may be through the
> radical interpretation of energy thus formulated, in some
> 10,000 words, that a successful critical-realist
> ?underlaboring? of the sciences can be grounded.
> ?
> ?
> An?Expos? of "Strict Determinism":
> The Free Agent?s Physical Being
> ?
> ?
> ABSTRACT. In the ?strict determinism? of physics,
> everything in the universe is reducible to energy and
> matter of various forms and types, along with the
> impersonal governing laws thereof; with matter simply
> representing a condensed form of energy. The same will be
> true of the alternative determinism of the present essay as
> well--everything is still reducible to energy and matter,
> and the same impersonal governing laws thereof; with matter
> related to energy in the same way. There is a fundamental
> difference, however: energy in the strict determinism of
> physics is completely governed by nature?s impersonal laws;
> while in this essay?s radical alternative, the governance
> of energy--including energy of every kind without
> qualification--is ?underdetermined? (incompletely
> determined) by nature?s impersonal laws. So that, in the
> alternative, energy is substantively nature?s generic ?free
> agent,? which although constrained in what it can
> accomplish because of nature?s impersonal laws,
> nevertheless employs these same laws as the de facto
> instruments of its agency, through which it (energy) as
> free agent carries out lawfully its underdetermined actions
> and activities. The underdeterminism of energy in this
> nouveau ontology of physical reality literally reduces
> everything causal to the free agency of energy, in whatever
> form. Free agency thus, in this alternative
> ?metadeterministic universe,? becomes the common
> denominator of everything. The energy of the human body, in
> this cosmological alternative to strict determinism,
> although biophysically and physiologically constrained by
> nature?s laws, nevertheless is the in-principle, naturally-
> underdetermined, causally-metadeterministic physical being
> of human free agency. The two diametrically opposed
> ontologies of the physical world to be compared in this
> essay, to give them distinctive names, are the here named,
> conventional ?Agent-Free Determinism? (AFD) vs. nouveau
> ?Free-Agent Determinism? (FAD). These diametrically opposed
> ontologies, AFD and FAD, are equally consistent with the
> laws of nature thus far discovered; but their respective
> world views nevertheless are fundamentally incompatible.
> Both cannot be true. The question thus is, which one is
> humankind likely to accept as ?the real?? Will the world-
> at-large accept AFD, in which one?s free agency is nothing
> more than a psychic mirage? Or will it reject AFD by
> affirming FAD, so that free agency, everyone?s perhaps
> including Deity?s, is recognized as a fundamental property
> of the physical universe?
> ?
> ---------------------------
> Reductionism and determinism are decoupled in this essay at
> a fundamental level. Scientists tend to conflate the two,
> because the reductionist mode of explanation is facilitated
> by the idea of determinism, but determinism and
> reductionism nevertheless are logically distinct. This
> essay does not argue against reductionism, but rather
> approaches it from a novel standpoint: that considered with
> respect to energy of every possible type and description,
> nature in principle is energetically underdetermined.
> Everything in the physical universe is at bottom some
> manifestation of energy, including matter; but the energy
> thereof, in whatever form, is here considered in principle
> to be underdetermined by nature?s laws; thereby leaving
> room for an energetically-grounded ?free agency? in all
> things, the physics of which is nature?s strictly
> underdetermined ?Free-Agent Determinism (FAD), which this
> essay compares to the strictly determined ?Agent-Free
> Determinism? (AFD) of science currently. In this essay, the
> free agency of the scientist conducting experiments, thus
> grounded energetically, will be the essay?s focal point and
> exemplar. Natural science, deterministically grounded on
> AFD, considered from the standpoint of the social sciences,
> is ?ontologically incompetent? at present because it in
> principle rules out the possibility of free agency, which
> in the social sciences is fundamental.
> ?
> Werner Heisenberg, one of the great physicists of the
> twentieth century, declared that ?Science no longer
> confronts nature as an objective observer but sees itself
> as an actor in this interplay between man and nature.?
> However, Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg--and presumably
> other physicists as well--see this statement as a ?dreadful
> example? of the ?philosophical wanderings? of well
> intentioned but nevertheless badly misguided scientists;
> meaning that the ?wanderings? of such should not be taken
> seriously, regardless of their stature in science.
> Nevertheless, in this essay we shall further explore
> Heisenberg?s thesis by showing how it may be that, even
> before the development of quantum physics, science has
> never confronted nature as an ?objective observer?; but
> rather always has been a ?subjective actor? in the
> interplay between man and nature. The issue addressed here,
> then, is the free agency of the scientist in subjectively
> formulating, setting up, conducting, and evaluating
> experiments; and how to objectively understand the
> subjective agency of the scientist thus voluntarily engaged
> in terms of nature?s laws.
> ?
> The approach taken is to rethink the conventional ?Agent-
> Free Determinism? (AFD) of physics, in which everything in
> the universe is reducible to energy and matter, and the
> governing laws thereof, with matter simply representing a
> condensed form of energy. The result is a ?Free-Agent
> Determinism? (FAD), in which everything also is reducible
> to energy and matter, and the governing laws thereof, with
> matter also representing a condensed form of energy. There
> nevertheless is a big difference between them, however; for
> energy in the AFD of conventional science is strictly (i.e.
> completely) governed by nature?s impersonal laws, while in
> FAD energy--including energy of every kind without
> restriction--is underdetermined by nature?s impersonal
> laws. So that energy is then substantively nature?s ?free
> agent,? which although constrained in what it can
> accomplish because of nature?s impersonal laws,
> nevertheless employs these same laws as the de facto
> instruments of its agency, instruments through which it
> (energy) as free agent thus carries out its naturally
> underdetermined actions and activities. It thus is in FAD
> that energy, lawfully constrained by nature?s laws in the
> human body, but nevertheless employing the same laws
> instrumentally in the exercise of agency, is the physical
> being of human free agency.
> ?
> Scientists, as subjective actors confronting nature in
> experiment, are an exemplar of the physical being of free
> agency. Energy within the scientist?s body, animating the
> body through its free agency, although biophysically and
> physiologically constrained by nature?s laws, at the same
> time utilizes those same laws as the instruments of the
> scientist?s naturally given--and thus naturally limited--
> free agency. Energy here is the physical being of human
> free agency. Viewing biological evolution in FAD?s terms,
> evolution is an ?ascent? rather than ?descent?; and homo
> sapiens is that species whose evolution upward marks the
> highest level of biological, social, and intellectual
> progress achieved thus far here on earth.
> ?
> Nobel Laureate physicist Steven Weinberg, in his
> influential book ?Facing Up,? informs the world-at-large
> that it should face up to the fact that physics has shown
> unequivocally that nature?s laws are ?impersonal with no
> hint of a divine plan or any special status for human
> beings.? However, this essay clearly suggests that what,
> conversely, physicists themselves perhaps ought to ?face
> up? to is the possibility that Agent-Free Determinism,
> wherein humankind has no free agency whatever--no freedom
> to choose among alternatives that present themselves, is
> humanistically incompetent. Free-Agent Determinism is
> offered here as an alternative, so that physics then has a
> way in which it will be able to reverse course,
> ontologically speaking, and seek as its Holy Grail the
> scientific confirmation of human free agency; which hands
> down would be the physicists? greatest of all possible
> achievements.
> ?
>
> ?
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2008 11:26:04 +1000
> From: Karl Maton <matonianuk at yahoo.co.uk>
> Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] question
> To: Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List
>        <critical-realism at lists.econ.utah.edu>
> Message-ID: <489E43AC.9090608 at yahoo.co.uk>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
>
> In which field of enquiry?
>
> shiva hemmati wrote:
>
>>Hello
>>I,m a new member . I joined your group inorder to know what are the
>>critiques of critical realism of social constructivism .
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> With best wishes,
>
> Karl
>
> ----
>
> Dr Karl Maton
> Department of Sociology & Social Policy
> Faculty of Arts, University of Sydney
>
> http://www.KarlMaton.com
>
> President, Australasian Association for Critical Realism
> Editorial Board, Journal of Critical Realism
>
> 'This is your life, and it's ending one minute at a time'
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2008 10:44:31 +0100
> From: "Mervyn Hartwig" <mh at jaspere7.demon.co.uk>
> Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] question
> To: "'Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List'"
>        <critical-realism at lists.econ.utah.edu>
> Message-ID:
>        <mailman.14490.1218379411.2559.critical-realism at lists.econ.utah.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="us-ascii"
>
> For a brief general take see Diane Westerhuis, 'Social constructionism' in
> M. Hartwig, ed., Dictionary of Critical Realism, 419-20.
>
> Mervyn
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: critical-realism-bounces at lists.econ.utah.edu
> [mailto:critical-realism-bounces at lists.econ.utah.edu] On Behalf Of Karl
> Maton
> Sent: 10 August 2008 02:26
> To: Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List
> Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] question
>
> In which field of enquiry?
>
> shiva hemmati wrote:
>
>>Hello
>>I,m a new member . I joined your group inorder to know what are the
>>critiques of critical realism of social constructivism .
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> With best wishes,
>
> Karl
>
> ----
>
> Dr Karl Maton
> Department of Sociology & Social Policy
> Faculty of Arts, University of Sydney
>
> http://www.KarlMaton.com
>
> President, Australasian Association for Critical Realism Editorial Board,
> Journal of Critical Realism
>
> 'This is your life, and it's ending one minute at a time'
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Critical-Realism mailing list
> Critical-Realism at lists.econ.utah.edu
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/critical-realism
>
> __________ NOD32 3341 (20080808) Information __________
>
> This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2008 07:43:25 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Fred Zaman <agent.redstone at yahoo.com>
> Subject: [Critical-Realism] Energy: The Elemental Being of Free
>        Agency?
> To: Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List
>        <critical-realism at lists.econ.utah.edu>
> Message-ID: <764105.68218.qm at web63605.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
>
>
>
> Energy: The Elemental Being of Free Agency?
> ?
> The critical issue seemingly to be strictly avoided on this list, de
> facto as it seems to be for whatever reason, is that of physical
> determinism vs. free agency, which considers the ontological
> incompatibility of:
> ?
> (1) The strict determinism of physical existence, whether at the
> classical or quantum levels of analysis, assumed by natural
> science, and
> ?
> (2) The reality, conditions, and contingencies of that free agency,
> which being underdetermined by the laws of nature, is the implicit
> assumption and theoretical ground of social science.
> ?
> However, is there any doubt that the determinism of free will
> effected through human agents, as this determinism is
> existentially realized in the living of life, is ultimately physical in
> character? How might the conflict of (1) and (2) be resolved? One?
> way to achieve this is to simply recognize that energy itself is the
> elemental substance and being of free agency. That is the ?energy?
> of natural systems, in principle for all forms thereof, in reality is
> underdetermined by nature?s impersonal laws; so that energy itself
> is then the elemental substance and determinant of free agency.
> ?
> Why the obvious reticence to discuss this important issue? If
> discussion of this issue is banned from this list, perhaps in effect
> through fear of reprisal, then this list will never truly address the
> critical issues regarding ?agency? and ?structure,? raised by critical
> realist philosophy in ?The Possibility of Naturalism? and elsewhere.
> Resolving the fundamental conflict between nature?s physical
> determinism and human free agency will be key to ?The Possibility
> of Naturalism? touted by Roy Bhaskar?s critical realist philosophy;
> for only then can ?conclusions taken from reflections on the
> natural sciences be transposed to the context of social science,?
> thereby validating ?the essential comparability of the two domains?
> (PON, p.3).
> ?
> Fred Zaman
> ?
> ?
>
>
> --- On Sat, 8/9/08, Fred Zaman <agent.redstone at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> From: Fred Zaman <agent.redstone at yahoo.com>
> Subject: [Critical-Realism] An Expos? of "Strict Determinism"
> To: "Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List" <critical-realism at lists.econ.utah.edu>
> Date: Saturday, August 9, 2008, 3:41 PM
>
> ?
> The work-in-progress below is a provocative--undoubtedly to
> many even outrageous--interpretation of what energy is
> ontologically. By virtue of this interpretation, however,
> it becomes possible to establish a nouveau foundation in
> physical theory for a naturalist explanation of phenomena
> both natural and social. It provides an ontological
> foundation for an essential unity of method between the
> natural and social sciences. And thus it may be through the
> radical interpretation of energy thus formulated, in some
> 10,000 words, that a successful critical-realist
> ?underlaboring? of the sciences can be grounded.
> ?
> ?
> An?Expos? of "Strict Determinism":
> The Free Agent?s Physical Being
> ?
> ?
> ABSTRACT. In the ?strict determinism? of physics,
> everything in the universe is reducible to energy and
> matter of various forms and types, along with the
> impersonal governing laws thereof; with matter simply
> representing a condensed form of energy. The same will be
> true of the alternative determinism of the present essay as
> well--everything is still reducible to energy and matter,
> and the same impersonal governing laws thereof; with matter
> related to energy in the same way. There is a fundamental
> difference, however: energy in the strict determinism of
> physics is completely governed by nature?s impersonal laws;
> while in this essay?s radical alternative, the governance
> of energy--including energy of every kind without
> qualification--is ?underdetermined? (incompletely
> determined) by nature?s impersonal laws. So that, in the
> alternative, energy is substantively nature?s generic ?free
> agent,? which although constrained in what it can
> accomplish because of nature?s impersonal laws,
> nevertheless employs these same laws as the de facto
> instruments of its agency, through which it (energy) as
> free agent carries out lawfully its underdetermined actions
> and activities. The underdeterminism of energy in this
> nouveau ontology of physical reality literally reduces
> everything causal to the free agency of energy, in whatever
> form. Free agency thus, in this alternative
> ?metadeterministic universe,? becomes the common
> denominator of everything. The energy of the human body, in
> this cosmological alternative to strict determinism,
> although biophysically and physiologically constrained by
> nature?s laws, nevertheless is the in-principle, naturally-
> underdetermined, causally-metadeterministic physical being
> of human free agency. The two diametrically opposed
> ontologies of the physical world to be compared in this
> essay, to give them distinctive names, are the here named,
> conventional ?Agent-Free Determinism? (AFD) vs. nouveau
> ?Free-Agent Determinism? (FAD). These diametrically opposed
> ontologies, AFD and FAD, are equally consistent with the
> laws of nature thus far discovered; but their respective
> world views nevertheless are fundamentally incompatible.
> Both cannot be true. The question thus is, which one is
> humankind likely to accept as ?the real?? Will the world-
> at-large accept AFD, in which one?s free agency is nothing
> more than a psychic mirage? Or will it reject AFD by
> affirming FAD, so that free agency, everyone?s perhaps
> including Deity?s, is recognized as a fundamental property
> of the physical universe?
> ?
> ---------------------------
> Reductionism and determinism are decoupled in this essay at
> a fundamental level. Scientists tend to conflate the two,
> because the reductionist mode of explanation is facilitated
> by the idea of determinism, but determinism and
> reductionism nevertheless are logically distinct. This
> essay does not argue against reductionism, but rather
> approaches it from a novel standpoint: that considered with
> respect to energy of every possible type and description,
> nature in principle is energetically underdetermined.
> Everything in the physical universe is at bottom some
> manifestation of energy, including matter; but the energy
> thereof, in whatever form, is here considered in principle
> to be underdetermined by nature?s laws; thereby leaving
> room for an energetically-grounded ?free agency? in all
> things, the physics of which is nature?s strictly
> underdetermined ?Free-Agent Determinism (FAD), which this
> essay compares to the strictly determined ?Agent-Free
> Determinism? (AFD) of science currently. In this essay, the
> free agency of the scientist conducting experiments, thus
> grounded energetically, will be the essay?s focal point and
> exemplar. Natural science, deterministically grounded on
> AFD, considered from the standpoint of the social sciences,
> is ?ontologically incompetent? at present because it in
> principle rules out the possibility of free agency, which
> in the social sciences is fundamental.
> ?
> Werner Heisenberg, one of the great physicists of the
> twentieth century, declared that ?Science no longer
> confronts nature as an objective observer but sees itself
> as an actor in this interplay between man and nature.?
> However, Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg--and presumably
> other physicists as well--see this statement as a ?dreadful
> example? of the ?philosophical wanderings? of well
> intentioned but nevertheless badly misguided scientists;
> meaning that the ?wanderings? of such should not be taken
> seriously, regardless of their stature in science.
> Nevertheless, in this essay we shall further explore
> Heisenberg?s thesis by showing how it may be that, even
> before the development of quantum physics, science has
> never confronted nature as an ?objective observer?; but
> rather always has been a ?subjective actor? in the
> interplay between man and nature. The issue addressed here,
> then, is the free agency of the scientist in subjectively
> formulating, setting up, conducting, and evaluating
> experiments; and how to objectively understand the
> subjective agency of the scientist thus voluntarily engaged
> in terms of nature?s laws.
> ?
> The approach taken is to rethink the conventional ?Agent-
> Free Determinism? (AFD) of physics, in which everything in
> the universe is reducible to energy and matter, and the
> governing laws thereof, with matter simply representing a
> condensed form of energy. The result is a ?Free-Agent
> Determinism? (FAD), in which everything also is reducible
> to energy and matter, and the governing laws thereof, with
> matter also representing a condensed form of energy. There
> nevertheless is a big difference between them, however; for
> energy in the AFD of conventional science is strictly (i.e.
> completely) governed by nature?s impersonal laws, while in
> FAD energy--including energy of every kind without
> restriction--is underdetermined by nature?s impersonal
> laws. So that energy is then substantively nature?s ?free
> agent,? which although constrained in what it can
> accomplish because of nature?s impersonal laws,
> nevertheless employs these same laws as the de facto
> instruments of its agency, instruments through which it
> (energy) as free agent thus carries out its naturally
> underdetermined actions and activities. It thus is in FAD
> that energy, lawfully constrained by nature?s laws in the
> human body, but nevertheless employing the same laws
> instrumentally in the exercise of agency, is the physical
> being of human free agency.
> ?
> Scientists, as subjective actors confronting nature in
> experiment, are an exemplar of the physical being of free
> agency. Energy within the scientist?s body, animating the
> body through its free agency, although biophysically and
> physiologically constrained by nature?s laws, at the same
> time utilizes those same laws as the instruments of the
> scientist?s naturally given--and thus naturally limited--
> free agency. Energy here is the physical being of human
> free agency. Viewing biological evolution in FAD?s terms,
> evolution is an ?ascent? rather than ?descent?; and homo
> sapiens is that species whose evolution upward marks the
> highest level of biological, social, and intellectual
> progress achieved thus far here on earth.
> ?
> Nobel Laureate physicist Steven Weinberg, in his
> influential book ?Facing Up,? informs the world-at-large
> that it should face up to the fact that physics has shown
> unequivocally that nature?s laws are ?impersonal with no
> hint of a divine plan or any special status for human
> beings.? However, this essay clearly suggests that what,
> conversely, physicists themselves perhaps ought to ?face
> up? to is the possibility that Agent-Free Determinism,
> wherein humankind has no free agency whatever--no freedom
> to choose among alternatives that present themselves, is
> humanistically incompetent. Free-Agent Determinism is
> offered here as an alternative, so that physics then has a
> way in which it will be able to reverse course,
> ontologically speaking, and seek as its Holy Grail the
> scientific confirmation of human free agency; which hands
> down would be the physicists? greatest of all possible
> achievements.
> ?
>
> ?
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Critical-Realism mailing list
> Critical-Realism at lists.econ.utah.edu
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/critical-realism
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Critical-Realism mailing list
> Critical-Realism at lists.econ.utah.edu
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/critical-realism
>
>
> End of Critical-Realism Digest, Vol 46, Issue 2
> ***********************************************
>


