That's my perspective on Bhaskar--or part of my perspective, anyway. Steve At 12:05 PM 1/12/2001 Saturday, you wrote: >[*Is Allin's article on-line? If so, what is the URL?*] > >Paul C, in summarizing Allin's representation of Bhaskar's >definition of a 'closed system' in [6239], wrote: > > > Allin says that Bhaskar defines a closed system, one capable of > > generating a constant conjuction of events as requiring 3 conditions: ><snip, JL> > > 2. The individuals of the system must be atomic (lacking in internal > > structure) or their internal conditions must be unchanging over the > > period in question. <snip, JL> > >Doesn't this mean that Bhaskar defines a 'closed system' in such a way >that it can not be non-linear and dynamic? ... doesn't the proposition >that 'internal conditions must be unchanging' require an essentially >static system? ... doesn't this then confuse/conflate the distinctions >between closed/open with static/dynamic? > >In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Jan 09 2002 - 10:20:44 EST