Re: (OPE-L) Ajit's paper

From: ajit sinha (sinha_a99@YAHOO.COM)
Date: Mon Jun 07 2004 - 09:57:45 EDT


--- Howard Engelskirchen <howarde@TWCNY.RR.COM> wrote:
> Hi Ajit,
>
> You write:
>
> > I think most of us understand that the movement of
> the
> > earth on its own axis and its movement around the
> sun
> > is taken as standard on the basis of which we
> derive
> > our measure of value.
>
> I take it you are not saying that the movement of
> the earth and around the
> sun somehow is what time is, because there are other
> suns and planets, of
> course.  So by your use of the word "standard" you
> mean that the movement of
> the earth is a good way to *refer* to the passage of
> time.
>
> My point was that any activity or process occurs in
> time.  That means any
> process can be used to refer to the passage of time.
>  Change occurs in time,
> so any activity that produces a changed result can
> be used to refer to the
> passage of time.
>
> Obviously some things will refer poorly, some things
> well.  It will depend
> on our purposes.  You wouldn't want to use the time
> it would take an apple
> to rot for some kind of medical procedure that
> demanded precision in terms
> of minutes.
>
> But once we recognize that when we measure time,
> however we do it, we are
> only using some process or result to refer, then we
> can step back and look
> critically at the alternatives available to us.
>
> So, yes, I am saying that we can measure time in
> terms of units of gold.
> Gold is a result produced by activity that takes
> time.  We can use grains of
> gold to tell time.
>
> Howard
_______________
But this measure would be particularly poor. It takes
different amounts of time, i.e. different amounts of
time pass, in producing the same amount of gold--given
the mine is rich or not, etc. What do you gain by this
kind of measure? And Marx definitely is not doing
anything like that. Cheers, ajit sinha
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "ajit sinha" <sinha_a99@YAHOO.COM>
> To: <OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU>
> Sent: Sunday, June 06, 2004 8:06 AM
> Subject: Re: [OPE-L] (OPE-L) Ajit's paper
>
>
> > --- Howard Engelskirchen <howarde@TWCNY.RR.COM>
> wrote:
> > > 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
> > _________________
> >
> > I think most of us understand that the movement of
> the
> > earth on its own axis and its movement around the
> sun
> > is taken as standard on the basis of which we
> derive
> > our measure of value. But in any case, what I
> don't
> > understand is are you saying that the unit of time
> can
> > be changed feom say hour to gram of gold? Or are
> you
> > saying that one can say that a gram of gold is so
> many
> > hours? What are you saying and how do you explain?
> > Cheers, ajit sinha
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- 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
>
=== 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 14 2004 - 00:00:01 EDT