Re: (OPE-L) Ajit's paper

From: Howard Engelskirchen (howarde@TWCNY.RR.COM)
Date: Sun Jun 13 2004 - 10:12:25 EDT


Hi Ajit,

Welcome back!

In regards to grains of gold being a way to measure the passage of time, why
do you say "Marx is definitely not doing anything like that"?

Howard


----- Original Message -----
From: "ajit sinha" <sinha_a99@YAHOO.COM>
To: <OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU>
Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 9:57 AM
Subject: Re: [OPE-L] (OPE-L) Ajit's paper


> --- 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 : Tue Jun 15 2004 - 00:00:02 EDT