[OPE-L:4985] Re: RE: Reply to Andrew on "Proof"

From: Gerald_A_Levy (Gerald_A_Levy@email.msn.com)
Date: Tue Feb 20 2001 - 02:00:08 EST

Re [OPE-L:4984]:

> Jerry keeps asserting without the least *proof* that
> there is no  possible interpretation of that passage other > than Fred's.

The quotation the so clear and unambivalent that the
proof is the quotation itself.

It is as if there is a debate between B & C over what A wrote about what can
cause a change in X.  Then C brings forward an  unambiguous statement from A
about what, in A's words, can  "clearly" and "only"  cause a change in X
Then the ONLY possible challenge left for B re interpreting the quotation is
to challenge whether A did in fact make this statement or whether it
constituted something like a "typo".  In the present case, no one would make
such a preposterous claim about a "typo" or a "mistranslation", etc..

Again I emphasize that this is a textual debate. The proof  is in Marx's own
words. We are very lucky here to have such a clear and unambiguous
statement -- it is rare indeed for these type of debates.

As for calls elsewhere that I make a retraction, I just see that as part of
a continuing effort to steer the discussion away from the obvious conclusion
about what the smoking gun represents to the TM/AK interpretation of the
transformation. Others I believe, including RB, see the evasion.

To be fair to the TSSI, I think that   interpretation is *much more* than
just a particular interpretation of the transformation. Hence, any
conclusions that are drawn from this debate can not be automatically applied
to other issues addressed by the TSSI.

In solidarity, Jerry

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Mar 01 2001 - 14:01:39 EST