Mike W wrote in [OPE-L:2758]:
> (For these kinds of reasons, I don't think I agree with Jerry when, in
> his reply to Andrew, he says: "the mode of presentation is secondary to
> the method of inquiry".)
I said that originally in #2471 and, at Andrew's prompting, explained what
I meant by that sentence in #2579. Mike, though, made some very
interesting points here about the relation between the method of inquiry
and the "systematic presentation" that I want to give some more
thought to and would be interested in knowing what others thought of
Mike's comments on this issue.
> (Again, I don't think I agree with Jerry when he says " What is the
> particular? Is it not the commodity?" Because it all depends: the
> commodity as form is, of course general and abstract; a particular good
> or service grasped as an exemplification of that form is thereby
> particular and concrete. I mention this because the location of
> 'abstract' and 'concrete' within the family of words
> like particular/general seems an important source of confusion as to their
> import. )
I think this was said in #2471 in terms of suggesting a relation between
Marx's comments on method in the "Introduction" to the _Grundrisse_ and his
explanation for the starting point of his investigation in the first
paragraph of V1. I'm not quite so sure, though, on what you mean by the
significance of the last sentence above.
In OPE-L Solidarity,
Jerry