>if Cat's reasoning is circular, then so is any claim that dependence
>is not hierarchical. No one has provided actual material evidence to
>reveal that it's not.
No one, however, has said here that dependence is never hierarchical, whereas Catherine is in effect saying that "dependence is hierarchical because it presumes a hierarchy." Unless she at least comes to understand this to be a logical problem, there can't be any further discussion on the subject.
At 5:47 PM +1000 2/18/01, Catherine Driscoll wrote:
>Yoshie -- the concept of dependence is about hierarchy -- something
>leans on, hangs from etc, is defined entirely by because it presumes
>the existence of something else
There is no explanation here as to why if X presumes "the existence of something else," the relation between X and "something else" is necessarily hierarchical & therefore objectionable. Catherine just assumes that it is (thus begging the question -- petitio principii -- since in her "argument" the truth of the conclusion -- "dependence is hierarchical" -- is already assumed in her premise).
Perhaps Catherine thinks that causal relations are hierarchical & therefore objectionable.
Yoshie