From agent.redstone at yahoo.com  Sat Sep  6 15:47:23 2008
From: agent.redstone at yahoo.com (Fred Zaman)
Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2008 14:47:23 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Critical-Realism] ON THE NATURAL STATE OF BEING HUMAN
In-Reply-To: <1B45AE651C808D458990F881B2B696430DA5B1@exchange.gannon.edu>
Message-ID: <669731.74455.qm@web63607.mail.re1.yahoo.com>

?
?
Hello Dick,
?
In answer to your questions, I don?t see how anyone 
can understand the meaning of free will without 
experiencing the ability to make choices, by selecting 
one out of several possible thoughts, actions, etc. 
However, it seems to me that possessing free will and 
having knowledge that one indeed possesses free will 
are not the same thing. Free will from this point of 
view can be and generally is exercised by individuals 
without explicit knowledge of having done so. The 
knowledge of alternatives required for the exercise of 
free will, from this point of view, can be intuitive 
and grounded in an individual?s unconscious. The idea 
that the unconscious somehow overrides free will is 
not true here. Free will is always in operation, 
whether acting at the level of consciousness or 
through the unconscious. And, of course, as one climbs 
up the tree of evolution from the more complex to the 
less complex, the free will of consciousness rapidly 
diminishes, leaving at bottom only the free will of 
the unconscious.
?
The basis this understanding of free will is the Free 
Will Theorem (FWT) constructed out of quantum 
mechanics and relativity theory by mathematicians John 
Conway and Simon Kochen, whose import for science I 
here attempt to convey more fully through the 
following points.
?
(1) FWT does not prove, nor has it been offered by its 
creators as proof, of the existence of free will. What 
it does do is offer a mathematico-scientific antidote 
to the mechanistic world view currently hegemonic in 
natural science, which has been achieved through the 
Principle of Parsimony, that physics has objectively 
demonstrated that nature shows no evidence of the 
existence of free will. What FWT proves, 
mathematically and scientifically through the quantum 
physics and relativity theory linked in the theorem, 
is that that all evidence current in science 
concerning the natural world can be interpreted 
objectively from the point of view that every entity 
in the universe in fact possesses a modicum of free 
will, which in principle is underdetermined by 
nature?s impersonal laws, that is appropriate to its 
existence. FWT tells us that this understanding of 
nature is fully consistent the laws of nature now 
known by science. It does not disprove the mechanistic 
world view in which free will is nonexistent, it 
simply demonstrates that this world view has not been 
objectively demonstrated by science, but rather is a 
metatheoretical perspective that has been arbitrarily 
imposed on science and scientists.
?
(2) With regard to the world of subjective experience, 
FWT does not mathematically explain or predict our 
experience; but rather tells us that any attempt to 
suggest our experiences are causally irrelevant, as 
Steven Weinberg does implicitly through his 
authoritative declaration in his book ?Facing Up? that 
?nature is strictly governed by impersonal laws,? is 
not objective, empirical science; but rather 
metatheoretical doctrine culturally imposed on 
science. FWT shows that science provides no such 
demonstration of mechanism, as touted by Weinberg in 
the precept that ?nature is strictly governed by 
impersonal laws,? thereby allowing the world-at-large 
to continue in its time honored belief, without 
contradiction by science truly, that we as subjective 
beings?as manifested through our exercise of free 
will?indeed are causal in nature.
?
(3) The question thus becomes, in just what way can 
one?s free will be exercised, naturalistically without 
violating the impersonal laws of nature thus far 
discovered by science? One solution is to simply treat 
energy as being underdetermined in principle by 
nature?s laws, which laws then are used by energy thus 
underdetermined as the instruments by which the free 
will of energy is realized. Nature?s laws thus far 
discovered, to include the Newtonian laws of common 
everyday experience, are then compatible with energy?s 
free will. Each of us from this perspective, as a 
person possessing free will, is a personal being of 
energy possessing a modicum of free will that 
expresses the energy of our being. And the laws 
through which we each express our free will, insofar 
as presently known, are fundamentally those of 
Newtonian mechanics, Coulomb?s law, and the quantum 
mechanics of constituent molecules.
?
(4) What are the ?abstractions? of mind under the 
principle of free will/underdetermined energy 
equivalence? They are the energetically-encoded 
instruments of mind experienced subjectively. They are 
the high-level instruments of mind qua energy 
neurophysiologically encoded within the brain, but 
nevertheless in principle underdetermined thereby; 
whose free will?the modicum possessed?employs nature?s 
laws instrumentally as they are neurophysiologically 
and neuropsychologically manifested.
?
(5) Commonly voiced complaints in humanist circles 
against the strict determinism of natural science thus 
are right on. Indeed, it is the objective of the free 
will/underdetermined energy principle to show in 
theory that science, the objective evidence thereof, 
in truth does not in any way confirm the ridiculous 
assertions that are necessary if nature?s strict 
determinism is held to be true. The strict determinism 
of natural science, the fruit of the ?Principle of 
Parsimony? carried to excess, is shown by FWT to be 
metaphysical dogma rather than science objectively 
considered.
?
(6) Also, with regard to the ?scientific method,? FWT 
brings into question its very existence for if 
everything is strictly determined by nature?s 
impersonal laws, then nothing the scientist does, his 
theorization, methodology, experimentation or 
whatever, is due to his or her personal merit. All has 
been foreordained through the strict governance of 
nature?s impersonal laws. Indeed, virtually every 
aspect of human existence is an absurdity under Steven 
Weinberg?s ?nature [all of nature including human 
nature] is strictly governed by impersonal laws.? FWT 
thus tells us that, if? scientists are to hold fast to 
the reality of their ?scientific methodology,? they 
must then discard any strict determinism and find a 
way to reconcile free will in nature, down to and 
including the most elementary particles, with nature?s 
impersonal laws. This of course is very likely the 
reason for the reluctance of scientists to discuss the 
implications of this theorem, implications that to say 
the least are considerable not only for basic physics 
but the theory of evolution in biology.
?
These are just a few thoughts on the possibility of 
establishing a naturalist foundation for free will; on 
which my perspective of free will is grounded, and 
which implicitly is saturated with critical-realist 
philosophy. The summary below is the work-in-progress 
on establishing just such a foundation.
?
Fred
------------------------
?
THE NATURAL STATE OF BEING HUMAN:
REVOKING THE PRINCIPLE OF PARSIMONY
?
The humanistic ?science study? of this essay is based 
on a revocation of the ?principle of parsimony? in 
natural science. Parsimony, the explanation of 
experimental results using the simplest theory with 
the best predictive power, is one of the pillars of 
science. However, pursuit of the most economical 
theories should not be used as an excuse to ignore or 
demean the real, or what potentially may be real. 
Science, in its search for the most economic ways of 
explaining nature, cannot ethically ignore reality in 
order to achieve parsimony. It cannot for the sake of 
parsimony ignore the reality of, and thereby 
implicitly demean, things that?although the more 
economical explanations of science need not take into 
account?may or actually do exist nonetheless and thus 
need to be explained, if necessary by more complex 
theories. A case in point is the Free Will Theorem 
proved recently by Conway and Kochen, which, by 
demonstrating that a modicum of free will?possessed by 
both experimenters and particles?is compatible with 
quantum mechanics and relativity theory, suggests that 
the Newtonian world view can be ontologically 
reformulated to make the classical world compatible 
with free will as well. This theorem thus implicates a 
possible basis in nature for the phenomenon of will, 
which suggests that physical theory can be modified to 
include both the experimental apparatus and the 
experimenter as free agent. Thus reformulated, 
ontologically within the conceptual framework of a 
quantum/relativistically grounded will in nature, the 
Newtonian worldview?at least conceptually and 
qualitatively?then applies more directly to the higher 
levels of organization in the biological and 
sociological domains. The potential power and breadth 
of this theory of nature?s ?will power,? qua 
naturalized Nietzschean ?will to power,? is 
demonstrated through applications conceptualized for 
biological evolution (including natural selection and 
genetic variation), and a four hundred year, quasi-
Newtonian macrohistory of America (1650-2050). The 
Conway-Kochen Free Will Theorem, as a tool for 
deciphering in science the complexities of ?self-
organization? and ?free agency? in nature and man, may 
be the Rosetta stone of nature for science in the 
millennium.
?

--- On Sun, 8/24/08, Moodey, Richard W <MOODEY001 at gannon.edu> wrote:

From: Moodey, Richard W <MOODEY001 at gannon.edu>
Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] An 'Emancipatory Critique' of Natural Science
To: "Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List" <critical-realism at lists.econ.utah.edu>
Date: Sunday, August 24, 2008, 5:57 PM

Hi Fred,

Two questions:

1.  Is it possible for any one of us to give any meaning to the words
"free will" 
without drawing upon his or her personal experiences of making choices?
2.  Can there be free will without cognition?  It would seem to me that any
entity 
that is free would have to know about alternatives as a precondition of
choosing.

Best regards,

Dick

-----Original Message-----
From: critical-realism-bounces at lists.econ.utah.edu on behalf of Fred Zaman
Sent: Sun 8/24/2008 2:48 PM
To: Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List
Subject: [Critical-Realism] An 'Emancipatory Critique' of Natural
Science
 

If anyone on the CR list is interested, below is one way to begin a very 
basic critical-realist 'underlaboring of science.'
Fred
----------------
On 'Absenting the Absence' of Free Will:
An 'Emancipatory Critique' of Natural Science


ABSTRACT. This essay is a critical-realist 'underlaboring' of natural
science directed 
toward developing an 'emancipatory movement' that will eliminate the
current hegemony 
of reductionism in science, in both the natural and social sciences. It
suggests basic 
principles for an 'emancipatory praxis' whose ultimate goal is to
further develop the 
critical-realist 'pulse of freedom' in society, through a reformation
of science that 
'absents the absence' of free will in science currently; i.e. absent
the current absence of 
the freedom in science to recognize that free will does exist in the universe,
indeed 
throughout the universe. The theoretical basis of this effort is "The Free
Will Theorem" of 
mathematicians John Conway and Simon Kochen, the recent proof of which has 
established two mutually exclusive physical possibilities: (1) free will is
nonexistent and 
thus possessed by absolutely no one in the universe, or (2) free will is
universal and 
possessed to some degree by everyone and everything, even including elementary 
particles. This exceedingly important theorem, confirmed by Nobel laureate
Gerard?t 
Hooft, justifies in principle an "Emancipatory Critique of Natural
Science" resulting in the 
physical grounding of free will, which then can emancipate science from the
existing 
hegemony of (1). This essay facilitates this emancipatory movement conceptually
on the 
basis that energy in principle is 'underdetermined' (incompletely
determined) by the laws 
of nature in their totality including those specified by any future Theory of
Everything, so 
that energy itself is then, par excellence, the natural substance and essence
of free will. 
On this basis it becomes possible to harmonize the laws of nature currently
known, but 
causally reinterpreted as the de facto instruments of energy's intrinsic
free will, with a 
universe in which free will to some degree is possessed by everyone and
everything. The 
Emancipatory Critique thus formulated potentially can theoretically unify the
natural and 
social sciences. Stress is placed on the importance of this unification for the
emancipation 
of both science and the rational society from the current hegemony of
"reductionist 
science."
?


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

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



      

From MOODEY001 at gannon.edu  Sat Sep  6 17:23:42 2008
From: MOODEY001 at gannon.edu (Moodey, Richard W)
Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2008 19:23:42 -0400
Subject: [Critical-Realism] ON THE NATURAL STATE OF BEING HUMAN
References: <669731.74455.qm@web63607.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <1B45AE651C808D458990F881B2B696430DA5D0@exchange.gannon.edu>

Hi Fred,

Thank you for this very thoughtful and informative reply.  I am very close to your position,
but an not quite willing to equate indeterminacy with free will.  I think the lack of complete
determinism in physical processes leaves the door open to free will.  The difference 
between us might very well be over how we define free will.

Best regards,

Dick

-----Original Message-----
From: critical-realism-bounces at lists.econ.utah.edu on behalf of Fred Zaman
Sent: Sat 9/6/2008 5:47 PM
To: Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List
Subject: [Critical-Realism] ON THE NATURAL STATE OF BEING HUMAN
 
