"Gerald_A_Levy" <Gerald_A_Levy@email.msn.com> said, on 02/16/01: >In his [Andrew's] diatribe against levels of abstraction, DIATRIBE? Andrew had written: --The way you [Fred] try to put it over is by means of the tried-and-true "levels of abstraction" stuff. As I have said in the past, "levels of abstraction" is no term of Marx's. When I hear it, I always check to see that my wallet hasn't been lifted. --But even the "levels of abstraction" methodology requires a *wee bit* of discipline in argument. To employ it, what comes before must be more abstract, and what comes after must be more concrete....' Andrew is not engaging here in a diatribe. Actually, it is something to think about. >Andrew has not directly confronted the following VERY EXPLICIT quote from >*Marx* from that chapter: Jerry's quoted passage doesn't seem to directly bear on "levels of abstraction" as the phrase does not appear in the passage. ... >Do others outside of those who agree with the TSSIM believe that I have >claimed too much above? >In solidarity, Jerry Yes, I believe you have claimed too much (without getting into the rest of your email). Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Mar 01 2001 - 14:01:38 EST