I accused Jerry of doctoring a quotation. I was wrong. For this, I apologize. I cited Jerry in 7179 and then followed with an accusation: >> I think one of the problems with our communication is that the *focus* >> of our concerns has been different: for Kliman, his _primary >> research focus_ has, to date, been hermeneutic; "First you have misrepresented your own quotation. This putative independent clause did not end with a semi colon--why did you put that there?-- but a comma which was itself preceded by a parenthetical expression. What you meant to convey can only be grasped by the contrast that you were making, so what followed the comma is thus an integral part of the putative independent clause which you now set apart by a semi colon that did not appear in the original." Jerry in 7174 (the full sentence, verbatim): >I think one of the problems with our communication is that the *focus* >of our concerns has been different: for Kliman, his _primary >research focus_ has, to date, been hermeneutic; for many others, >their primary research focus has been capitalism. In other words, >Kliman has been mainly focused on what is essentially a *history of >political economy question* (i.e. what is the interpretation of Marx's >quantitative theory that is the most consistent and has the best textual >evidence when placed in the context of Marx's overall theory?), >whereas many other Marxists are focused on comprehending and >struggling against the dynamics of capitalism. I made a stupid blunder in saying that Jerry doctored the quotation--he simply did not replace a comma with a semi-colon; what I should have said was that Jerry had requoted himself in such a way as to leave out exactly what I found inappropriate--the invidious comparison between Kliman and those other (putatively real) Marxists who are focused on comprehending and struggling against the dynamics of capitalism. Jerry did not doctor the quote. He simply left out that part of it that I found objectionable. So from my faulty criticism, only this part of it stands: "What you meant to convey can only be grasped by the contrast that you were making". I am in the wrong here, and I apologize to Jerry. Let me add that I do think communication is impeded not by excessively hermeneutic interests but when retractions are *demanded*, for what backs up the demand? What is the implicit underlying threat in a *demand* for retraction? One should simply point out that one's response to an accusation has not been persuasively answered or that no counter-response to one's response was made. One is free to then interpret this as a defacto retraction, but one should not demand a retraction from an interlocutor. One may ask for it, one may make a case that it is in order. But if a retraction is then not offered, one should not *demand* a retraction. I also think one has to be very careful in implying that any logical criticism of Marx implies suppression of the one interpretation which makes Marx's text logically coherent. I don't believe any text of the complexity of Marx's Capital can be perfectly logically coherent, and it may be best to read Marx's text exactly at the points where there are logical contradictions, instead of attempting to find the interpretation which makes the most sense of the text--Geert and Riccardo have attempted this, and their efforts should be welcomed in my opinion. Let it be noted that given Allin's point about double divergence, the TSS interpretation does not in fact free Marx's text of logical contradiction. Fred should be admired for honestly admitting that his interpretation of Marx's text does not cohere with Marx's point about double divergence. Rakesh
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Jun 02 2002 - 00:00:07 EDT