I still think that some form of developmental psychology would help
him to distinguish better views. We could still have a plurality of
different views at a similar level, or different peaks in Harris's
terms, all of which would be more based on the Real than less evolved
views. And still just be contingent, not final. In Bryant's own terms,
it's not just balancing the different domains of the Real, Symbolic and
the Imaginary, but levels within each of those domains. He does talk
about the mereology of assemblages in other contexts so it would help if
he applied that to psychological levels.
Although his point is accurate, in that some make claims from one domain about another domain that just aren't true. In kennilingus, they make a category error based on (con)fusing the value spheres in Habermasian terms. While there are areas of overlaps between the domains, and they can inform each other, they nonetheless have their own set of validity claims.
Although his point is accurate, in that some make claims from one domain about another domain that just aren't true. In kennilingus, they make a category error based on (con)fusing the value spheres in Habermasian terms. While there are areas of overlaps between the domains, and they can inform each other, they nonetheless have their own set of validity claims.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.