Paul C's post concerning ordering was very challenging, but also somewhat
confusing for me.
Paul C. -- was your concern in that post only with what you call the
"order of presentation" and the "strictly sequential mode of
presentation" of theory? In other words, are you asking whether the
"finished work" should be presented in a logical order vs. some other
ordering or are your concerns broader than that?
I am confused because in other points of your post you seem to be
suggesting that you are concerned with the "order of discovery"
(investigation) as well (e.g. your comments on investigating the
relationship between money and the state, international trade and the
state, etc).
No doubt, the state *historically* played an important role in establishing
the functions of money and international trade and the state can not be
separated in practice when we consider the *actual* concrete process of
trade, etc. Are you suggesting that the *form* (method) of "discovery" can
not be grasped by a logical process of investigating sequentially more
concrete topics (i.e. moving from more abstract concepts to more concrete
topics) with a dialectical method?
In OPE-L Solidarity,
Jerry