From: ajit sinha (sinha_a99@YAHOO.COM)
Date: Mon Jun 14 2004 - 09:39:17 EDT
--- Howard Engelskirchen <howarde@TWCNY.RR.COM> wrote: > 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 ____________________ It is because I have read Marx, and have not found him telling time by measuring grains of gold. By the way, telling the time in producing grains of gold requires you to tell the time in terms of producing various raw materials and machines, etc. that is needed to produce gold. Cheers, ajit sinha > > > ----- 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 > > > > > > > > === 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