From: Jerry Levy (Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM)
Date: Wed Sep 13 2006 - 11:15:03 EDT
> So you have to come down > from total to less total, you have to draw some lines > to frame your canvas, to delimit your subject matter > or the object of enquiry. <snip> > As far as I'm concerned, a short story model is > good enough for me. Ajit: A "short story model" also requires that you frame your canvas and delimit your subject matter or object of inquiry. While a short-story is desirable, where possible, it is possible to delineate the subject matter in such a way that the short story is _too_ short in order to explain essential aspects of a subject. You may ask: what is essential? Well, if the subject is capitalism, then -- for instance -- money is an essential aspect of that subject. If one has a theory of capitalism which could also be used to describe non-capitalist modes of production or doesn't have an adequate theory of money (and instead substitutes the fiction of numeraire) then one's story is too short. Walrasian theory, for instance, is "too short". I am reminded of the "short story" of _Capital_ given on PEN-L once by Doug Henwood. His story condensed Marx's story in _Capital_ (all three volumes) to a one-sentence short paragraph. I imagine, if he were asked, Doug could come up with a one para. condensation of Sraffa's _PCMC_. Too short or good enough? I don't think that's merely an "aesthetic" question. (and, while of no great import, I don't think Sraffa would think that either.) In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Sep 30 2006 - 00:00:06 EDT