?
?
Hello Dick,
?
In answer to your questions, I don't see how anyone 
can understand the meaning of free will without 
experiencing the ability to make choices, by selecting 
one out of several possible thoughts, actions, etc. 
However, it seems to me that possessing free will and 
having knowledge that one indeed possesses free will 
are not the same thing. Free will from this point of 
view can be and generally is exercised by individuals 
without explicit knowledge of having done so. The 
knowledge of alternatives required for the exercise of 
free will, from this point of view, can be intuitive 
and grounded in an individual's unconscious. The idea 
that the unconscious somehow overrides free will is 
not true here. Free will is always in operation, 
whether acting at the level of consciousness or 
through the unconscious. And, of course, as one climbs 
up the tree of evolution from the more complex to the 
less complex, the free will of consciousness rapidly 
diminishes, leaving at bottom only the free will of 
the unconscious.
?
The basis this understanding of free will is the Free 
Will Theorem (FWT) constructed out of quantum 
mechanics and relativity theory by mathematicians John 
Conway and Simon Kochen, whose import for science I 
here attempt to convey more fully through the 
following points.
?
(1) FWT does not prove, nor has it been offered by its 
creators as proof, of the existence of free will. What 
it does do is offer a mathematico-scientific antidote 
to the mechanistic world view currently hegemonic in 
natural science, which has been achieved through the 
Principle of Parsimony, that physics has objectively 
demonstrated that nature shows no evidence of the 
existence of free will. What FWT proves, 
mathematically and scientifically through the quantum 
physics and relativity theory linked in the theorem, 
is that that all evidence current in science 
concerning the natural world can be interpreted 
objectively from the point of view that every entity 
in the universe in fact possesses a modicum of free 
will, which in principle is underdetermined by 
nature's impersonal laws, that is appropriate to its 
existence. FWT tells us that this understanding of 
nature is fully consistent the laws of nature now 
known by science. It does not disprove the mechanistic 
world view in which free will is nonexistent, it 
simply demonstrates that this world view has not been 
objectively demonstrated by science, but rather is a 
metatheoretical perspective that has been arbitrarily 
imposed on science and scientists.
?
(2) With regard to the world of subjective experience, 
FWT does not mathematically explain or predict our 
experience; but rather tells us that any attempt to 
suggest our experiences are causally irrelevant, as 
Steven Weinberg does implicitly through his 
authoritative declaration in his book "Facing Up" that 
"nature is strictly governed by impersonal laws,' is 
not objective, empirical science; but rather 
metatheoretical doctrine culturally imposed on 
science. FWT shows that science provides no such 
demonstration of mechanism, as touted by Weinberg in 
the precept that "nature is strictly governed by 
impersonal laws," thereby allowing the world-at-large 
to continue in its time honored belief, without 
contradiction by science truly, that we as subjective 
beings-as manifested through our exercise of free 
will-indeed are causal in nature.
?
(3) The question thus becomes, in just what way can 
one's free will be exercised, naturalistically without 
violating the impersonal laws of nature thus far 
discovered by science? One solution is to simply treat 
energy as being underdetermined in principle by 
nature's laws, which laws then are used by energy thus 
underdetermined as the instruments by which the free 
will of energy is realized. Nature's laws thus far 
discovered, to include the Newtonian laws of common 
everyday experience, are then compatible with energy's 
free will. Each of us from this perspective, as a 
person possessing free will, is a personal being of 
energy possessing a modicum of free will that 
expresses the energy of our being. And the laws 
through which we each express our free will, insofar 
as presently known, are fundamentally those of 
Newtonian mechanics, Coulomb's law, and the quantum 
mechanics of constituent molecules.
?
(4) What are the "abstractions" of mind under the 
principle of free will/underdetermined energy 
equivalence? They are the energetically-encoded 
instruments of mind experienced subjectively. They are 
the high-level instruments of mind qua energy 
neurophysiologically encoded within the brain, but 
nevertheless in principle underdetermined thereby; 
whose free will-the modicum possessed-employs nature's 
laws instrumentally as they are neurophysiologically 
and neuropsychologically manifested.
?
(5) Commonly voiced complaints in humanist circles 
against the strict determinism of natural science thus 
are right on. Indeed, it is the objective of the free 
will/underdetermined energy principle to show in 
theory that science, the objective evidence thereof, 
in truth does not in any way confirm the ridiculous 
assertions that are necessary if nature's strict 
determinism is held to be true. The strict determinism 
of natural science, the fruit of the "Principle of 
Parsimony" carried to excess, is shown by FWT to be 
metaphysical dogma rather than science objectively 
considered.
?
(6) Also, with regard to the "scientific method," FWT 
brings into question its very existence for if 
everything is strictly determined by nature's 
impersonal laws, then nothing the scientist does, his 
theorization, methodology, experimentation or 
whatever, is due to his or her personal merit. All has 
been foreordained through the strict governance of 
nature's impersonal laws. Indeed, virtually every 
aspect of human existence is an absurdity under Steven 
Weinberg's "nature [all of nature including human 
nature] is strictly governed by impersonal laws." FWT 
thus tells us that, if? scientists are to hold fast to 
the reality of their "scientific methodology," they 
must then discard any strict determinism and find a 
way to reconcile free will in nature, down to and 
including the most elementary particles, with nature's 
impersonal laws. This of course is very likely the 
reason for the reluctance of scientists to discuss the 
implications of this theorem, implications that to say 
the least are considerable not only for basic physics 
but the theory of evolution in biology.
?
These are just a few thoughts on the possibility of 
establishing a naturalist foundation for free will; on 
which my perspective of free will is grounded, and 
which implicitly is saturated with critical-realist 
philosophy. The summary below is the work-in-progress 
on establishing just such a foundation.
?
Fred
------------------------
?
THE NATURAL STATE OF BEING HUMAN:
REVOKING THE PRINCIPLE OF PARSIMONY
?
The humanistic "science study" of this essay is based 
on a revocation of the "principle of parsimony" in 
natural science. Parsimony, the explanation of 
experimental results using the simplest theory with 
the best predictive power, is one of the pillars of 
science. However, pursuit of the most economical 
theories should not be used as an excuse to ignore or 
demean the real, or what potentially may be real. 
Science, in its search for the most economic ways of 
explaining nature, cannot ethically ignore reality in 
order to achieve parsimony. It cannot for the sake of 
parsimony ignore the reality of, and thereby 
implicitly demean, things that-although the more 
economical explanations of science need not take into 
account-may or actually do exist nonetheless and thus 
need to be explained, if necessary by more complex 
theories. A case in point is the Free Will Theorem 
proved recently by Conway and Kochen, which, by 
demonstrating that a modicum of free will-possessed by 
both experimenters and particles-is compatible with 
quantum mechanics and relativity theory, suggests that 
the Newtonian world view can be ontologically 
reformulated to make the classical world compatible 
with free will as well. This theorem thus implicates a 
possible basis in nature for the phenomenon of will, 
which suggests that physical theory can be modified to 
include both the experimental apparatus and the 
experimenter as free agent. Thus reformulated, 
ontologically within the conceptual framework of a 
quantum/relativistically grounded will in nature, the 
Newtonian worldview-at least conceptually and 
qualitatively-then applies more directly to the higher 
levels of organization in the biological and 
sociological domains. The potential power and breadth 
of this theory of nature's "will power," qua 
naturalized Nietzschean "will to power," is 
demonstrated through applications conceptualized for 
biological evolution (including natural selection and 
genetic variation), and a four hundred year, quasi-
Newtonian macrohistory of America (1650-2050). The 
Conway-Kochen Free Will Theorem, as a tool for 
deciphering in science the complexities of "self-
organization" and "free agency" in nature and man, may 
be the Rosetta stone of nature for science in the 
millennium.
?

--- On Sun, 8/24/08, Moodey, Richard W <MOODEY001 at gannon.edu> wrote:

From: Moodey, Richard W <MOODEY001 at gannon.edu>
Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] An 'Emancipatory Critique' of Natural Science
To: "Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List" <critical-realism at lists.econ.utah.edu>
Date: Sunday, August 24, 2008, 5:57 PM

Hi Fred,

Two questions:

1.  Is it possible for any one of us to give any meaning to the words
"free will" 
without drawing upon his or her personal experiences of making choices?
2.  Can there be free will without cognition?  It would seem to me that any
entity 
that is free would have to know about alternatives as a precondition of
choosing.

Best regards,

Dick

-----Original Message-----
From: critical-realism-bounces at lists.econ.utah.edu on behalf of Fred Zaman
Sent: Sun 8/24/2008 2:48 PM
To: Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List
Subject: [Critical-Realism] An 'Emancipatory Critique' of Natural
Science
 

If anyone on the CR list is interested, below is one way to begin a very 
basic critical-realist 'underlaboring of science.'
Fred
----------------
On 'Absenting the Absence' of Free Will:
An 'Emancipatory Critique' of Natural Science


ABSTRACT. This essay is a critical-realist 'underlaboring' of natural
science directed 
toward developing an 'emancipatory movement' that will eliminate the
current hegemony 
of reductionism in science, in both the natural and social sciences. It
suggests basic 
principles for an 'emancipatory praxis' whose ultimate goal is to
further develop the 
critical-realist 'pulse of freedom' in society, through a reformation
of science that 
'absents the absence' of free will in science currently; i.e. absent
the current absence of 
the freedom in science to recognize that free will does exist in the universe,
indeed 
throughout the universe. The theoretical basis of this effort is "The Free
Will Theorem" of 
mathematicians John Conway and Simon Kochen, the recent proof of which has 
established two mutually exclusive physical possibilities: (1) free will is
nonexistent and 
thus possessed by absolutely no one in the universe, or (2) free will is
universal and 
possessed to some degree by everyone and everything, even including elementary 
particles. This exceedingly important theorem, confirmed by Nobel laureate
Gerard?t 
Hooft, justifies in principle an "Emancipatory Critique of Natural
Science" resulting in the 
physical grounding of free will, which then can emancipate science from the
existing 
hegemony of (1). This essay facilitates this emancipatory movement conceptually
on the 
basis that energy in principle is 'underdetermined' (incompletely
determined) by the laws 
of nature in their totality including those specified by any future Theory of
Everything, so 
that energy itself is then, par excellence, the natural substance and essence
of free will. 
On this basis it becomes possible to harmonize the laws of nature currently
known, but 
causally reinterpreted as the de facto instruments of energy's intrinsic
free will, with a 
universe in which free will to some degree is possessed by everyone and
everything. The 
Emancipatory Critique thus formulated potentially can theoretically unify the
natural and 
social sciences. Stress is placed on the importance of this unification for the
emancipation 
of both science and the rational society from the current hegemony of
"reductionist 
science."
?


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

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



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


From nellhaus at mail.com  Sat Sep  6 19:45:50 2008
From: nellhaus at mail.com (Tobin Nellhaus)
Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2008 21:45:50 -0400
Subject: [Critical-Realism] Plural ontologies...
In-Reply-To: <8ed377e80809061021t5f9e3a63gdb9be685cf1ecc7c@mail.gmail.com>
References: <8ed377e80809061021t5f9e3a63gdb9be685cf1ecc7c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <98C87738665F4B9D8F500321EFD3B1B1@Gargantua>

Hi Catrin--

Using the list for these sorts of question is one of its reasons for 
existing!  Please feel welcome to ask questions of this or any sort.  We 
often find that basic issues are the toughest.

Probably the best intro to CR is Andrew Collier's book "Critical Realism." 
I recommend it highly.

To aswer some of your questions extremely briefly, the real, actual and 
empirical are not different ontologies, but rather different strata (or if 
you prefer, subsets) of a single overall ontology.  Different systems (race, 
economics etc) certainly have different structures, but ontologically they 
are real structures, their powers have actual results, and those results may 
be experienced.

The distinction between the intransitive and transitive dimensions may 
*seem* to parallel the distinction between the natural and social worlds 
(particularly if one only reads "A Realist Theory of Science"), but in fact 
social objects may be intransitive too.  The distinction is essentially 
between the *object* of investigation (intransitive) and the *process* of 
investigation (transitive).  Clearly any investigation has to have both, if 
it's going to get anywhere!

There's no connection between transitivity/intransitivity and open/closed 
systems, except in the sense that in order to conduct an experiment (a 
transitive activity) one may be able to construct a closed system.  However, 
in some fields of research neither closed systems nor even experiments may 
be possible.  Closure and experiments are not requirements for the 
production of knowledge; the transitive and intransitive dimensions, 
however, are intrinsic to all efforts to know something.

Best,

T.

---
Tobin Nellhaus
nellhaus at mail.com
"Faith requires us to be materialists without flinching": C.S. Peirce




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Catrin Egerton" <catrin.egerton at gmail.com>
To: <critical-realism at lists.econ.utah.edu>
Sent: Saturday, 06 September 2008 1:21 PM
Subject: [Critical-Realism] Plural ontologies...


