Re Andy's [5793]: > Just to > reiterate, the explicit motivations of a scientist >(what they *say* they are doing) are not > necessarily their actual motivations. Perhaps. However, their actual motivations can not be gauged by the consequences of a debate. > I don't think your reply > (concerning unintended consequences) grapples > with this point, rather it supports it. I don't think your reply, though, has grappled with the issue of unintended consequences. E.g. you wrote: > Where do we look then for further 'evidence' > (better called 'justification')? Well I suggest to > the content of the debate. This is 'value'. Value > is crucial in the CMP. Hence this seems the > better bet as to the real motivation underlying the > debate. (Though it is true I am interested in the > real reason as opposed to motivations, per se). OK, value is crucial to the CMP. So what? You are assuming that since there has been a debate (and it has gone on for a long time) that the 'reason' (and, btw, I don't think that where human behavior is concerned, the 'reason' for behavior can be entirely separated from motivations) for the debate must also concern something crucial. Yet, history is replete with instances to the contrary (e.g. how many angels, Gil asked, can dance on a pin?). > It is an *implicit* motivation, This is the *assumption* that you are making. > : defensiveness > has some or other positive outcome There may be other positive outcomes (consequences) of a debate but that then can not be taken to be the 'reason' for the debate. > Re Fine on consumption, the household, etc. > You will find Fine himself is keen to stress his > to debt to value theory on these > issues. Well ... I'm not sure that he always does. The connection of the subject of women's employment and the family to his understanding of value was part of his book _Women's Employment and the Capitalist Family_ (London, Routledge, 1992), but what about his books on consumption and food? Where exactly is the stress there? > RE my own line of research. Would that it were > so easy to jump to more concrete issues! Well ... you've got a good excuse -- you're still a (relatively [at least relative to the average age on OPE-L!) young person. In solidarity, Jerry PS: Sorry to all for parts of my 5796. There were a couple of sentences near the beginning that were misleading. I figured, though, that others would despite that be able to figure out what I was trying to say and I didn't want to burden everyone with another post in which I made the correction.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Jul 15 2001 - 10:56:29 EDT