< < <
Date Index > > > |
Re: Misleading Economic Indicators ... by francesco ranci 14 June 2002 11:05 UTC |
< < <
Thread Index > > > |
Dear Luke Rondinaro, I find the metaphor of the "mirror" (when you say: "The terms we use and the intellectual formulations we make roughly “mirror” the realities we are talking about, but they are not the realities themselves") very misleading. A misleading metaphor that I fear even more than the misleading indicators we started talking about. I do not believe in "real principle behind" an item of language, if you mean by that something that is not a result of our mental activity. I would enjoy a friendly discussion about this crucial topic. Best regards, Francesco Ranci --- Luke Rondinaro <larondin@yahoo.com> wrote: > > <The not so clear sentence about "effects of > effects" > refers to the dominant view, according to S., not to > > his own view. I think you know better than me what > he > > means. My remarks was just a matter of style.> > > Of course. You’re right; the sentence refers, not to > Shostak’s own view, but to the dominant one. The > reason I referred to “his ‘factors’, etc.” and “his > distinction ...” was to help differentiate, > categorize, (and ultimately emphasize) the way > Shostak was using terminology as opposed to the > manner in which others would talk about this topic. > > To get at the underlying epistemology and {symbolic} > logical format of this sentence, I had to use some > means to distinguish between the way Shostak was > talking about this matter and the way that other > people (economist/financial analysts, and so on) > talk about it. To my own mis-conception, I used the > word “his” for such a purpose. There were probably > other ways I could have achieved my aim here; I > didn’t, thinking that “his” would suffice to clarify > my distinction. > > For anyone else (besides myself) who has some > understanding of Classical Logic or Symbolic/Modal > logic on this list (either a regular or someone > looking in on WSN), can you think of any other way I > could have clarified my distinction about Shostak’s > use of these terms [+ his explanation of them} and > the more popular usage? ... (I may in fact be > forgetting something here in terms of my own attempt > to explain this matter; hence, any help would be > appreciated) > > <Everything can be considered as "cause", as well as > > "effect" of something else, but not at the same > time. > > "Rain", for example, is a cause puddles, as well as > an > > effect of storms. But you would not say that a pond > is > > an effect of an effect of a storm.> > > Certainly not “at the same” and in the same respect. > But as to just “at the same time”, there is a kind > of causality (direct causality, as I call it) that > does occur at the same time (or contemporaneously) > with its effects. Thus, we have the Efficient, > Primary, Formal, Material, Exemplary, and Final > causes of Thomistic-Scholastic Ontology. We may > have a different set of words used to explain this > phenomena in modern thought (outside of causation > terminology), but I expect even we would not > ultimately deny the existence of this phenomena and > these intellectual/real principles behind it. Would > we? > > <Many thinkers of the past and of the present think > that > > laws are made of cause and effect relationships. I > > disagree on this point. Causes and effects are > called > > in to preserve laws.> > > I would respond by saying this. Laws are not “made” > of cause and effect relationships. Rather, “causes” > and “effects” (and their corresponding real source > principles) point towards important aspects of > “laws” (and the real principles behind them). The > terms we use and the intellectual formulations we > make roughly “mirror” the realities we are talking > about, but they are not the realities themselves. > > <Does economics assume that "men go for money" ? > That > > does not suffice in itself to explain "business > > cycles" (and many other things, by the way). As far > as > > I know, tne basic paradigm about business cycles is > to > > be found in Paul Lafargue's pamphlet, "The Right to > Be > > Lazy".> > > No problem here! Still, if we end up denying that > people naturally “go for money”, “go [in] for” > trade, and for getting other stuff that they don’t > have right there and then at a particular time and > place, and we set this up as being an entirely > ‘learned’ response, then aren’t we saying that > economics is nothing more than social engineering & > technology? By necessity, must we at some point and > some level of analysis posit a socio-behavioral, > social psychological, (psycho-historical, and > ultimately – sociobiological – substrate to business > cycles and [human] economic activity? > > What do you think? I look forward to your response. > Best! > > Luke R. > > francesco ranci <francescoranci@yahoo.com> wrote: > The not so clear sentence about "effects of effects" > refers to the dominant view, according to S., not to > his own view. I think you know better than me what > he > means. My remarks was just a matter of style. > > Everything can be considered as "cause", as well as > "effect" of something else, but not at the same > time. > "Rain", for evampe, is a cause poddles, as well as > an > effect of storms. But you would not say that a pond > is > an effect of an effect of a storm. > > Something becomes "cause", or "effect", of something > else, by virtue of a specific chain of reasoning > (different chains, in the two cases). > > First you have a paradigm (like "I WALK TO THE BREAD > STORE") > Then you have a difference: ("I FELL IN A PODDLE") > So you can ask yourself how this could happen and > try > an explanation (i.e. consider the event as an effect > of a cause) > All this chain of reasoning does not arise as long > as > you get to the breadstore safe and do not need to > question your paradigm about it. > > Many thinkers of the past and of the present think > tha > laws are made of cause and effect relationships. I > disagree on this point. Causes and effects are > called > in to preserve laws. They may or may not be laws > (paradigms, frames, terms of reference, schemes, > whatever you may want to call them). > > Does economics assume that "men go for money" ? That > does not suffice in itself to explain "business > cycles" (and many other things, by the way). As far > as > I know, tne basic paradigm about business cycles is > to > be found in Paul Lafargue's pamphlet, "The Right to > Be > Lazy". > > > > > > > > --------------------------------- > Do You Yahoo!? > Sign-up for Video Highlights of 2002 FIFA World Cup __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
< < <
Date Index > > > |
World Systems Network List Archives at CSF | Subscribe to World Systems Network |
< < <
Thread Index > > > |