From: ajit sinha (sinha_a99@YAHOO.COM)
Date: Mon Mar 05 2007 - 10:07:11 EST
I thin this is the way to go! ajit --- Jerry Levy <Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM> wrote: > OK, Ajit. I'm willing to engage you in this > discussion but > I propose that we proceed as follows: > > o I'll initiate the exchange by posing a very > simple proposition. > > o You can then agree or object. > > o Then I'll pose another proposition and you can > agree or > object, and so on. > > o If you object, you explain what is wrong with the > proposition > and I will respond. > > o Note that this does not take the form of either > one of us asking > questions of the other. > > o We proceed slowly and deliberately (there's no > rush, after > all ....) dealing with one issue after another > -- never more > than one new point in any post. > > o No digressions. > > o No rhetoric. > > o No literary citations. > > o We then see how far we can get with this > exchange. Presumably, at > some point we won't agree, but it would be > instructive to see what point > that is and why. > > o When we disagree, we decide whether the > disagreement is so major that > we can't go forward until there's agreement (in > which case the exchange > is broken off) or we together decide to note a > disagreement but proceed > to the next step anyway. > > [NB: the above would be a different -- a slower and > more systematic -- > exchange than that suggested by Fred, Diego, or > others in the past.] > > o For the purposes of this exchange, I propose that > although we can > use arguments that have been developed by others, > we not state who > made those arguments nor quote anyone (except > each other's posts, of > course). > > I think that's a fair and workable procedure. Do > you agree? If so, > then my next post in reply to you will state the > first proposition. > > In solidarity, Jerry > > > > > > > What bothers me mostly is that in this sort of > > debates, the most fundamental questions are > usually > > never posed. The question is: On what basis one > can > > claim that "the so-called exchange-value is a > > necessary form of appearance of commodity value > and > > that price is a necessary form of appearance of > > exchange-value." The question is not about who > said > > what but what is the basis of establishing the > claim > > made by whoever said it. Once you ask this > question, > > only then you will begin to understand the > problems > > associated with such claims. > ____________________________________________________________________________________ We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love (and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list. http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Mar 31 2007 - 01:00:12 EDT