m of care – apr 13
Part 6. Roy Bhaskar’s Enlightened Common Sense and From Science to Emancipation – Reading Group – ch 4 – Applied Critical Realism and Interdisciplinarity.
This session we will start reading Chapter 4 of Enlightened Common Sense.
on roy bhaskar‘s enlightened common sense part 6 – ch 4
notes/quotes from 57 min video:
john m: i thought topic of interdisciplinarity was kind of a strange thing for us to discuss.. i don’t know how far anybody is being an academic.. i felt very removed .. ie: iranian sociologist discussing things happening.. then he was saying people in academia against regime were arguing against him because too interdisciplinary.. so made me think might be a cool topic
4 min – john m: applied/practical realism is soul/hart of critical realism.. start applying it.. in particular concept of serious ness.. unity and practice together.. in order to be serious.. needs to be applied in effective way.. he says.. big part of applied cr is focused on ontology.. maybe good to do brief review of ch 2.. he intro’s a couple new concepts.. instead of induction and deduction.. abduction and retroduction recontextualizing phenom.. another.. laminated systems.. stratified view of reality.. about all diff disciplines/ways to look at world.. give a touchstone that connects to entire array of reality.. so make sure whatever you’re talking about has connection to them.. doing that in a very intentional way.. abduction id-ing causal mechs in other layers.. retroduction.. imagining generative/deep causes.. that may span multiple layers..
10 min – john: he poses conditions for successful interdisciplinary research..
12 min – john: he’s against positivist view.. when we try to make a snapshop and consider it as reality.. he calls this actualism.. treating little corner of uni .. rather than going deeper into an inaccessible level of reality.. antireductionism.. et al..
19 min – michael: before he was just talking about how to make a knowledge claim.. and now.. about how world is org’d.. and look at those as interdisciplinary?
21 min – john: when people have something they care about.. they don’t care about disciplines
28 min – michael: a lot of david’s work.. draws on diff disciplines/time-frames
29 min – steven: yeah.. i wrestle w this constantly.. trying to write things that use the approach that bhaskar developed.. the interdisciplinarity piece is esp important to me.. what helps me w it.. bhaskar’s work monumental because he breaks reality down into: real, actual, empirical.. because i’m a historian i tend to be in empirical.. which then gets to what doe seeks to do.. how do you account for things that happed thru refusals.. rather than activity.. when he tries to capture domain of actual/real.. don’t leave empirical doc.. what communities use creative power of refusal to put stops in whatever else is happening.. hard for historians.. because trying to measure things that didn’t happen because people didn’t allow it.. the revolutions/ruptures.. not as revolutionary..t so able to get at how communities can be understood.. only by points of refusal.. get at full stakes.. on understanding change and not change.. goal of interdisciplinary work.. to see that space.. that domain that can never be understood.. david in lost people.. ‘reality all that which we cannot know’..t that to me for research is very liberatory.. shows these are claims.. truth judgements.. and that’s the best we can do..
maybe we’re not supposed to.. because we can’t et al.. to me.. graeber unpredictability/surprise law and graeber can’t know law makes that trying-to-measure ness a cancerous distraction.. to me.. all the trying to naming the colour ness .. in order to understand or whatever.. is cancerous distraction et al
art of not being governed – james scott.. lost people.. dawn of everything (book).. et al
38 min – steven: instead of asking if constructivism is good.. to think.. ask what kind of conditions for it to become popular.. when david has mentioned.. sci discoveries are a process of sci discoveries and not the divine truth
imagine if we listened to the itch-in-8b-souls 1st thing everyday & used that data to connect us (tech as it could be.. ai as augmenting interconnectedness) et al.. conditions as hari rat park law et al
43 min – john: on opening space so that the absence of them would have an impact..t
to me.. in that space.. we let go of thinking we need to know/understand/make-meaning/history of everything.. we try something like gershenfeld something else law.. so that we’re all into the dance enough to not ‘navel gaze’ at the dance which just trips/trumps us up
spaces of permission where people have nothing to prove
44 min – michael: on absence ness.. how would you measure those things.. when you can’t prove it.. t
literacy and numeracy both elements of colonialism/control/enclosure.. we need to calculate differently and stop measuring things
to me.. measuring things = any form of m\a\p
49 min – john: ie: absence of rain.. et al.. other ie’s.. absence of free speech presages free society..
53 min – mark: i finally understood why he uses ‘intransitive’ for reality.. ie: a cause b and b causes c.. but maybe b came about from emergent things from a.. so can’t go directly from a to c
54 min – michael: when explain thru science.. emerges out of the sci.. when a is natural event.. b is soc sci explaining event.. c they say a causes c.. when it’s explaining b that causes c.. david said.. econ as whole discipline.. transitive.. making stuff up
55 min – i think what’s helping in this is getting ie’s that make sense to us..
but then.. that’s b.. right? that’s naming the colour ness.. and killing the reality of it..
to me.. we need to let go of making sense ness..
again.. graeber can’t know law et al.. usefully ignorant ness et al
________
_______
________
________
_______
________
_______
________
______
be you. 