From: Howard Engelskirchen (howarde@TWCNY.RR.COM)
Date: Fri Jun 04 2004 - 09:32:28 EDT
Hi Ajit, I'm not sure I understand what you don't understand, but let me repeat the argument I made: Time doesn't measure itself. We select any process, acvtivity or change whatsoever and use it to refer to the passage of time. Where activity produces a result we can use the result to refer to the passage of time. Ounces of gold are a result produced by activity. Therefore, they can be a means of referring to the passage of time. Marx does that. He speaks in terms of hours because that is the way people speak. But he measures in terms of ounces of gold. Howard ----- Original Message ----- From: "ajit sinha" <sinha_a99@YAHOO.COM> To: <OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU> Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 7:22 AM Subject: Re: [OPE-L] (OPE-L) Ajit's paper > --- Howard Engelskirchen <howarde@TWCNY.RR.COM> wrote: > > > > Now one thing Marx didn't do was come up with a > > bunch of neologisms. He > > pretty much used the vocabulary that existed. Since > > people already had ways > > of speaking about time he used them. But when it > > came to telling time, he > > also offered an alternative in terms of ounces of > > gold. > > > > This bears on the question of how we measure ten > > hours of labor. > > > > Howard > __________________ > > This I don't understand. ajit sinha > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "ajit sinha" <sinha_a99@YAHOO.COM> > > To: <OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU> > > Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 6:21 AM > > Subject: Re: [OPE-L] (OPE-L) Ajit's paper > > > > > > > Howard, My sense is that when Marx talks about > > value > > > and its measure in terms of labor time, he is > > using > > > time in a commonsense manner. I think that the > > > questions relating to philosophy of time or even > > > physics of time (given theory of relativity etc.) > > are > > > extremely interesting but will take us too far > > from > > > the issue under consideration. I do feel that time > > > moves faster as I get older and it moves even > > faster > > > when I'm having good time--but the clock says its > > all > > > illusion. Should I trust the clock or myself? > > Cheers, > > > ajit sinha > > > --- Howard Engelskirchen <howarde@TWCNY.RR.COM> > > wrote: > > > > Ajit, > > > > > > > > Do I have to measure time by a clock? Can I > > measure > > > > it by distance > > > > travelled, or dinner being ready, or by the > > quantity > > > > of a thing, say sand > > > > passed through an hourglass? Can I tick away > > > > seconds in grains of gold? > > > > When we use a stop watch to measure an hour, or > > > > eight of them, aren't we > > > > just using a mechanical result to refer to a > > > > duration? > > > > > > > > Howard > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: "ajit sinha" <sinha_a99@YAHOO.COM> > > > > To: <OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2004 9:00 AM > > > > Subject: Re: [OPE-L] (OPE-L) Ajit's paper > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- Ian Wright <iwright@GMAIL.COM> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Ajit > > > > > > > > > > > > > But these prices are determined by the > > > > > > determinants other > > > > > > > than prices. That's why it qualifies to be > > a > > > > > > theory of prices. If > > > > > > > they determined prices of a commodity in > > time > > > > t on > > > > > > the basis > > > > > > > of observed prices of the same commodity > > in > > > > time > > > > > > t-1, then it > > > > > > > would not be a theory of prices but rather > > be > > > > > > simple > > > > > > > mumbo-jumbo, which is what TSS is. > > > > > > > > > > > > Whatever the precise merits of TSS models > > your > > > > > > methodological > > > > > > stipulation that a theory of prices must > > explain > > > > > > prices only by > > > > > > reference to phenomena other than prices is > > > > > > unjustifiable. > > > > > > > > > > > > I can only imagine that such a stipulation > > > > derives > > > > > > from a static > > > > > > conception of reality, in which prices are > > > > conceived > > > > > > merely as > > > > > > economic outputs, rather than being both > > > > economic > > > > > > outputs and inputs, > > > > > > which have causal consequences. > > > > > > > > > > > > In any system that supports feedback > > mechanisms > > > > an > > > > > > output signal at > > > > > > time t can be an input to the mechanism at > > time > > > > t+1. > > > > > > This behaviour is > > > > > > reguarly expressed in terms of differential > > or > > > > > > difference equations. > > > > > > > > > > > > Control engineering is not formulated in > > terms > > > > of > > > > > > simultaneous > > > > > > equations. If your methdological stipulation > > was > > > > > > applied to other > > > > > > domains then the theory of control > > engineering > > > > would > > > > > > also be > > > > > > "mumbo-jumbo". Again, it is a kind of > > ascetism > > > > to > > > > > > maintain that prices > > > > > > cannot have causal consequences, but are > > simply > > > > > > output epiphenomena > > > > > > that have only a nominal rather than causal > > > > role. > > > > > > > > > > > > -Ian. > > > > > __________________ > > > > > Ian, I think what I'm saying holds even for a > > > > causal > > > > > theory. A theory of price or for that matter a > > > > theory > > > > > of anything, say X, is supposed to explain the > > > > > phenomenon of X. To say that the value of X in > > > > time t > > > > > is determined by the given value of X in time > > t-1 > > > > is > > > > > not a causal theory that explains the > > phenomenon > > > > of X. > > > > > Because in your formulation, it is logical to > > say > > > > that > > > > > X in time t depends on the value of X in time > > > > (t-2), > > > > > since the value of X in time t-1 is explained > > by > > > > the > > > > > value of X in time t-2. This logically leads > > us to > > > > > infinite regresson. One will have to answer, > > how > > > > did X > > > > > come into being in the first place. And here > > your > > > > > causal explanation must identify a cause other > > > > than X. > > > > > That's why a theory of X that explains X on > > the > > > > basis > > > === message truncated === > > > > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. > http://messenger.yahoo.com/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jun 07 2004 - 00:00:01 EDT