> Dear all,
>
> I have also only recently developed an interest in critical realism,
> and would like some recommendations for very clear and comprehensive
> reading.  I hope you will bear with me, and excuse me for using the
> list for this purpose!
>
> I have a lot of confusion (some of which I think is might be due to
> mixing up terminology and different concepts). Suggestions of articles
> or chapters dealing with these issues in an overarching way (i.e.
> explaining similarities and differences in these perspective) would be
> especially useful:
>
> Plural ontologies - are there all these pluralities? Are they
> cross-cutting (e.g. could you have a specific reality/system/social
> ontology distinct from others...)
> a) according to different 'realities' - actual, real, empirical (Bhaskar);
> b) different 'systems' in operation - e.g. racism, occupational
> relations (Porter);
> c) natural (intransitive?) and social (transitive?) worlds?;
> d) within the social world between social and agential (Archer).
>
> Also, is there a relationship between intransitive and closed system,
> and transitive and open systems? (but natural systems are also often
> held to be open?)
>
> Many thanks and apologies for using the list for this purpose.
> Hopefully one day I will be using it to contribute to the debate!
>
> Regards,
>
> Catrin
>
> 2008/8/10  <critical-realism-request at lists.econ.utah.edu>:
>> Send Critical-Realism mailing list submissions to
>>        critical-realism at lists.econ.utah.edu
>>
>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>>        http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/critical-realism
>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>>        critical-realism-request at lists.econ.utah.edu
>>
>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>>        critical-realism-owner at lists.econ.utah.edu
>>
>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>> than "Re: Contents of Critical-Realism digest..."
>>
>>
>> Today's Topics:
>>
>>   1. question (shiva hemmati)
>>   2. Re: question (Wendy Olsen)
>>   3. An Expos? of "Strict Determinism" (Fred Zaman)
>>   4. Re: question (Karl Maton)
>>   5. Re: question (Mervyn Hartwig)
>>   6. Energy: The Elemental Being of Free Agency? (Fred Zaman)
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2008 13:04:26 -0700
>> From: "shiva hemmati" <shivahemmati at gmail.com>
>> Subject: [Critical-Realism] question
>> To: critical-realism at lists.econ.utah.edu
>> Message-ID:
>>        <adf9704b0808091304h6407366dh5fea26697d89da20 at mail.gmail.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>>
>> Hello
>> I,m a new member . I joined your group inorder to know what are the
>> critiques of critical realism of social constructivism .
>>
>> --
>> best wishes
>> Shiva Hemati
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 2
>> Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2008 22:35:52 +0100
>> From: "Wendy Olsen" <wendy.olsen at manchester.ac.uk>
>> Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] question
>> To: "Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List"
>>        <critical-realism at lists.econ.utah.edu>
>> Message-ID: <20080809223552562.00000003272 at Workpcwo>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>>
>> Hello
>>
>> One of the important points was made by Bhaskar in his 1987 book, The 
>> Possibility of Naturalism.
>>
>> He argued that epiphenomena exist when there is evidnece but it is being 
>> interpreted in ways that are misleading about the reality.
>>
>> Bhaskar hints in this theme that social construcivists often make the 
>> same error that positivists were making, and promoting - of using 
>> evidence too naively.
>>
>> I would recommend this book "PON", which has been republished in a very 
>> slightly revised edition, I think 1998, even for you it's imperfect 
>> because its traetment of social constructivism is only tangential to th 
>> emain themes attacking positivism and determnist marxism.  I found it 
>> energising and I especially liked the points about epiphenomena.
>>
>> >From this we can work out that
>> a.  the evidence from which a phenomenologist works out their social 
>> constructions are intrinsically weak and full of contradictions.  Many 
>> times the evidence has been shaped by a neoliberal knowledge-factory! The 
>> schools, government, ournalists churn out epiphenomena and call it 
>> descripton or fact.  Then the social constructivist starts interpreting 
>> this stuff.
>>
>> Fairclough's various books on discourse analysis are highly critical 
>> realist.  Chouliaraki and Fairclough  (book on late modernity) are 
>> helpful in setting out how the macro political economy actually relates 
>> to debates over how social construction should be carried out.  Their 
>> view is consistent with Bhaskar's.  That is, the understand-er is placed 
>> in the society so cannot do a neutral analysis, but can do a purposive 
>> analysis.  Deconstruction is a political act.
>>
>> many deconstructivists would agree with this point.  But their actual 
>> practice belies their agreement.  They, in pracice, try to deny the 
>> existence of real causal mechanisms in th ehistorically situated specific 
>> social structures and norms.
>>
>> Numerous socail constructivists exercise a 'performative contradiction'. 
>> What they say is true is inconsistent with what needs to be true for 
>> their practice to be coherent.
>>
>> So c.r. has a deconstructive impulse but we implement it as political 
>> actors in a scene madde by history.  Our knowledge of reality helps us to 
>> work our way BEHIND the confusing images given to us by interviews, 
>> images, texts.
>>
>> b.  theorisations of social constructions need some kind of reference 
>> point with reality.  But most social construcivists do not agree, and 
>> just go into circles and spirals of interpretation.  Interpretation 
>> without reference back to the society and its nature (which is not fixed, 
>> and is not homogenous, but is to some extent given by history) is liable 
>> to go into error.
>>
>> Others may suggest other words to read, notably the attack on c.r. by 
>> Patrick Baert, and his constructivism, but PON came to mind.
>>
>> Wendy
>>
>>
>> Wendy Olsen
>> Senior Lecturer in Socio-Economic Research
>> Cathie Marsh Centre for Census & Survey Research
>> and Inst. for Development Policy and Management
>> Univ. of Manchester
>> Manchester M13 9PL
>> tel 0044-161-275-3043
>> web www.ccsr.ac.uk/staff/wo.htm
>> See also
>> www.humanities.manchester.ac.uk/socialchange
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: critical-realism-bounces at lists.econ.utah.edu 
>> [mailto:critical-realism-bounces at lists.econ.utah.edu] On Behalf Of shiva 
>> hemmati
>> Sent: 09 August 2008 21:04
>> To: critical-realism at lists.econ.utah.edu
>> Subject: [Critical-Realism] question
>>
>> Hello
>> I,m a new member . I joined your group inorder to know what are the 
>> critiques of critical realism of social constructivism .
>>
>> --
>> best wishes
>> Shiva Hemati
>> _______________________________________________
>> Critical-Realism mailing list
>> Critical-Realism at lists.econ.utah.edu
>> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/critical-realism
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 3
>> Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2008 14:41:39 -0700 (PDT)
>> From: Fred Zaman <agent.redstone at yahoo.com>
>> Subject: [Critical-Realism] An Expos? of "Strict Determinism"
>> To: Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List
>>        <critical-realism at lists.econ.utah.edu>
>> Message-ID: <334559.46961.qm at web63606.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>>
>> ?
>> The work-in-progress below is a provocative--undoubtedly to
>> many even outrageous--interpretation of what energy is
>> ontologically. By virtue of this interpretation, however,
>> it becomes possible to establish a nouveau foundation in
>> physical theory for a naturalist explanation of phenomena
>> both natural and social. It provides an ontological
>> foundation for an essential unity of method between the
>> natural and social sciences. And thus it may be through the
>> radical interpretation of energy thus formulated, in some
>> 10,000 words, that a successful critical-realist
>> ?underlaboring? of the sciences can be grounded.
>> ?
>> ?
>> An?Expos? of "Strict Determinism":
>> The Free Agent?s Physical Being
>> ?
>> ?
>> ABSTRACT. In the ?strict determinism? of physics,
>> everything in the universe is reducible to energy and
>> matter of various forms and types, along with the
>> impersonal governing laws thereof; with matter simply
>> representing a condensed form of energy. The same will be
>> true of the alternative determinism of the present essay as
>> well--everything is still reducible to energy and matter,
>> and the same impersonal governing laws thereof; with matter
>> related to energy in the same way. There is a fundamental
>> difference, however: energy in the strict determinism of
>> physics is completely governed by nature?s impersonal laws;
>> while in this essay?s radical alternative, the governance
>> of energy--including energy of every kind without
>> qualification--is ?underdetermined? (incompletely
>> determined) by nature?s impersonal laws. So that, in the
>> alternative, energy is substantively nature?s generic ?free
>> agent,? which although constrained in what it can
>> accomplish because of nature?s impersonal laws,
>> nevertheless employs these same laws as the de facto
>> instruments of its agency, through which it (energy) as
>> free agent carries out lawfully its underdetermined actions
>> and activities. The underdeterminism of energy in this
>> nouveau ontology of physical reality literally reduces
>> everything causal to the free agency of energy, in whatever
>> form. Free agency thus, in this alternative
>> ?metadeterministic universe,? becomes the common
>> denominator of everything. The energy of the human body, in
>> this cosmological alternative to strict determinism,
>> although biophysically and physiologically constrained by
>> nature?s laws, nevertheless is the in-principle, naturally-
>> underdetermined, causally-metadeterministic physical being
>> of human free agency. The two diametrically opposed
>> ontologies of the physical world to be compared in this
>> essay, to give them distinctive names, are the here named,
>> conventional ?Agent-Free Determinism? (AFD) vs. nouveau
>> ?Free-Agent Determinism? (FAD). These diametrically opposed
>> ontologies, AFD and FAD, are equally consistent with the
>> laws of nature thus far discovered; but their respective
>> world views nevertheless are fundamentally incompatible.
>> Both cannot be true. The question thus is, which one is
>> humankind likely to accept as ?the real?? Will the world-
>> at-large accept AFD, in which one?s free agency is nothing
>> more than a psychic mirage? Or will it reject AFD by
>> affirming FAD, so that free agency, everyone?s perhaps
>> including Deity?s, is recognized as a fundamental property
>> of the physical universe?
>> ?
>> ---------------------------
>> Reductionism and determinism are decoupled in this essay at
>> a fundamental level. Scientists tend to conflate the two,
>> because the reductionist mode of explanation is facilitated
>> by the idea of determinism, but determinism and
>> reductionism nevertheless are logically distinct. This
>> essay does not argue against reductionism, but rather
>> approaches it from a novel standpoint: that considered with
>> respect to energy of every possible type and description,
>> nature in principle is energetically underdetermined.
>> Everything in the physical universe is at bottom some
>> manifestation of energy, including matter; but the energy
>> thereof, in whatever form, is here considered in principle
>> to be underdetermined by nature?s laws; thereby leaving
>> room for an energetically-grounded ?free agency? in all
>> things, the physics of which is nature?s strictly
>> underdetermined ?Free-Agent Determinism (FAD), which this
>> essay compares to the strictly determined ?Agent-Free
>> Determinism? (AFD) of science currently. In this essay, the
>> free agency of the scientist conducting experiments, thus
>> grounded energetically, will be the essay?s focal point and
>> exemplar. Natural science, deterministically grounded on
>> AFD, considered from the standpoint of the social sciences,
>> is ?ontologically incompetent? at present because it in
>> principle rules out the possibility of free agency, which
>> in the social sciences is fundamental.
>> ?
>> Werner Heisenberg, one of the great physicists of the
>> twentieth century, declared that ?Science no longer
>> confronts nature as an objective observer but sees itself
>> as an actor in this interplay between man and nature.?
>> However, Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg--and presumably
>> other physicists as well--see this statement as a ?dreadful
>> example? of the ?philosophical wanderings? of well
>> intentioned but nevertheless badly misguided scientists;
>> meaning that the ?wanderings? of such should not be taken
>> seriously, regardless of their stature in science.
>> Nevertheless, in this essay we shall further explore
>> Heisenberg?s thesis by showing how it may be that, even
>> before the development of quantum physics, science has
>> never confronted nature as an ?objective observer?; but
>> rather always has been a ?subjective actor? in the
>> interplay between man and nature. The issue addressed here,
>> then, is the free agency of the scientist in subjectively
>> formulating, setting up, conducting, and evaluating
>> experiments; and how to objectively understand the
>> subjective agency of the scientist thus voluntarily engaged
>> in terms of nature?s laws.
>> ?
>> The approach taken is to rethink the conventional ?Agent-
>> Free Determinism? (AFD) of physics, in which everything in
>> the universe is reducible to energy and matter, and the
>> governing laws thereof, with matter simply representing a
>> condensed form of energy. The result is a ?Free-Agent
>> Determinism? (FAD), in which everything also is reducible
>> to energy and matter, and the governing laws thereof, with
>> matter also representing a condensed form of energy. There
>> nevertheless is a big difference between them, however; for
>> energy in the AFD of conventional science is strictly (i.e.
>> completely) governed by nature?s impersonal laws, while in
>> FAD energy--including energy of every kind without
>> restriction--is underdetermined by nature?s impersonal
>> laws. So that energy is then substantively nature?s ?free
>> agent,? which although constrained in what it can
>> accomplish because of nature?s impersonal laws,
>> nevertheless employs these same laws as the de facto
>> instruments of its agency, instruments through which it
>> (energy) as free agent thus carries out its naturally
>> underdetermined actions and activities. It thus is in FAD
>> that energy, lawfully constrained by nature?s laws in the
>> human body, but nevertheless employing the same laws
>> instrumentally in the exercise of agency, is the physical
>> being of human free agency.
>> ?
>> Scientists, as subjective actors confronting nature in
>> experiment, are an exemplar of the physical being of free
>> agency. Energy within the scientist?s body, animating the
>> body through its free agency, although biophysically and
>> physiologically constrained by nature?s laws, at the same
>> time utilizes those same laws as the instruments of the
>> scientist?s naturally given--and thus naturally limited--
>> free agency. Energy here is the physical being of human
>> free agency. Viewing biological evolution in FAD?s terms,
>> evolution is an ?ascent? rather than ?descent?; and homo
>> sapiens is that species whose evolution upward marks the
>> highest level of biological, social, and intellectual
>> progress achieved thus far here on earth.
>> ?
>> Nobel Laureate physicist Steven Weinberg, in his
>> influential book ?Facing Up,? informs the world-at-large
>> that it should face up to the fact that physics has shown
>> unequivocally that nature?s laws are ?impersonal with no
>> hint of a divine plan or any special status for human
>> beings.? However, this essay clearly suggests that what,
>> conversely, physicists themselves perhaps ought to ?face
>> up? to is the possibility that Agent-Free Determinism,
>> wherein humankind has no free agency whatever--no freedom
>> to choose among alternatives that present themselves, is
>> humanistically incompetent. Free-Agent Determinism is
>> offered here as an alternative, so that physics then has a
>> way in which it will be able to reverse course,
>> ontologically speaking, and seek as its Holy Grail the
>> scientific confirmation of human free agency; which hands
>> down would be the physicists? greatest of all possible
>> achievements.
>> ?
>>
>> ?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 4
>> Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2008 11:26:04 +1000
>> From: Karl Maton <matonianuk at yahoo.co.uk>
>> Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] question
>> To: Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List
>>        <critical-realism at lists.econ.utah.edu>
>> Message-ID: <489E43AC.9090608 at yahoo.co.uk>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
>>
>> In which field of enquiry?
>>
>> shiva hemmati wrote:
>>
>>>Hello
>>>I,m a new member . I joined your group inorder to know what are the
>>>critiques of critical realism of social constructivism .
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> With best wishes,
>>
>> Karl
>>
>> ----
>>
>> Dr Karl Maton
>> Department of Sociology & Social Policy
>> Faculty of Arts, University of Sydney
>>
>> http://www.KarlMaton.com
>>
>> President, Australasian Association for Critical Realism
>> Editorial Board, Journal of Critical Realism
>>
>> 'This is your life, and it's ending one minute at a time'
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 5
>> Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2008 10:44:31 +0100
>> From: "Mervyn Hartwig" <mh at jaspere7.demon.co.uk>
>> Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] question
>> To: "'Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List'"
>>        <critical-realism at lists.econ.utah.edu>
>> Message-ID:
>> 
>> <mailman.14490.1218379411.2559.critical-realism at lists.econ.utah.edu>
>> Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="us-ascii"
>>
>> For a brief general take see Diane Westerhuis, 'Social constructionism' 
>> in
>> M. Hartwig, ed., Dictionary of Critical Realism, 419-20.
>>
>> Mervyn
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: critical-realism-bounces at lists.econ.utah.edu
>> [mailto:critical-realism-bounces at lists.econ.utah.edu] On Behalf Of Karl
>> Maton
>> Sent: 10 August 2008 02:26
>> To: Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List
>> Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] question
>>
>> In which field of enquiry?
>>
>> shiva hemmati wrote:
>>
>>>Hello
>>>I,m a new member . I joined your group inorder to know what are the
>>>critiques of critical realism of social constructivism .
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> With best wishes,
>>
>> Karl
>>
>> ----
>>
>> Dr Karl Maton
>> Department of Sociology & Social Policy
>> Faculty of Arts, University of Sydney
>>
>> http://www.KarlMaton.com
>>
>> President, Australasian Association for Critical Realism Editorial Board,
>> Journal of Critical Realism
>>
>> 'This is your life, and it's ending one minute at a time'
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Critical-Realism mailing list
>> Critical-Realism at lists.econ.utah.edu
>> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/critical-realism
>>
>> __________ NOD32 3341 (20080808) Information __________
>>
>> This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
>> http://www.eset.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 6
>> Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2008 07:43:25 -0700 (PDT)
>> From: Fred Zaman <agent.redstone at yahoo.com>
>> Subject: [Critical-Realism] Energy: The Elemental Being of Free
>>        Agency?
>> To: Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List
>>        <critical-realism at lists.econ.utah.edu>
>> Message-ID: <764105.68218.qm at web63605.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
>>
>>
>>
>> Energy: The Elemental Being of Free Agency?
>> ?
>> The critical issue seemingly to be strictly avoided on this list, de
>> facto as it seems to be for whatever reason, is that of physical
>> determinism vs. free agency, which considers the ontological
>> incompatibility of:
>> ?
>> (1) The strict determinism of physical existence, whether at the
>> classical or quantum levels of analysis, assumed by natural
>> science, and
>> ?
>> (2) The reality, conditions, and contingencies of that free agency,
>> which being underdetermined by the laws of nature, is the implicit
>> assumption and theoretical ground of social science.
>> ?
>> However, is there any doubt that the determinism of free will
>> effected through human agents, as this determinism is
>> existentially realized in the living of life, is ultimately physical in
>> character? How might the conflict of (1) and (2) be resolved? One?
>> way to achieve this is to simply recognize that energy itself is the
>> elemental substance and being of free agency. That is the ?energy?
>> of natural systems, in principle for all forms thereof, in reality is
>> underdetermined by nature?s impersonal laws; so that energy itself
>> is then the elemental substance and determinant of free agency.
>> ?
>> Why the obvious reticence to discuss this important issue? If
>> discussion of this issue is banned from this list, perhaps in effect
>> through fear of reprisal, then this list will never truly address the
>> critical issues regarding ?agency? and ?structure,? raised by critical
>> realist philosophy in ?The Possibility of Naturalism? and elsewhere.
>> Resolving the fundamental conflict between nature?s physical
>> determinism and human free agency will be key to ?The Possibility
>> of Naturalism? touted by Roy Bhaskar?s critical realist philosophy;
>> for only then can ?conclusions taken from reflections on the
>> natural sciences be transposed to the context of social science,?
>> thereby validating ?the essential comparability of the two domains?
>> (PON, p.3).
>> ?
>> Fred Zaman
>> ?
>> ?
>>
>>
>> --- On Sat, 8/9/08, Fred Zaman <agent.redstone at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> From: Fred Zaman <agent.redstone at yahoo.com>
>> Subject: [Critical-Realism] An Expos? of "Strict Determinism"
>> To: "Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List" 
>> <critical-realism at lists.econ.utah.edu>
>> Date: Saturday, August 9, 2008, 3:41 PM
>>
>> ?
>> The work-in-progress below is a provocative--undoubtedly to
>> many even outrageous--interpretation of what energy is
>> ontologically. By virtue of this interpretation, however,
>> it becomes possible to establish a nouveau foundation in
>> physical theory for a naturalist explanation of phenomena
>> both natural and social. It provides an ontological
>> foundation for an essential unity of method between the
>> natural and social sciences. And thus it may be through the
>> radical interpretation of energy thus formulated, in some
>> 10,000 words, that a successful critical-realist
>> ?underlaboring? of the sciences can be grounded.
>> ?
>> ?
>> An?Expos? of "Strict Determinism":
>> The Free Agent?s Physical Being
>> ?
>> ?
>> ABSTRACT. In the ?strict determinism? of physics,
>> everything in the universe is reducible to energy and
>> matter of various forms and types, along with the
>> impersonal governing laws thereof; with matter simply
>> representing a condensed form of energy. The same will be
>> true of the alternative determinism of the present essay as
>> well--everything is still reducible to energy and matter,
>> and the same impersonal governing laws thereof; with matter
>> related to energy in the same way. There is a fundamental
>> difference, however: energy in the strict determinism of
>> physics is completely governed by nature?s impersonal laws;
>> while in this essay?s radical alternative, the governance
>> of energy--including energy of every kind without
>> qualification--is ?underdetermined? (incompletely
>> determined) by nature?s impersonal laws. So that, in the
>> alternative, energy is substantively nature?s generic ?free
>> agent,? which although constrained in what it can
>> accomplish because of nature?s impersonal laws,
>> nevertheless employs these same laws as the de facto
>> instruments of its agency, through which it (energy) as
>> free agent carries out lawfully its underdetermined actions
>> and activities. The underdeterminism of energy in this
>> nouveau ontology of physical reality literally reduces
>> everything causal to the free agency of energy, in whatever
>> form. Free agency thus, in this alternative
>> ?metadeterministic universe,? becomes the common
>> denominator of everything. The energy of the human body, in
>> this cosmological alternative to strict determinism,
>> although biophysically and physiologically constrained by
>> nature?s laws, nevertheless is the in-principle, naturally-
>> underdetermined, causally-metadeterministic physical being
>> of human free agency. The two diametrically opposed
>> ontologies of the physical world to be compared in this
>> essay, to give them distinctive names, are the here named,
>> conventional ?Agent-Free Determinism? (AFD) vs. nouveau
>> ?Free-Agent Determinism? (FAD). These diametrically opposed
>> ontologies, AFD and FAD, are equally consistent with the
>> laws of nature thus far discovered; but their respective
>> world views nevertheless are fundamentally incompatible.
>> Both cannot be true. The question thus is, which one is
>> humankind likely to accept as ?the real?? Will the world-
>> at-large accept AFD, in which one?s free agency is nothing
>> more than a psychic mirage? Or will it reject AFD by
>> affirming FAD, so that free agency, everyone?s perhaps
>> including Deity?s, is recognized as a fundamental property
>> of the physical universe?
>> ?
>> ---------------------------
>> Reductionism and determinism are decoupled in this essay at
>> a fundamental level. Scientists tend to conflate the two,
>> because the reductionist mode of explanation is facilitated
>> by the idea of determinism, but determinism and
>> reductionism nevertheless are logically distinct. This
>> essay does not argue against reductionism, but rather
>> approaches it from a novel standpoint: that considered with
>> respect to energy of every possible type and description,
>> nature in principle is energetically underdetermined.
>> Everything in the physical universe is at bottom some
>> manifestation of energy, including matter; but the energy
>> thereof, in whatever form, is here considered in principle
>> to be underdetermined by nature?s laws; thereby leaving
>> room for an energetically-grounded ?free agency? in all
>> things, the physics of which is nature?s strictly
>> underdetermined ?Free-Agent Determinism (FAD), which this
>> essay compares to the strictly determined ?Agent-Free
>> Determinism? (AFD) of science currently. In this essay, the
>> free agency of the scientist conducting experiments, thus
>> grounded energetically, will be the essay?s focal point and
>> exemplar. Natural science, deterministically grounded on
>> AFD, considered from the standpoint of the social sciences,
>> is ?ontologically incompetent? at present because it in
>> principle rules out the possibility of free agency, which
>> in the social sciences is fundamental.
>> ?
>> Werner Heisenberg, one of the great physicists of the
>> twentieth century, declared that ?Science no longer
>> confronts nature as an objective observer but sees itself
>> as an actor in this interplay between man and nature.?
>> However, Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg--and presumably
>> other physicists as well--see this statement as a ?dreadful
>> example? of the ?philosophical wanderings? of well
>> intentioned but nevertheless badly misguided scientists;
>> meaning that the ?wanderings? of such should not be taken
>> seriously, regardless of their stature in science.
>> Nevertheless, in this essay we shall further explore
>> Heisenberg?s thesis by showing how it may be that, even
>> before the development of quantum physics, science has
>> never confronted nature as an ?objective observer?; but
>> rather always has been a ?subjective actor? in the
>> interplay between man and nature. The issue addressed here,
>> then, is the free agency of the scientist in subjectively
>> formulating, setting up, conducting, and evaluating
>> experiments; and how to objectively understand the
>> subjective agency of the scientist thus voluntarily engaged
>> in terms of nature?s laws.
>> ?
>> The approach taken is to rethink the conventional ?Agent-
>> Free Determinism? (AFD) of physics, in which everything in
>> the universe is reducible to energy and matter, and the
>> governing laws thereof, with matter simply representing a
>> condensed form of energy. The result is a ?Free-Agent
>> Determinism? (FAD), in which everything also is reducible
>> to energy and matter, and the governing laws thereof, with
>> matter also representing a condensed form of energy. There
>> nevertheless is a big difference between them, however; for
>> energy in the AFD of conventional science is strictly (i.e.
>> completely) governed by nature?s impersonal laws, while in
>> FAD energy--including energy of every kind without
>> restriction--is underdetermined by nature?s impersonal
>> laws. So that energy is then substantively nature?s ?free
>> agent,? which although constrained in what it can
>> accomplish because of nature?s impersonal laws,
>> nevertheless employs these same laws as the de facto
>> instruments of its agency, instruments through which it
>> (energy) as free agent thus carries out its naturally
>> underdetermined actions and activities. It thus is in FAD
>> that energy, lawfully constrained by nature?s laws in the
>> human body, but nevertheless employing the same laws
>> instrumentally in the exercise of agency, is the physical
>> being of human free agency.
>> ?
>> Scientists, as subjective actors confronting nature in
>> experiment, are an exemplar of the physical being of free
>> agency. Energy within the scientist?s body, animating the
>> body through its free agency, although biophysically and
>> physiologically constrained by nature?s laws, at the same
>> time utilizes those same laws as the instruments of the
>> scientist?s naturally given--and thus naturally limited--
>> free agency. Energy here is the physical being of human
>> free agency. Viewing biological evolution in FAD?s terms,
>> evolution is an ?ascent? rather than ?descent?; and homo
>> sapiens is that species whose evolution upward marks the
>> highest level of biological, social, and intellectual
>> progress achieved thus far here on earth.
>> ?
>> Nobel Laureate physicist Steven Weinberg, in his
>> influential book ?Facing Up,? informs the world-at-large
>> that it should face up to the fact that physics has shown
>> unequivocally that nature?s laws are ?impersonal with no
>> hint of a divine plan or any special status for human
>> beings.? However, this essay clearly suggests that what,
>> conversely, physicists themselves perhaps ought to ?face
>> up? to is the possibility that Agent-Free Determinism,
>> wherein humankind has no free agency whatever--no freedom
>> to choose among alternatives that present themselves, is
>> humanistically incompetent. Free-Agent Determinism is
>> offered here as an alternative, so that physics then has a
>> way in which it will be able to reverse course,
>> ontologically speaking, and seek as its Holy Grail the
>> scientific confirmation of human free agency; which hands
>> down would be the physicists? greatest of all possible
>> achievements.
>> ?
>>
>> ?
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Critical-Realism mailing list
>> Critical-Realism at lists.econ.utah.edu
>> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/critical-realism
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Critical-Realism mailing list
>> Critical-Realism at lists.econ.utah.edu
>> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/critical-realism
>>
>>
>> End of Critical-Realism Digest, Vol 46, Issue 2
>> ***********************************************
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Critical-Realism mailing list
> Critical-Realism at lists.econ.utah.edu
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/critical-realism 



