In OPE-L 3720, Andrew wrote:
I also have stayed out because the ever-deepening
hairsplitting over particular words and
formulations is something I find less than
helpful, especially when one is dealing with
manuscripts not prepared for publication.
I understand Andrew's "feeling" about this kind of
"hairsplitting" work.
However, I do not think that it is "less than helpful"
because it seems to me that is a task that --incredibly--
has not been accomplished (perhaps, even started). This is
why the single-table example (and the "hidden table"),
which are just in Vol. III, Ch. 9, have been "invisible"
for the many Marx's readers. I do not think that "to see"
the single table in Vol. III, Ch. 9 is "less than helpful."
All this is VERY paradoxical because, for instance, Andrew
himself (who is doing an outstanding work defending the
single-system interpretation) told us (OPE-L 3573) that he
"neglected to mention" the single-table example.
Worst, we have a lot of "academic", "thorough" articles
that assure us that there is an "irrefutable textual
evidence" in Marx's writings to support the dualistic
interpretation. Of course, according to these readers, this
"irrefutable textual evidence" also shows that Marx work is
plenty of incoherences, "contradictions", failures and so
on, and so on.
In the case of other "big thinkers" (as Aristotle, for
example) a serious work of criticism (is this English?) on
their texts has been carried out, and is still carrying
out. Unfortunately, this is not the case of Marx.
Alejandro Ramos M.
27.11.96