[OPE-L:6516] Re: [OPE] What is prior?

C. J. Arthur (cjarthur@pavilion.co.uk)
Mon, 27 Apr 1998 14:45:06 +0100

A reply to Alan's question to me
>>
>> Chris had written:
>>
>> > Yes indeed and one could add ontological priority when marx keeps
>> > insisting something must be created before it can be distributed even if
>> > there is no temporal gap. This seems to be the main thing motivating his
>> > treatment of transformation and the main thing Fred starts from.
>>
>> and Fred wrote
>>
>> > Yes, indeed !!
>>
>> On reflection I may not have properly understand what Chris and Fred
>> understood, or meant, by the words 'even if there is no temporal gap' in
>> Chris's original post.
>
>> I think the fundamental issue is that of temporal succession, rather than
>> temporal distance.
>>
>> Things can succeed each other temporally even if there is no temporal gap,
>> or if the temporal gap reduces to zero.
>
>...
>
>> I think that the appropriate concept to discuss Marx's ontological
>> principle is not temporal gap, but temporal succession; and we may be in
>> agreement on this, in which case I think we can progress significantly.
>>
>> The way I would like to put the point is that one may not distribute
>> something 'before' it has been created, exactly as Chris puts it in the
>> first part of his sentence; that is, distribution must temporally succeed
>> creation.
>>
>> Now, Chris's sentence might then have one of two meanings. It might be a
>> simple re-statement of what I consider to be the fundamental temporal
>> principle, which is the principle of temporal succession; in this case, one
>> may not distribute something 'temporally before' it has been created. In
>> this case, I agree that it is irrelevant whether there is a temporal gap,
>> since one does not need a temporal gap in order to distinuish 'before' from
>> 'after'.
>>
>> Or, Chris might be seeking to distinuish two meanings of the word 'before',
>> one being temporal, and the other being non-temporal. Thus he might really
>> have meant something like:
>>
>> > Yes indeed and one could add ontological priority when marx keeps
>> > insisting something must be created before it can be distributed even if
>> > there is no temporal succession.
>>
>> Or, he might not have meant that, but Fred might have understood that. In
>> which case the agreement is less exclamatory than we first thought.
>>
>> This doesn't seem to me to be the sense of what Chris was saying but I
>> thought I had better check. Also to check which meaning Fred took from the
>> statement, when he added his exclamation marks.
>>
>> As a final clarification, why not just write the statement as follows?
>>
>> > Yes indeed and one could add ontological priority when marx keeps
>> > insisting something must be created temporally before it can be
>>distributed.
>>
>> Would either Fred or Chris disagree with that restatement of (Marx's)
>> principle?
>>
>> Alan
>
>
>Fred replies:
>
>No, Alan, I would not accept your restatement of Chris' statement.
>I have said all along: in my view, Marx's assumption that the total
>amount of surplus-value is determined prior to the distribution of
>surplus-value means a LOGICAL priority, but a TEMPORAL priority, which
>is the way I interpreted Chris' statement.
>
>I will let Chris speak for himself.
>
>
>Comradely,
>Fred

I was precisely trying to avoid the issue of temporality, hoping that even
those who analyse the shift as merely one of logical levels might agree
with my principle.
Chris