From agent.redstone at yahoo.com  Sat Sep  6 20:49:08 2008
From: agent.redstone at yahoo.com (Fred Zaman)
Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2008 19:49:08 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Critical-Realism] ON THE NATURAL STATE OF BEING HUMAN
In-Reply-To: <1B45AE651C808D458990F881B2B696430DA5D0@exchange.gannon.edu>
Message-ID: <955607.54793.qm@web63603.mail.re1.yahoo.com>

Hi Dick,
?
A simple syllogism informs my naturalistic understanding of 
free will:
?
a) It is the conclusion of the physical sciences that 
everything in the universe is energy, matter, or a 
composite thereof.
?
b) E = mc^2, i.e. matter is a concentrated, encapsulated 
form of energy; so that at bottom everything in the 
universe is energy, in one form or another.
?
c) Free will (in Aristotelian metaphysics, nature?s ?formal 
causes?) thus of necessity, from a naturalistic point of 
view, is energy underdetermined in principle by nature?s 
impersonal laws (Aristotelian ?efficient causes?); a 
corollary of which is that these laws of necessity are then 
the ?instruments? by which energy through its free will 
pursues chosen objectives (Aristotelian ?final causes?).
?
Everything I have to say about free will as a natural 
phenomenon is grounded on this formal, qua Aristotelian 
logic. It informs all definitions, postulates, theoretical 
development and conclusions; because it is, I believe, only 
in this way that a true ?naturalistic? explanation of free 
will can be formulated that remains consistent with the 
laws of nature thus far discovered by science.
Fred


--- On Sat, 9/6/08, Moodey, Richard W <MOODEY001 at gannon.edu> wrote:

From: Moodey, Richard W <MOODEY001 at gannon.edu>
Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] ON THE NATURAL STATE OF BEING HUMAN
To: "Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List" <critical-realism at lists.econ.utah.edu>
Date: Saturday, September 6, 2008, 5:23 PM

Hi Fred,

Thank you for this very thoughtful and informative reply.  I am very close to
your position,
but an not quite willing to equate indeterminacy with free will.  I think the
lack of complete
determinism in physical processes leaves the door open to free will.  The
difference 
between us might very well be over how we define free will.

Best regards,

Dick



      

From MOODEY001 at gannon.edu  Sun Sep  7 17:42:04 2008
From: MOODEY001 at gannon.edu (Moodey, Richard W)
Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2008 19:42:04 -0400
Subject: [Critical-Realism] ON THE NATURAL STATE OF BEING HUMAN
References: <955607.54793.qm@web63603.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <1B45AE651C808D458990F881B2B696430DA5D2@exchange.gannon.edu>

Hi Fred,

I start with my experience of making choices, rather than with a syllogism.
I also acknowledge that my experience is fallible, that in spite of my sense
of making some free choices, it could be the case that all of these choices
are fully determined by factors about which I do not know.  Nevertheless, I
 am as convinced of my limited freedom as I am of anything  else.  I do 
not, however, think I can convince anyone who believes he is not free 
that he really is.  His experience may lead him to a very different 
conclusion from that to which my experience
leads me.

Do you think that starting with a syllogism is likely to convince those who
deny that they are free that they really are?

Best regards,

Dick



-----Original Message-----
From: critical-realism-bounces at lists.econ.utah.edu on behalf of Fred Zaman
Sent: Sat 9/6/2008 10:49 PM
To: Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List
Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] ON THE NATURAL STATE OF BEING HUMAN
 
Hi Dick,
?
A simple syllogism informs my naturalistic understanding of 
free will:
?
a) It is the conclusion of the physical sciences that 
everything in the universe is energy, matter, or a 
composite thereof.
?
b) E = mc^2, i.e. matter is a concentrated, encapsulated 
form of energy; so that at bottom everything in the 
universe is energy, in one form or another.
?
c) Free will (in Aristotelian metaphysics, nature's "formal 
causes") thus of necessity, from a naturalistic point of 
view, is energy underdetermined in principle by nature's 
impersonal laws (Aristotelian "efficient causes"); a 
corollary of which is that these laws of necessity are then 
the "instruments" by which energy through its free will 
pursues chosen objectives (Aristotelian "final causes").
?
Everything I have to say about free will as a natural 
phenomenon is grounded on this formal, qua Aristotelian 
logic. It informs all definitions, postulates, theoretical 
development and conclusions; because it is, I believe, only 
in this way that a true "naturalistic" explanation of free 
will can be formulated that remains consistent with the 
laws of nature thus far discovered by science.
Fred


--- On Sat, 9/6/08, Moodey, Richard W <MOODEY001 at gannon.edu> wrote:

From: Moodey, Richard W <MOODEY001 at gannon.edu>
Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] ON THE NATURAL STATE OF BEING HUMAN
To: "Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List" <critical-realism at lists.econ.utah.edu>
Date: Saturday, September 6, 2008, 5:23 PM

Hi Fred,

Thank you for this very thoughtful and informative reply.  I am very close to
your position,
but an not quite willing to equate indeterminacy with free will.  I think the
lack of complete
determinism in physical processes leaves the door open to free will.  The
difference 
between us might very well be over how we define free will.

Best regards,

Dick



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


From M.A.Carrigan at warwick.ac.uk  Mon Sep  8 13:28:23 2008
From: M.A.Carrigan at warwick.ac.uk (M.A.Carrigan at warwick.ac.uk)
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 20:28:23 +0100 (BST)
Subject: [Critical-Realism] Critical-Realism Digest, Vol 47, Issue 5
In-Reply-To: <mailman.1.1220896802.427.critical-realism@lists.econ.utah.edu>
References: <mailman.1.1220896802.427.critical-realism@lists.econ.utah.edu>
Message-ID: <50546.86.20.33.94.1220902103.squirrel@smail.warwick.ac.uk>

Hi Dick,

I think there's an interesting question as to the nature of someone's
belief in their own lack of free will. If someone genuinely holds that
they lack free will, yet lives out their practical involvements in such a
way that presumes the reverse (i.e. they experience their choices as
having a moral significance which presupposes they could have chosen
otherwise), how should we treat the philosophical claims they're making?
If someone claims to believe x yet lives their day-to-day life in a way
that presumes the reverse, in what sense do they really believe x?

Cheers,
Mark

> Send Critical-Realism mailing list submissions to
> 	critical-realism at lists.econ.utah.edu
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/critical-realism
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	critical-realism-request at lists.econ.utah.edu
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	critical-realism-owner at lists.econ.utah.edu
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Critical-Realism digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: ON THE NATURAL STATE OF BEING HUMAN (Moodey, Richard W)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2008 19:42:04 -0400
> From: "Moodey, Richard W" <MOODEY001 at gannon.edu>
> Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] ON THE NATURAL STATE OF BEING HUMAN
> To: "Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List"
> 	<critical-realism at lists.econ.utah.edu>
> Message-ID:
> 	<1B45AE651C808D458990F881B2B696430DA5D2 at exchange.gannon.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Hi Fred,
>
> I start with my experience of making choices, rather than with a
> syllogism.
> I also acknowledge that my experience is fallible, that in spite of my
> sense
> of making some free choices, it could be the case that all of these
> choices
> are fully determined by factors about which I do not know.  Nevertheless,
> I
>  am as convinced of my limited freedom as I am of anything  else.  I do
> not, however, think I can convince anyone who believes he is not free
> that he really is.  His experience may lead him to a very different
> conclusion from that to which my experience
> leads me.
>
> Do you think that starting with a syllogism is likely to convince those
> who
> deny that they are free that they really are?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Dick
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: critical-realism-bounces at lists.econ.utah.edu on behalf of Fred Zaman
> Sent: Sat 9/6/2008 10:49 PM
> To: Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List
> Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] ON THE NATURAL STATE OF BEING HUMAN
>
> Hi Dick,
> ?
> A simple syllogism informs my naturalistic understanding of
> free will:
> ?
> a) It is the conclusion of the physical sciences that
> everything in the universe is energy, matter, or a
> composite thereof.
> ?
> b) E = mc^2, i.e. matter is a concentrated, encapsulated
> form of energy; so that at bottom everything in the
> universe is energy, in one form or another.
> ?
> c) Free will (in Aristotelian metaphysics, nature's "formal
> causes") thus of necessity, from a naturalistic point of
> view, is energy underdetermined in principle by nature's
> impersonal laws (Aristotelian "efficient causes"); a
> corollary of which is that these laws of necessity are then
> the "instruments" by which energy through its free will
> pursues chosen objectives (Aristotelian "final causes").
> ?
> Everything I have to say about free will as a natural
> phenomenon is grounded on this formal, qua Aristotelian
> logic. It informs all definitions, postulates, theoretical
> development and conclusions; because it is, I believe, only
> in this way that a true "naturalistic" explanation of free
> will can be formulated that remains consistent with the
> laws of nature thus far discovered by science.
> Fred
>
>
> --- On Sat, 9/6/08, Moodey, Richard W <MOODEY001 at gannon.edu> wrote:
>
> From: Moodey, Richard W <MOODEY001 at gannon.edu>
> Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] ON THE NATURAL STATE OF BEING HUMAN
> To: "Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List"
> <critical-realism at lists.econ.utah.edu>
> Date: Saturday, September 6, 2008, 5:23 PM
>
> Hi Fred,
>
> Thank you for this very thoughtful and informative reply.  I am very close
> to
> your position,
> but an not quite willing to equate indeterminacy with free will.  I think
> the
> lack of complete
> determinism in physical processes leaves the door open to free will.  The
> difference
> between us might very well be over how we define free will.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Dick
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Critical-Realism mailing list
> Critical-Realism at lists.econ.utah.edu
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/critical-realism
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Critical-Realism mailing list
> Critical-Realism at lists.econ.utah.edu
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/critical-realism
>
>
> End of Critical-Realism Digest, Vol 47, Issue 5
> ***********************************************
>



From MOODEY001 at gannon.edu  Tue Sep  9 11:46:02 2008
From: MOODEY001 at gannon.edu (Moodey, Richard W)
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 13:46:02 -0400
Subject: [Critical-Realism] Critical-Realism Digest, Vol 47, Issue 5
In-Reply-To: <50546.86.20.33.94.1220902103.squirrel@smail.warwick.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <1B45AE651C808D458990F881B2B6964301DC21C8@exchange.gannon.edu>

Hi Mark, 

I Newman's terminology, I would say that a person who claims to believe
that she has no freedom, yet acts as if she is free gives only "notional
assent" to that which she claims to believe.  "Real assent" occurs only
when there is consistency between verbal claims and the actions of the
one who makes the claim.

Best regards,

Dick

-----Original Message-----
From: critical-realism-bounces at lists.econ.utah.edu
[mailto:critical-realism-bounces at lists.econ.utah.edu] On Behalf Of
M.A.Carrigan at warwick.ac.uk
Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 3:28 PM
To: critical-realism at lists.econ.utah.edu
Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] Critical-Realism Digest, Vol 47, Issue 5

Hi Dick,

I think there's an interesting question as to the nature of someone's
belief in their own lack of free will. If someone genuinely holds that
they lack free will, yet lives out their practical involvements in such
a
way that presumes the reverse (i.e. they experience their choices as
having a moral significance which presupposes they could have chosen
otherwise), how should we treat the philosophical claims they're making?
If someone claims to believe x yet lives their day-to-day life in a way
that presumes the reverse, in what sense do they really believe x?

