> Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 06:52:19 -0800
> Reply-to: ope-l@anthrax.ecst.csuchico.edu
> From: bellofio@cisi.unito.it (riccardo bellofiore)
> To: Multiple recipients of list <ope-l@anthrax.ecst.csuchico.edu>
> Subject: [OPE-L:1426] Re: Temporality vs simultaneity
> At 3:52 11-03-1996 -0800, Massimo De Angelis wrote:
>
> > Bruce's notion of temporality
> > (and I am afraid not only his) is not only that after period two comes
> > period three (obvious enough), but that while there was some qualitative
> > change between period one and two, no such a change occurs between
> > two and three. That is, Bruce's notion of temporality is a iterative notion.
> > I want to stress the fact that THE TA AND SA solutions converge
> > ONLY if THIS assumption is made, which is at the basis of Bruce's
> > criticism. Fine, but in principle between period 2 and 3 anything can happen.
> >If with a temporality approach we want to try to capture history, than ***
> >in principle*** anything can happen between 2 and 3. History is open.
>
> Anything?????
>
> Either you give reasons internal to the model for the changes you are
> speaking of, or on that basis "anything goe"s, as the great Paul Feyerabend
> loved to say.
>
Riccardo, in ****principle***** anything can happen - get the
fiction for the sake of the argument?? The point I was
making was challenging Bruce's assertion that the "temporal
determined" price is a slice of the simultanous solution BECAUSE if you
keep iterating you' find that result. This is true only IF you
keep iterating AND keep all other assumptions equal. THhe point is -
and I think THIS IS A CRUCIAL POINT THAT simultaneists should address
- the point is that with temporality you can change the assumptions
between period 3 and 4 etc. AND STILL HAVE value = prices etc. etc.
That is, you can have technological change, a strike wave, etc
affecting value determination but still you have the basic equalities
mainteined in each period. This, whatever the assumptions you make,
as long as you **assume** capitalist class relations. Therefore,
although Bruce is right to say that if you keep all unchanged then
the TA converges to SA, he is not right to claim that this shows
that in general TA's results represent a "slice" of SA results.
On the contrary, the SA's results are a particular case (in which
nothing changes after period 2).
Gotta run. I am sure we'll continue discussion in Boston. BTW, leave
the great Paul Feyerabend alone. He has nothing to do with this
discussion.
Massimo