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