Cheers,
Mark

> Send Critical-Realism mailing list submissions to
> 	critical-realism at lists.econ.utah.edu
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/critical-realism
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	critical-realism-request at lists.econ.utah.edu
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	critical-realism-owner at lists.econ.utah.edu
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Critical-Realism digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: ON THE NATURAL STATE OF BEING HUMAN (Moodey, Richard W)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2008 19:42:04 -0400
> From: "Moodey, Richard W" <MOODEY001 at gannon.edu>
> Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] ON THE NATURAL STATE OF BEING HUMAN
> To: "Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List"
> 	<critical-realism at lists.econ.utah.edu>
> Message-ID:
> 	<1B45AE651C808D458990F881B2B696430DA5D2 at exchange.gannon.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Hi Fred,
>
> I start with my experience of making choices, rather than with a
> syllogism.
> I also acknowledge that my experience is fallible, that in spite of my
> sense
> of making some free choices, it could be the case that all of these
> choices
> are fully determined by factors about which I do not know.
Nevertheless,
> I
>  am as convinced of my limited freedom as I am of anything  else.  I
do
> not, however, think I can convince anyone who believes he is not free
> that he really is.  His experience may lead him to a very different
> conclusion from that to which my experience
> leads me.
>
> Do you think that starting with a syllogism is likely to convince
those
> who
> deny that they are free that they really are?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Dick
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: critical-realism-bounces at lists.econ.utah.edu on behalf of Fred
Zaman
> Sent: Sat 9/6/2008 10:49 PM
> To: Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List
> Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] ON THE NATURAL STATE OF BEING HUMAN
>
> Hi Dick,
> ?
> A simple syllogism informs my naturalistic understanding of
> free will:
> ?
> a) It is the conclusion of the physical sciences that
> everything in the universe is energy, matter, or a
> composite thereof.
> ?
> b) E = mc^2, i.e. matter is a concentrated, encapsulated
> form of energy; so that at bottom everything in the
> universe is energy, in one form or another.
> ?
> c) Free will (in Aristotelian metaphysics, nature's "formal
> causes") thus of necessity, from a naturalistic point of
> view, is energy underdetermined in principle by nature's
> impersonal laws (Aristotelian "efficient causes"); a
> corollary of which is that these laws of necessity are then
> the "instruments" by which energy through its free will
> pursues chosen objectives (Aristotelian "final causes").
> ?
> Everything I have to say about free will as a natural
> phenomenon is grounded on this formal, qua Aristotelian
> logic. It informs all definitions, postulates, theoretical
> development and conclusions; because it is, I believe, only
> in this way that a true "naturalistic" explanation of free
> will can be formulated that remains consistent with the
> laws of nature thus far discovered by science.
> Fred
>
>
> --- On Sat, 9/6/08, Moodey, Richard W <MOODEY001 at gannon.edu> wrote:
>
> From: Moodey, Richard W <MOODEY001 at gannon.edu>
> Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] ON THE NATURAL STATE OF BEING HUMAN
> To: "Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List"
> <critical-realism at lists.econ.utah.edu>
> Date: Saturday, September 6, 2008, 5:23 PM
>
> Hi Fred,
>
> Thank you for this very thoughtful and informative reply.  I am very
close
> to
> your position,
> but an not quite willing to equate indeterminacy with free will.  I
think
> the
> lack of complete
> determinism in physical processes leaves the door open to free will.
The
> difference
> between us might very well be over how we define free will.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Dick
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Critical-Realism mailing list
> Critical-Realism at lists.econ.utah.edu
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/critical-realism
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Critical-Realism mailing list
> Critical-Realism at lists.econ.utah.edu
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/critical-realism
>
>
> End of Critical-Realism Digest, Vol 47, Issue 5
> ***********************************************
>


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


From d.eldervass at ntlworld.com  Thu Sep 11 02:09:15 2008
From: d.eldervass at ntlworld.com (Dave Elder-Vass)
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 09:09:15 +0100
Subject: [Critical-Realism] Ontology of art
References: <5tftml$5sn2b5@smtp2.utah.edu>
Message-ID: <6880408AC7744787B8B0874AACFBC4CC@Presario>

Does anyone know of anyone teaching the ontology of art in the UK, 
particularly London? I've had an interesting enquiry from a PhD student who 
is looking at this area.

Thanks

Dave



From mh at jaspere7.demon.co.uk  Thu Sep 11 03:37:33 2008
From: mh at jaspere7.demon.co.uk (Mervyn Hartwig)
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 10:37:33 +0100
Subject: [Critical-Realism] Ontology of art
In-Reply-To: <6880408AC7744787B8B0874AACFBC4CC@Presario>
Message-ID: <mailman.409.1221125861.2556.critical-realism@lists.econ.utah.edu>

John Roberts  jorob128 at aol.com  
University of Wolverhampton
http://www.wlv.ac.uk/Default.aspx?page=15418 

It might be one of Jason Toynbee's interests, but if it is he can speak for
himself as he hangs out on this list.


Mervyn 
 

-----Original Message-----
From: critical-realism-bounces at lists.econ.utah.edu
[mailto:critical-realism-bounces at lists.econ.utah.edu] On Behalf Of Dave
Elder-Vass
Sent: 11 September 2008 09:09
To: Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List
Subject: [Critical-Realism] Ontology of art

Does anyone know of anyone teaching the ontology of art in the UK,
particularly London? I've had an interesting enquiry from a PhD student who
is looking at this area.

Thanks

Dave


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

__________ NOD32 3433 (20080910) Information __________

This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com




From J.A.Toynbee at open.ac.uk  Thu Sep 11 07:58:49 2008
From: J.A.Toynbee at open.ac.uk (J.A.Toynbee)
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 14:58:49 +0100
Subject: [Critical-Realism] Ontology of art
Message-ID: <E0FEA5DF00E59E409F90C854A1B45BAA0945C861@EPPING-EVS1.open.ac.uk>

If the emphasis is on social ontology of art then I would certainly be
interested in talking to this person.

All best, Jason


-----Original Message-----
From: critical-realism-bounces at lists.econ.utah.edu
[mailto:critical-realism-bounces at lists.econ.utah.edu] On Behalf Of
Mervyn Hartwig
Sent: 11 September 2008 10:38
To: 'Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List'
Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] Ontology of art


John Roberts  jorob128 at aol.com  
University of Wolverhampton http://www.wlv.ac.uk/Default.aspx?page=15418


It might be one of Jason Toynbee's interests, but if it is he can speak
for himself as he hangs out on this list.


Mervyn 
 

-----Original Message-----
From: critical-realism-bounces at lists.econ.utah.edu
[mailto:critical-realism-bounces at lists.econ.utah.edu] On Behalf Of Dave
Elder-Vass
Sent: 11 September 2008 09:09
To: Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List
Subject: [Critical-Realism] Ontology of art

Does anyone know of anyone teaching the ontology of art in the UK,
particularly London? I've had an interesting enquiry from a PhD student
who is looking at this area.

Thanks

Dave


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

__________ NOD32 3433 (20080910) Information __________

This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. http://www.eset.com



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

---------------------------------
The Open University is incorporated by Royal Charter (RC 000391), an exempt charity in England & Wales and a charity registered in Scotland (SC 038302).


From d.eldervass at ntlworld.com  Fri Sep 12 03:41:48 2008
From: d.eldervass at ntlworld.com (Dave Elder-Vass)
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 10:41:48 +0100
Subject: [Critical-Realism] Ontology of art
References: <E0FEA5DF00E59E409F90C854A1B45BAA0945C861@EPPING-EVS1.open.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <C0832A8C65724478BC0954EF5766B871@Presario>

Mervyn and Jason,

Many thanks for these helpful responses.

Best,

Dave

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "J.A.Toynbee" <J.A.Toynbee at open.ac.uk>
To: "Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List" 
<critical-realism at lists.econ.utah.edu>
Sent: 11 September 2008 14:58
Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] Ontology of art


> If the emphasis is on social ontology of art then I would certainly be
> interested in talking to this person.
>
> All best, Jason
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: critical-realism-bounces at lists.econ.utah.edu
> [mailto:critical-realism-bounces at lists.econ.utah.edu] On Behalf Of
> Mervyn Hartwig
> Sent: 11 September 2008 10:38
> To: 'Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List'
> Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] Ontology of art
>
>
> John Roberts  jorob128 at aol.com
> University of Wolverhampton http://www.wlv.ac.uk/Default.aspx?page=15418
>
>
> It might be one of Jason Toynbee's interests, but if it is he can speak
> for himself as he hangs out on this list.
>
>
> Mervyn
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: critical-realism-bounces at lists.econ.utah.edu
> [mailto:critical-realism-bounces at lists.econ.utah.edu] On Behalf Of Dave
> Elder-Vass
> Sent: 11 September 2008 09:09
> To: Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List
> Subject: [Critical-Realism] Ontology of art
>
> Does anyone know of anyone teaching the ontology of art in the UK,
> particularly London? I've had an interesting enquiry from a PhD student
> who is looking at this area.
>
> Thanks
>
> Dave
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Critical-Realism mailing list Critical-Realism at lists.econ.utah.edu
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/critical-realism
>
> __________ NOD32 3433 (20080910) Information __________
>
> This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. http://www.eset.com
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Critical-Realism mailing list Critical-Realism at lists.econ.utah.edu
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/critical-realism
>
> ---------------------------------
> The Open University is incorporated by Royal Charter (RC 000391), an 
> exempt charity in England & Wales and a charity registered in Scotland (SC 
> 038302).
>
> _______________________________________________
> Critical-Realism mailing list
> Critical-Realism at lists.econ.utah.edu
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/critical-realism


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.6.20/1666 - Release Date: 11/09/2008 
07:03



From M.A.Carrigan at warwick.ac.uk  Fri Sep 12 12:02:31 2008
From: M.A.Carrigan at warwick.ac.uk (M.A.Carrigan at warwick.ac.uk)
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 19:02:31 +0100 (BST)
Subject: [Critical-Realism] Newman
In-Reply-To: <mailman.1.1220983202.14267.critical-realism@lists.econ.utah.edu>
References: <mailman.1.1220983202.14267.critical-realism@lists.econ.utah.edu>
Message-ID: <3564.137.205.20.107.1221242551.squirrel@smail.warwick.ac.uk>

Hi Dick,

Just to confirm, is that David Newman? I like that terminology a lot and
would be interested in reading more. Could you recommend a starting point
on his work?

Thanks,
Mark

> Send Critical-Realism mailing list submissions to
> 	critical-realism at lists.econ.utah.edu
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/critical-realism
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	critical-realism-request at lists.econ.utah.edu
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	critical-realism-owner at lists.econ.utah.edu
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Critical-Realism digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: Critical-Realism Digest, Vol 47, Issue 5
>       (M.A.Carrigan at warwick.ac.uk)
>    2. Re: Critical-Realism Digest, Vol 47, Issue 5 (Moodey, Richard W)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 20:28:23 +0100 (BST)
> From: M.A.Carrigan at warwick.ac.uk
> Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] Critical-Realism Digest, Vol 47, Issue
> 	5
> To: critical-realism at lists.econ.utah.edu
> Message-ID:
> 	<50546.86.20.33.94.1220902103.squirrel at smail.warwick.ac.uk>
> Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
>
> Hi Dick,
>
> I think there's an interesting question as to the nature of someone's
> belief in their own lack of free will. If someone genuinely holds that
> they lack free will, yet lives out their practical involvements in such a
> way that presumes the reverse (i.e. they experience their choices as
> having a moral significance which presupposes they could have chosen
> otherwise), how should we treat the philosophical claims they're making?
> If someone claims to believe x yet lives their day-to-day life in a way
> that presumes the reverse, in what sense do they really believe x?
>
> Cheers,
> Mark
>
>> Send Critical-Realism mailing list submissions to
>> 	critical-realism at lists.econ.utah.edu
>>
>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>> 	http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/critical-realism
>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>> 	critical-realism-request at lists.econ.utah.edu
>>
>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>> 	critical-realism-owner at lists.econ.utah.edu
>>
>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>> than "Re: Contents of Critical-Realism digest..."
>>
>>
>> Today's Topics:
>>
>>    1. Re: ON THE NATURAL STATE OF BEING HUMAN (Moodey, Richard W)
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2008 19:42:04 -0400
>> From: "Moodey, Richard W" <MOODEY001 at gannon.edu>
>> Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] ON THE NATURAL STATE OF BEING HUMAN
>> To: "Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List"
>> 	<critical-realism at lists.econ.utah.edu>
>> Message-ID:
>> 	<1B45AE651C808D458990F881B2B696430DA5D2 at exchange.gannon.edu>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>>
>> Hi Fred,
>>
>> I start with my experience of making choices, rather than with a
>> syllogism.
>> I also acknowledge that my experience is fallible, that in spite of my
>> sense
>> of making some free choices, it could be the case that all of these
>> choices
>> are fully determined by factors about which I do not know.
>> Nevertheless,
>> I
>>  am as convinced of my limited freedom as I am of anything  else.  I do
>> not, however, think I can convince anyone who believes he is not free
>> that he really is.  His experience may lead him to a very different
>> conclusion from that to which my experience
>> leads me.
>>
>> Do you think that starting with a syllogism is likely to convince those
>> who
>> deny that they are free that they really are?
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Dick
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: critical-realism-bounces at lists.econ.utah.edu on behalf of Fred
>> Zaman
>> Sent: Sat 9/6/2008 10:49 PM
>> To: Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List
>> Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] ON THE NATURAL STATE OF BEING HUMAN
>>
>> Hi Dick,
>> ?
>> A simple syllogism informs my naturalistic understanding of
>> free will:
>> ?
>> a) It is the conclusion of the physical sciences that
>> everything in the universe is energy, matter, or a
>> composite thereof.
>> ?
>> b) E = mc^2, i.e. matter is a concentrated, encapsulated
>> form of energy; so that at bottom everything in the
>> universe is energy, in one form or another.
>> ?
>> c) Free will (in Aristotelian metaphysics, nature's "formal
>> causes") thus of necessity, from a naturalistic point of
>> view, is energy underdetermined in principle by nature's
>> impersonal laws (Aristotelian "efficient causes"); a
>> corollary of which is that these laws of necessity are then
>> the "instruments" by which energy through its free will
>> pursues chosen objectives (Aristotelian "final causes").
>> ?
>> Everything I have to say about free will as a natural
>> phenomenon is grounded on this formal, qua Aristotelian
>> logic. It informs all definitions, postulates, theoretical
>> development and conclusions; because it is, I believe, only
>> in this way that a true "naturalistic" explanation of free
>> will can be formulated that remains consistent with the
>> laws of nature thus far discovered by science.
>> Fred
>>
>>
>> --- On Sat, 9/6/08, Moodey, Richard W <MOODEY001 at gannon.edu> wrote:
>>
>> From: Moodey, Richard W <MOODEY001 at gannon.edu>
>> Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] ON THE NATURAL STATE OF BEING HUMAN
>> To: "Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List"
>> <critical-realism at lists.econ.utah.edu>
>> Date: Saturday, September 6, 2008, 5:23 PM
>>
>> Hi Fred,
>>
>> Thank you for this very thoughtful and informative reply.  I am very
>> close
>> to
>> your position,
>> but an not quite willing to equate indeterminacy with free will.  I
>> think
>> the
>> lack of complete
>> determinism in physical processes leaves the door open to free will.
>> The
>> difference
>> between us might very well be over how we define free will.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Dick
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Critical-Realism mailing list
>> Critical-Realism at lists.econ.utah.edu
>> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/critical-realism
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Critical-Realism mailing list
>> Critical-Realism at lists.econ.utah.edu
>> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/critical-realism
>>
>>
>> End of Critical-Realism Digest, Vol 47, Issue 5
>> ***********************************************
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 13:46:02 -0400
> From: "Moodey, Richard W" <MOODEY001 at gannon.edu>
> Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] Critical-Realism Digest, Vol 47, Issue
> 	5
> To: "Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List"
> 	<critical-realism at lists.econ.utah.edu>
> Message-ID:
> 	<1B45AE651C808D458990F881B2B6964301DC21C8 at exchange.gannon.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="us-ascii"
>
> Hi Mark,
>
> I Newman's terminology, I would say that a person who claims to believe
> that she has no freedom, yet acts as if she is free gives only "notional
> assent" to that which she claims to believe.  "Real assent" occurs only
> when there is consistency between verbal claims and the actions of the
> one who makes the claim.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Dick
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: critical-realism-bounces at lists.econ.utah.edu
> [mailto:critical-realism-bounces at lists.econ.utah.edu] On Behalf Of
> M.A.Carrigan at warwick.ac.uk
> Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 3:28 PM
> To: critical-realism at lists.econ.utah.edu
> Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] Critical-Realism Digest, Vol 47, Issue 5
>
> Hi Dick,
>
> I think there's an interesting question as to the nature of someone's
> belief in their own lack of free will. If someone genuinely holds that
> they lack free will, yet lives out their practical involvements in such
> a
> way that presumes the reverse (i.e. they experience their choices as
> having a moral significance which presupposes they could have chosen
> otherwise), how should we treat the philosophical claims they're making?
> If someone claims to believe x yet lives their day-to-day life in a way
> that presumes the reverse, in what sense do they really believe x?
>
> Cheers,
> Mark
>
>> Send Critical-Realism mailing list submissions to
>> 	critical-realism at lists.econ.utah.edu
>>
>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>> 	http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/critical-realism
>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>> 	critical-realism-request at lists.econ.utah.edu
>>
>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>> 	critical-realism-owner at lists.econ.utah.edu
>>
>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>> than "Re: Contents of Critical-Realism digest..."
>>
>>
>> Today's Topics:
>>
>>    1. Re: ON THE NATURAL STATE OF BEING HUMAN (Moodey, Richard W)
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2008 19:42:04 -0400
>> From: "Moodey, Richard W" <MOODEY001 at gannon.edu>
>> Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] ON THE NATURAL STATE OF BEING HUMAN
>> To: "Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List"
>> 	<critical-realism at lists.econ.utah.edu>
>> Message-ID:
>> 	<1B45AE651C808D458990F881B2B696430DA5D2 at exchange.gannon.edu>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>>
>> Hi Fred,
>>
>> I start with my experience of making choices, rather than with a
>> syllogism.
>> I also acknowledge that my experience is fallible, that in spite of my
>> sense
>> of making some free choices, it could be the case that all of these
>> choices
>> are fully determined by factors about which I do not know.
> Nevertheless,
>> I
>>  am as convinced of my limited freedom as I am of anything  else.  I
> do
>> not, however, think I can convince anyone who believes he is not free
>> that he really is.  His experience may lead him to a very different
>> conclusion from that to which my experience
>> leads me.
>>
>> Do you think that starting with a syllogism is likely to convince
> those
>> who
>> deny that they are free that they really are?
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Dick
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: critical-realism-bounces at lists.econ.utah.edu on behalf of Fred
> Zaman
>> Sent: Sat 9/6/2008 10:49 PM
>> To: Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List
>> Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] ON THE NATURAL STATE OF BEING HUMAN
>>
>> Hi Dick,
>> ?
>> A simple syllogism informs my naturalistic understanding of
>> free will:
>> ?
>> a) It is the conclusion of the physical sciences that
>> everything in the universe is energy, matter, or a
>> composite thereof.
>> ?
>> b) E = mc^2, i.e. matter is a concentrated, encapsulated
>> form of energy; so that at bottom everything in the
>> universe is energy, in one form or another.
>> ?
>> c) Free will (in Aristotelian metaphysics, nature's "formal
>> causes") thus of necessity, from a naturalistic point of
>> view, is energy underdetermined in principle by nature's
>> impersonal laws (Aristotelian "efficient causes"); a
>> corollary of which is that these laws of necessity are then
>> the "instruments" by which energy through its free will
>> pursues chosen objectives (Aristotelian "final causes").
>> ?
>> Everything I have to say about free will as a natural
>> phenomenon is grounded on this formal, qua Aristotelian
>> logic. It informs all definitions, postulates, theoretical
>> development and conclusions; because it is, I believe, only
>> in this way that a true "naturalistic" explanation of free
>> will can be formulated that remains consistent with the
>> laws of nature thus far discovered by science.
>> Fred
>>
>>
>> --- On Sat, 9/6/08, Moodey, Richard W <MOODEY001 at gannon.edu> wrote:
>>
>> From: Moodey, Richard W <MOODEY001 at gannon.edu>
>> Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] ON THE NATURAL STATE OF BEING HUMAN
>> To: "Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List"
>> <critical-realism at lists.econ.utah.edu>
>> Date: Saturday, September 6, 2008, 5:23 PM
>>
>> Hi Fred,
>>
>> Thank you for this very thoughtful and informative reply.  I am very
> close
>> to
>> your position,
>> but an not quite willing to equate indeterminacy with free will.  I
> think
>> the
>> lack of complete
>> determinism in physical processes leaves the door open to free will.
> The
>> difference
>> between us might very well be over how we define free will.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Dick
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Critical-Realism mailing list
>> Critical-Realism at lists.econ.utah.edu
>> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/critical-realism
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Critical-Realism mailing list
>> Critical-Realism at lists.econ.utah.edu
>> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/critical-realism
>>
>>
>> End of Critical-Realism Digest, Vol 47, Issue 5
>> ***********************************************
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Critical-Realism mailing list
> Critical-Realism at lists.econ.utah.edu
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/critical-realism
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Critical-Realism mailing list
> Critical-Realism at lists.econ.utah.edu
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/critical-realism
>
>
> End of Critical-Realism Digest, Vol 47, Issue 6
> ***********************************************
>



From jhompoth at oise.utoronto.ca  Fri Sep 12 14:18:03 2008
From: jhompoth at oise.utoronto.ca (Jennifer Hompoth)
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 16:18:03 -0400
Subject: [Critical-Realism] ontology of art
In-Reply-To: <mailman.1.1221242403.14189.critical-realism@lists.econ.utah.edu>
References: <mailman.1.1221242403.14189.critical-realism@lists.econ.utah.edu>
Message-ID: <fc.001257dc0c9ae6903b9aca00c68ed309.c9ae7b6@oise.utoronto.ca>

Re: Ontology of Art (Dave Elder-Vass)
John Baldacchino, who is now at Teachers College, Columbia University,
would have expertise in this area. 
He was based in the UK, and is now in New York. 

Regards, 

Jennifer

critical-realism at lists.econ.utah.edu writes:


>Send Critical-Realism mailing list submissions to
>	critical-realism at lists.econ.utah.edu
>
>To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>	http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/critical-realism
>or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>	critical-realism-request at lists.econ.utah.edu
>
>You can reach the person managing the list at
>	critical-realism-owner at lists.econ.utah.edu
>
>When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>than "Re: Contents of Critical-Realism digest..."
>
>
>Today's Topics:
>
>   1. Re: Ontology of art (Dave Elder-Vass)
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Message: 1
>Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 10:41:48 +0100
>From: "Dave Elder-Vass" <d.eldervass at ntlworld.com>
>Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] Ontology of art
>To: "Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List"
>	<critical-realism at lists.econ.utah.edu>
>Message-ID: <C0832A8C65724478BC0954EF5766B871 at Presario>
>Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
>	reply-type=original
>
>Mervyn and Jason,
>
>Many thanks for these helpful responses.
>
>Best,
>
>Dave
>
>----- Original Message ----- 
>From: "J.A.Toynbee" <J.A.Toynbee at open.ac.uk>
>To: "Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List" 
><critical-realism at lists.econ.utah.edu>
>Sent: 11 September 2008 14:58
>Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] Ontology of art
>
>
>> If the emphasis is on social ontology of art then I would certainly
>be
>> interested in talking to this person.
>>
>> All best, Jason
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: critical-realism-bounces at lists.econ.utah.edu
>> [mailto:critical-realism-bounces at lists.econ.utah.edu] On Behalf Of
>> Mervyn Hartwig
>> Sent: 11 September 2008 10:38
>> To: 'Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List'
>> Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] Ontology of art
>>
>>
>> John Roberts  jorob128 at aol.com
>> University of Wolverhampton
>http://www.wlv.ac.uk/Default.aspx?page=15418
>>
>>
>> It might be one of Jason Toynbee's interests, but if it is he can
>speak
>> for himself as he hangs out on this list.
>>
>>
>> Mervyn
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: critical-realism-bounces at lists.econ.utah.edu
>> [mailto:critical-realism-bounces at lists.econ.utah.edu] On Behalf Of
>Dave
>> Elder-Vass
>> Sent: 11 September 2008 09:09
>> To: Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List
>> Subject: [Critical-Realism] Ontology of art
>>
>> Does anyone know of anyone teaching the ontology of art in the UK,
>> particularly London? I've had an interesting enquiry from a PhD
>student
>> who is looking at this area.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Critical-Realism mailing list Critical-Realism at lists.econ.utah.edu
>> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/critical-realism
>>
>> __________ NOD32 3433 (20080910) Information __________
>>
>> This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
>http://www.eset.com
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Critical-Realism mailing list Critical-Realism at lists.econ.utah.edu
>> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/critical-realism
>>
>> ---------------------------------
>> The Open University is incorporated by Royal Charter (RC 000391), an 
>> exempt charity in England & Wales and a charity registered in
>Scotland (SC 
>> 038302).
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Critical-Realism mailing list
>> Critical-Realism at lists.econ.utah.edu
>> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/critical-realism
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
>Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.6.20/1666 - Release Date:
>11/09/2008 
>07:03
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>Critical-Realism mailing list
>Critical-Realism at lists.econ.utah.edu
>http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/critical-realism
>
>
>End of Critical-Realism Digest, Vol 47, Issue 8
>***********************************************
>




From MOODEY001 at gannon.edu  Sat Sep 13 21:38:11 2008
From: MOODEY001 at gannon.edu (Moodey, Richard W)
Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 23:38:11 -0400
Subject: [Critical-Realism] Newman
References: <mailman.1.1220983202.14267.critical-realism@lists.econ.utah.edu>
	<3564.137.205.20.107.1221242551.squirrel@smail.warwick.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <1B45AE651C808D458990F881B2B696430DA5E0@exchange.gannon.edu>

-----Original Message-----
From: critical-realism-bounces at lists.econ.utah.edu on behalf of M.A.Carrigan at warwick.ac.uk
Sent: Fri 9/12/2008 2:02 PM
To: critical-realism at lists.econ.utah.edu
Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] Newman
 
Hi Dick,

Just to confirm, is that David Newman? I like that terminology a lot and
would be interested in reading more. Could you recommend a starting point
on his work?

Thanks,
Mark

> Send Critical-Realism mailing list submissions to
> 	critical-realism at lists.econ.utah.edu
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/critical-realism
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	critical-realism-request at lists.econ.utah.edu
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	critical-realism-owner at lists.econ.utah.edu
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Critical-Realism digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: Critical-Realism Digest, Vol 47, Issue 5
>       (M.A.Carrigan at warwick.ac.uk)
>    2. Re: Critical-Realism Digest, Vol 47, Issue 5 (Moodey, Richard W)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 20:28:23 +0100 (BST)
> From: M.A.Carrigan at warwick.ac.uk
> Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] Critical-Realism Digest, Vol 47, Issue
> 	5
> To: critical-realism at lists.econ.utah.edu
> Message-ID:
> 	<50546.86.20.33.94.1220902103.squirrel at smail.warwick.ac.uk>
> Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
>
> Hi Dick,
>
> I think there's an interesting question as to the nature of someone's
> belief in their own lack of free will. If someone genuinely holds that
> they lack free will, yet lives out their practical involvements in such a
> way that presumes the reverse (i.e. they experience their choices as
> having a moral significance which presupposes they could have chosen
> otherwise), how should we treat the philosophical claims they're making?
> If someone claims to believe x yet lives their day-to-day life in a way
> that presumes the reverse, in what sense do they really believe x?
>
> Cheers,
> Mark
>
>> Send Critical-Realism mailing list submissions to
>> 	critical-realism at lists.econ.utah.edu
>>
>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>> 	http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/critical-realism
>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>> 	critical-realism-request at lists.econ.utah.edu
>>
>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>> 	critical-realism-owner at lists.econ.utah.edu
>>
>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>> than "Re: Contents of Critical-Realism digest..."
>>
>>
>> Today's Topics:
>>
>>    1. Re: ON THE NATURAL STATE OF BEING HUMAN (Moodey, Richard W)
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2008 19:42:04 -0400
>> From: "Moodey, Richard W" <MOODEY001 at gannon.edu>
>> Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] ON THE NATURAL STATE OF BEING HUMAN
>> To: "Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List"
>> 	<critical-realism at lists.econ.utah.edu>
>> Message-ID:
>> 	<1B45AE651C808D458990F881B2B696430DA5D2 at exchange.gannon.edu>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>>
>> Hi Fred,
>>
>> I start with my experience of making choices, rather than with a
>> syllogism.
>> I also acknowledge that my experience is fallible, that in spite of my
>> sense
>> of making some free choices, it could be the case that all of these
>> choices
>> are fully determined by factors about which I do not know.
>> Nevertheless,
>> I
>>  am as convinced of my limited freedom as I am of anything  else.  I do
>> not, however, think I can convince anyone who believes he is not free
>> that he really is.  His experience may lead him to a very different
>> conclusion from that to which my experience
>> leads me.
>>
>> Do you think that starting with a syllogism is likely to convince those
>> who
>> deny that they are free that they really are?
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Dick
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: critical-realism-bounces at lists.econ.utah.edu on behalf of Fred
>> Zaman
>> Sent: Sat 9/6/2008 10:49 PM
>> To: Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List
>> Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] ON THE NATURAL STATE OF BEING HUMAN
>>
>> Hi Dick,
>> ?
>> A simple syllogism informs my naturalistic understanding of
>> free will:
>> ?
>> a) It is the conclusion of the physical sciences that
>> everything in the universe is energy, matter, or a
>> composite thereof.
>> ?
>> b) E = mc^2, i.e. matter is a concentrated, encapsulated
>> form of energy; so that at bottom everything in the
>> universe is energy, in one form or another.
>> ?
>> c) Free will (in Aristotelian metaphysics, nature's "formal
>> causes") thus of necessity, from a naturalistic point of
>> view, is energy underdetermined in principle by nature's
>> impersonal laws (Aristotelian "efficient causes"); a
>> corollary of which is that these laws of necessity are then
>> the "instruments" by which energy through its free will
>> pursues chosen objectives (Aristotelian "final causes").
>> ?
>> Everything I have to say about free will as a natural
>> phenomenon is grounded on this formal, qua Aristotelian
>> logic. It informs all definitions, postulates, theoretical
>> development and conclusions; because it is, I believe, only
>> in this way that a true "naturalistic" explanation of free
>> will can be formulated that remains consistent with the
>> laws of nature thus far discovered by science.
>> Fred
>>
>>
>> --- On Sat, 9/6/08, Moodey, Richard W <MOODEY001 at gannon.edu> wrote:
>>
>> From: Moodey, Richard W <MOODEY001 at gannon.edu>
>> Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] ON THE NATURAL STATE OF BEING HUMAN
>> To: "Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List"
>> <critical-realism at lists.econ.utah.edu>
>> Date: Saturday, September 6, 2008, 5:23 PM
>>
>> Hi Fred,
>>
>> Thank you for this very thoughtful and informative reply.  I am very
>> close
>> to
>> your position,
>> but an not quite willing to equate indeterminacy with free will.  I
>> think
>> the
>> lack of complete
>> determinism in physical processes leaves the door open to free will.
>> The
>> difference
>> between us might very well be over how we define free will.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Dick
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Critical-Realism mailing list
>> Critical-Realism at lists.econ.utah.edu
>> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/critical-realism
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Critical-Realism mailing list
>> Critical-Realism at lists.econ.utah.edu
>> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/critical-realism
>>
>>
>> End of Critical-Realism Digest, Vol 47, Issue 5
>> ***********************************************
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 13:46:02 -0400
> From: "Moodey, Richard W" <MOODEY001 at gannon.edu>
> Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] Critical-Realism Digest, Vol 47, Issue
> 	5
> To: "Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List"
> 	<critical-realism at lists.econ.utah.edu>
> Message-ID:
> 	<1B45AE651C808D458990F881B2B6964301DC21C8 at exchange.gannon.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="us-ascii"
>
> Hi Mark,
>
> I Newman's terminology, I would say that a person who claims to believe
> that she has no freedom, yet acts as if she is free gives only "notional
> assent" to that which she claims to believe.  "Real assent" occurs only
> when there is consistency between verbal claims and the actions of the
> one who makes the claim.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Dick
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: critical-realism-bounces at lists.econ.utah.edu
> [mailto:critical-realism-bounces at lists.econ.utah.edu] On Behalf Of
> M.A.Carrigan at warwick.ac.uk
> Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 3:28 PM
> To: critical-realism at lists.econ.utah.edu
> Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] Critical-Realism Digest, Vol 47, Issue 5
>
> Hi Dick,
>
> I think there's an interesting question as to the nature of someone's
> belief in their own lack of free will. If someone genuinely holds that
> they lack free will, yet lives out their practical involvements in such
> a
> way that presumes the reverse (i.e. they experience their choices as
> having a moral significance which presupposes they could have chosen
> otherwise), how should we treat the philosophical claims they're making?
> If someone claims to believe x yet lives their day-to-day life in a way
> that presumes the reverse, in what sense do they really believe x?
>
> Cheers,
> Mark
>
>> Send Critical-Realism mailing list submissions to
>> 	critical-realism at lists.econ.utah.edu
>>
>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>> 	http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/critical-realism
>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>> 	critical-realism-request at lists.econ.utah.edu
>>
>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>> 	critical-realism-owner at lists.econ.utah.edu
>>
>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>> than "Re: Contents of Critical-Realism digest..."
>>
>>
>> Today's Topics:
>>
>>    1. Re: ON THE NATURAL STATE OF BEING HUMAN (Moodey, Richard W)
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2008 19:42:04 -0400
>> From: "Moodey, Richard W" <MOODEY001 at gannon.edu>
>> Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] ON THE NATURAL STATE OF BEING HUMAN
>> To: "Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List"
>> 	<critical-realism at lists.econ.utah.edu>
>> Message-ID:
>> 	<1B45AE651C808D458990F881B2B696430DA5D2 at exchange.gannon.edu>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>>
>> Hi Fred,
>>
>> I start with my experience of making choices, rather than with a
>> syllogism.
>> I also acknowledge that my experience is fallible, that in spite of my
>> sense
>> of making some free choices, it could be the case that all of these
>> choices
>> are fully determined by factors about which I do not know.
> Nevertheless,
>> I
>>  am as convinced of my limited freedom as I am of anything  else.  I
> do
>> not, however, think I can convince anyone who believes he is not free
>> that he really is.  His experience may lead him to a very different
>> conclusion from that to which my experience
>> leads me.
>>
>> Do you think that starting with a syllogism is likely to convince
> those
>> who
>> deny that they are free that they really are?
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Dick
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: critical-realism-bounces at lists.econ.utah.edu on behalf of Fred
> Zaman
>> Sent: Sat 9/6/2008 10:49 PM
>> To: Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List
>> Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] ON THE NATURAL STATE OF BEING HUMAN
>>
>> Hi Dick,
>> ?
>> A simple syllogism informs my naturalistic understanding of
>> free will:
>> ?
>> a) It is the conclusion of the physical sciences that
>> everything in the universe is energy, matter, or a
>> composite thereof.
>> ?
>> b) E = mc^2, i.e. matter is a concentrated, encapsulated
>> form of energy; so that at bottom everything in the
>> universe is energy, in one form or another.
>> ?
>> c) Free will (in Aristotelian metaphysics, nature's "formal
>> causes") thus of necessity, from a naturalistic point of
>> view, is energy underdetermined in principle by nature's
>> impersonal laws (Aristotelian "efficient causes"); a
>> corollary of which is that these laws of necessity are then
>> the "instruments" by which energy through its free will
>> pursues chosen objectives (Aristotelian "final causes").
>> ?
>> Everything I have to say about free will as a natural
>> phenomenon is grounded on this formal, qua Aristotelian
>> logic. It informs all definitions, postulates, theoretical
>> development and conclusions; because it is, I believe, only
>> in this way that a true "naturalistic" explanation of free
>> will can be formulated that remains consistent with the
>> laws of nature thus far discovered by science.
>> Fred
>>
>>
>> --- On Sat, 9/6/08, Moodey, Richard W <MOODEY001 at gannon.edu> wrote:
>>
>> From: Moodey, Richard W <MOODEY001 at gannon.edu>
>> Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] ON THE NATURAL STATE OF BEING HUMAN
>> To: "Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List"
>> <critical-realism at lists.econ.utah.edu>
>> Date: Saturday, September 6, 2008, 5:23 PM
>>
>> Hi Fred,
>>
>> Thank you for this very thoughtful and informative reply.  I am very
> close
>> to
>> your position,
>> but an not quite willing to equate indeterminacy with free will.  I
> think
>> the
>> lack of complete
>> determinism in physical processes leaves the door open to free will.
> The
>> difference
>> between us might very well be over how we define free will.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Dick
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Critical-Realism mailing list
>> Critical-Realism at lists.econ.utah.edu
>> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/critical-realism
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Critical-Realism mailing list
>> Critical-Realism at lists.econ.utah.edu
>> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/critical-realism
>>
>>
>> End of Critical-Realism Digest, Vol 47, Issue 5
>> ***********************************************
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Critical-Realism mailing list
> Critical-Realism at lists.econ.utah.edu
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/critical-realism
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Critical-Realism mailing list
> Critical-Realism at lists.econ.utah.edu
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/critical-realism
>
>
> End of Critical-Realism Digest, Vol 47, Issue 6
> ***********************************************
>


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


From MOODEY001 at gannon.edu  Sat Sep 13 21:38:42 2008
From: MOODEY001 at gannon.edu (Moodey, Richard W)
Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 23:38:42 -0400
Subject: [Critical-Realism] Newman
References: <mailman.1.1220983202.14267.critical-realism@lists.econ.utah.edu>
	<3564.137.205.20.107.1221242551.squirrel@smail.warwick.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <1B45AE651C808D458990F881B2B696430DA5E1@exchange.gannon.edu>

No, it is John Henry Newman, in "The Grammar of Assent."

Dick

-----Original Message-----
From: critical-realism-bounces at lists.econ.utah.edu on behalf of M.A.Carrigan at warwick.ac.uk
Sent: Fri 9/12/2008 2:02 PM
To: critical-realism at lists.econ.utah.edu
Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] Newman
 
Hi Dick,

Just to confirm, is that David Newman? I like that terminology a lot and
would be interested in reading more. Could you recommend a starting point
on his work?

Thanks,
Mark

> Send Critical-Realism mailing list submissions to
> 	critical-realism at lists.econ.utah.edu
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/critical-realism
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	critical-realism-request at lists.econ.utah.edu
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	critical-realism-owner at lists.econ.utah.edu
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Critical-Realism digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: Critical-Realism Digest, Vol 47, Issue 5
>       (M.A.Carrigan at warwick.ac.uk)
>    2. Re: Critical-Realism Digest, Vol 47, Issue 5 (Moodey, Richard W)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 20:28:23 +0100 (BST)
> From: M.A.Carrigan at warwick.ac.uk
> Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] Critical-Realism Digest, Vol 47, Issue
> 	5
> To: critical-realism at lists.econ.utah.edu
> Message-ID:
> 	<50546.86.20.33.94.1220902103.squirrel at smail.warwick.ac.uk>
> Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
>
> Hi Dick,
>
> I think there's an interesting question as to the nature of someone's
> belief in their own lack of free will. If someone genuinely holds that
> they lack free will, yet lives out their practical involvements in such a
> way that presumes the reverse (i.e. they experience their choices as
> having a moral significance which presupposes they could have chosen
> otherwise), how should we treat the philosophical claims they're making?
> If someone claims to believe x yet lives their day-to-day life in a way
> that presumes the reverse, in what sense do they really believe x?
>
> Cheers,
> Mark
>
>> Send Critical-Realism mailing list submissions to
>> 	critical-realism at lists.econ.utah.edu
>>
>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>> 	http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/critical-realism
>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>> 	critical-realism-request at lists.econ.utah.edu
>>
>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>> 	critical-realism-owner at lists.econ.utah.edu
>>
>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>> than "Re: Contents of Critical-Realism digest..."
>>
>>
>> Today's Topics:
>>
>>    1. Re: ON THE NATURAL STATE OF BEING HUMAN (Moodey, Richard W)
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2008 19:42:04 -0400
>> From: "Moodey, Richard W" <MOODEY001 at gannon.edu>
>> Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] ON THE NATURAL STATE OF BEING HUMAN
>> To: "Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List"
>> 	<critical-realism at lists.econ.utah.edu>
>> Message-ID:
>> 	<1B45AE651C808D458990F881B2B696430DA5D2 at exchange.gannon.edu>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>>
>> Hi Fred,
>>
>> I start with my experience of making choices, rather than with a
>> syllogism.
>> I also acknowledge that my experience is fallible, that in spite of my
>> sense
>> of making some free choices, it could be the case that all of these
>> choices
>> are fully determined by factors about which I do not know.
>> Nevertheless,
>> I
>>  am as convinced of my limited freedom as I am of anything  else.  I do
>> not, however, think I can convince anyone who believes he is not free
>> that he really is.  His experience may lead him to a very different
>> conclusion from that to which my experience
>> leads me.
>>
>> Do you think that starting with a syllogism is likely to convince those
>> who
>> deny that they are free that they really are?
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Dick
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: critical-realism-bounces at lists.econ.utah.edu on behalf of Fred
>> Zaman
>> Sent: Sat 9/6/2008 10:49 PM
>> To: Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List
>> Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] ON THE NATURAL STATE OF BEING HUMAN
>>
>> Hi Dick,
>> ?
>> A simple syllogism informs my naturalistic understanding of
>> free will:
>> ?
>> a) It is the conclusion of the physical sciences that
>> everything in the universe is energy, matter, or a
>> composite thereof.
>> ?
>> b) E = mc^2, i.e. matter is a concentrated, encapsulated
>> form of energy; so that at bottom everything in the
>> universe is energy, in one form or another.
>> ?
>> c) Free will (in Aristotelian metaphysics, nature's "formal
>> causes") thus of necessity, from a naturalistic point of
>> view, is energy underdetermined in principle by nature's
>> impersonal laws (Aristotelian "efficient causes"); a
>> corollary of which is that these laws of necessity are then
>> the "instruments" by which energy through its free will
>> pursues chosen objectives (Aristotelian "final causes").
>> ?
>> Everything I have to say about free will as a natural
>> phenomenon is grounded on this formal, qua Aristotelian
>> logic. It informs all definitions, postulates, theoretical
>> development and conclusions; because it is, I believe, only
>> in this way that a true "naturalistic" explanation of free
>> will can be formulated that remains consistent with the
>> laws of nature thus far discovered by science.
>> Fred
>>
>>
>> --- On Sat, 9/6/08, Moodey, Richard W <MOODEY001 at gannon.edu> wrote:
>>
>> From: Moodey, Richard W <MOODEY001 at gannon.edu>
>> Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] ON THE NATURAL STATE OF BEING HUMAN
>> To: "Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List"
>> <critical-realism at lists.econ.utah.edu>
>> Date: Saturday, September 6, 2008, 5:23 PM
>>
>> Hi Fred,
>>
>> Thank you for this very thoughtful and informative reply.  I am very
>> close
>> to
>> your position,
>> but an not quite willing to equate indeterminacy with free will.  I
>> think
>> the
>> lack of complete
>> determinism in physical processes leaves the door open to free will.
>> The
>> difference
>> between us might very well be over how we define free will.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Dick
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Critical-Realism mailing list
>> Critical-Realism at lists.econ.utah.edu
>> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/critical-realism
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Critical-Realism mailing list
>> Critical-Realism at lists.econ.utah.edu
>> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/critical-realism
>>
>>
>> End of Critical-Realism Digest, Vol 47, Issue 5
>> ***********************************************
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 13:46:02 -0400
> From: "Moodey, Richard W" <MOODEY001 at gannon.edu>
> Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] Critical-Realism Digest, Vol 47, Issue
> 	5
> To: "Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List"
> 	<critical-realism at lists.econ.utah.edu>
> Message-ID:
> 	<1B45AE651C808D458990F881B2B6964301DC21C8 at exchange.gannon.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="us-ascii"
>
> Hi Mark,
>
> I Newman's terminology, I would say that a person who claims to believe
> that she has no freedom, yet acts as if she is free gives only "notional
> assent" to that which she claims to believe.  "Real assent" occurs only
> when there is consistency between verbal claims and the actions of the
> one who makes the claim.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Dick
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: critical-realism-bounces at lists.econ.utah.edu
> [mailto:critical-realism-bounces at lists.econ.utah.edu] On Behalf Of
> M.A.Carrigan at warwick.ac.uk
> Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 3:28 PM
> To: critical-realism at lists.econ.utah.edu
> Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] Critical-Realism Digest, Vol 47, Issue 5
>
> Hi Dick,
>
> I think there's an interesting question as to the nature of someone's
> belief in their own lack of free will. If someone genuinely holds that
> they lack free will, yet lives out their practical involvements in such
> a
> way that presumes the reverse (i.e. they experience their choices as
> having a moral significance which presupposes they could have chosen
> otherwise), how should we treat the philosophical claims they're making?
> If someone claims to believe x yet lives their day-to-day life in a way
> that presumes the reverse, in what sense do they really believe x?
>
> Cheers,
> Mark
>
>> Send Critical-Realism mailing list submissions to
>> 	critical-realism at lists.econ.utah.edu
>>
>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>> 	http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/critical-realism
>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>> 	critical-realism-request at lists.econ.utah.edu
>>
>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>> 	critical-realism-owner at lists.econ.utah.edu
>>
>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>> than "Re: Contents of Critical-Realism digest..."
>>
>>
>> Today's Topics:
>>
>>    1. Re: ON THE NATURAL STATE OF BEING HUMAN (Moodey, Richard W)
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2008 19:42:04 -0400
>> From: "Moodey, Richard W" <MOODEY001 at gannon.edu>
>> Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] ON THE NATURAL STATE OF BEING HUMAN
>> To: "Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List"
>> 	<critical-realism at lists.econ.utah.edu>
>> Message-ID:
>> 	<1B45AE651C808D458990F881B2B696430DA5D2 at exchange.gannon.edu>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>>
>> Hi Fred,
>>
>> I start with my experience of making choices, rather than with a
>> syllogism.
>> I also acknowledge that my experience is fallible, that in spite of my
>> sense
>> of making some free choices, it could be the case that all of these
>> choices
>> are fully determined by factors about which I do not know.
> Nevertheless,
>> I
>>  am as convinced of my limited freedom as I am of anything  else.  I
> do
>> not, however, think I can convince anyone who believes he is not free
>> that he really is.  His experience may lead him to a very different
>> conclusion from that to which my experience
>> leads me.
>>
>> Do you think that starting with a syllogism is likely to convince
> those
>> who
>> deny that they are free that they really are?
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Dick
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: critical-realism-bounces at lists.econ.utah.edu on behalf of Fred
> Zaman
>> Sent: Sat 9/6/2008 10:49 PM
>> To: Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List
>> Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] ON THE NATURAL STATE OF BEING HUMAN
>>
>> Hi Dick,
>> ?
>> A simple syllogism informs my naturalistic understanding of
>> free will:
>> ?
>> a) It is the conclusion of the physical sciences that
>> everything in the universe is energy, matter, or a
>> composite thereof.
>> ?
>> b) E = mc^2, i.e. matter is a concentrated, encapsulated
>> form of energy; so that at bottom everything in the
>> universe is energy, in one form or another.
>> ?
>> c) Free will (in Aristotelian metaphysics, nature's "formal
>> causes") thus of necessity, from a naturalistic point of
>> view, is energy underdetermined in principle by nature's
>> impersonal laws (Aristotelian "efficient causes"); a
>> corollary of which is that these laws of necessity are then
>> the "instruments" by which energy through its free will
>> pursues chosen objectives (Aristotelian "final causes").
>> ?
>> Everything I have to say about free will as a natural
>> phenomenon is grounded on this formal, qua Aristotelian
>> logic. It informs all definitions, postulates, theoretical
>> development and conclusions; because it is, I believe, only
>> in this way that a true "naturalistic" explanation of free
>> will can be formulated that remains consistent with the
>> laws of nature thus far discovered by science.
>> Fred
>>
>>
>> --- On Sat, 9/6/08, Moodey, Richard W <MOODEY001 at gannon.edu> wrote:
>>
>> From: Moodey, Richard W <MOODEY001 at gannon.edu>
>> Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] ON THE NATURAL STATE OF BEING HUMAN
>> To: "Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List"
>> <critical-realism at lists.econ.utah.edu>
>> Date: Saturday, September 6, 2008, 5:23 PM
>>
>> Hi Fred,
>>
>> Thank you for this very thoughtful and informative reply.  I am very
> close
>> to
>> your position,
>> but an not quite willing to equate indeterminacy with free will.  I
> think
>> the
>> lack of complete
>> determinism in physical processes leaves the door open to free will.
> The
>> difference
>> between us might very well be over how we define free will.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Dick
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Critical-Realism mailing list
>> Critical-Realism at lists.econ.utah.edu
>> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/critical-realism
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Critical-Realism mailing list
>> Critical-Realism at lists.econ.utah.edu
>> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/critical-realism
>>
>>
>> End of Critical-Realism Digest, Vol 47, Issue 5
>> ***********************************************
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Critical-Realism mailing list
> Critical-Realism at lists.econ.utah.edu
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/critical-realism
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Critical-Realism mailing list
> Critical-Realism at lists.econ.utah.edu
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/critical-realism
>
>
> End of Critical-Realism Digest, Vol 47, Issue 6
> ***********************************************
>


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


From matonianuk at yahoo.co.uk  Tue Sep 16 05:25:15 2008
From: matonianuk at yahoo.co.uk (Karl Maton)
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 21:25:15 +1000
Subject: [Critical-Realism] New Critical Realism Seminar
Message-ID: <48CF979B.2000108@yahoo.co.uk>

Engaging Realism

AACR Seminars and Discussions

The Australasian Association for Critical Realism (AACR)is pleased to 
announce the latest in a new series of seminars and discussions, to be 
held at the University of Sydney. 

Thursday 9th October 6.30pm
Seminar Room 435, Faculty of Education and Social Work, University of Sydney

Margaret Moussa and Scott Mann
will lead a discussion of:
Causal Powers and Necessity in Hegel's Shorter Logic


Engaging Realism is a new series of seminars and discussions of readings 
organised by the AACR.  They are open to anyone interested in coming and 
engaging with realist ideas.  Neither speakers nor other participants 
need be 'critical realists' - the aim is to open up and encourage debate 
and discussion. 

We adjourn to the pub afterwards as well.

PLEASE send this on to anyone in your Dept or Faculty you think might be 
interested!  Thanks. 

-- 
With best wishes,

Karl

----

Dr Karl Maton
Department of Sociology & Social Policy
Faculty of Arts, University of Sydney

http://www.KarlMaton.com

Editorial Board, Journal of Critical Realism
General Secretary, Australasian Association for Critical Realism


From shivahemmati at gmail.com  Thu Sep 18 06:35:49 2008
From: shivahemmati at gmail.com (shiva hemmati)
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 05:35:49 -0700
Subject: [Critical-Realism] question
Message-ID: <adf9704b0809180535y76c29317o5a1cd94396f14dfd@mail.gmail.com>

Does any one know whats the relation between critical realism & social
constructivism in these fields :
epistemology
ontology
metaphysics

-- 
best wishes
Shiva Hemati

From alan.norrie at kcl.ac.uk  Fri Sep 19 07:18:48 2008
From: alan.norrie at kcl.ac.uk (Norrie, Alan)
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 14:18:48 +0100
Subject: [Critical-Realism] Postgraduate reading seminars in Critical
 Realism at the Institute of Education London for 2008-09
Message-ID: <11D9615B89C10747B1C985966A63D7CA286307F8D0@KCL-MAIL04.kclad.ds.kcl.ac.uk>

Dear all,

Please pass this on to anyone who might be interested. Many thanks,

Alan



Postgraduate reading seminars in Critical Realism at the Institute of Education for 2008-09

This fortnightly seminar is open to all postgraduate students in the IoE, the constituent colleges of the University of London and any other interested postgraduates in the London area. It is an opportunity to examine in detail Roy Bhaskar?s work and to follow its progression from its original formulation of critical realism through its dialectical turn to the philosophy of meta-reality.

The course is taught by Professor Roy Bhaskar (World Scholar at the IoE, founder of critical realism) and Professor Alan Norrie (KCL, author of the forthcoming book Dialectic and Difference). The first semester involves readings on ?basic? critical realism?s distinctive approach to the philosophy of the natural and social sciences and emancipatory critique; the second on the main themes of Bhaskar?s dialectic, including absence, diffracting dialectic, totality, ethics and metacritique. The third semester will examine the philosophy of meta-Reality.

All seminars will be held on Mondays at 5:30 p.m commencing on October 6 at the Institute of Education, 20 Bedford Way, Committee Room 1.

The first seminar, on Monday, October 6, will consist of an orientation by the course teachers; the second seminar will be, exceptionally, on Monday, October 13, with the third seminar on Monday, November 3.