Re: measurement of abstract labor

From: Fred Moseley (fmoseley@MTHOLYOKE.EDU)
Date: Fri Jul 02 2004 - 09:45:01 EDT

On Sun, 27 Jun 2004, Howard Engelskirchen wrote:

> Hi Paul,
> You wrote:
> Metrologists want a standard of weight that does not itself
> 'contain' weight.
> My understanding is that the standard for measuring length is the wave
> length emitted by an isotope of krypton.  I haven't read the issue of
> Science you refer to, but my guess would be that if meterologists are able
> to define weight in terms of something that is not weight it will be because
> they can reduce weight to that property.  You might be able to avoid the
> problem of a mass absorbing mass from the atmosphere, but you won't avoid
> the problem that in comparing two things they must be comparable under some
> common aspect which they share.  Two things are distant from one another
> because they both have existence in space (Marx's critique of Bailey).  Two
> things are comparable in the property of what we now call weight because
> e.g. they both resist acceleration or whatever other common aspect turns out
> to solve the  kilogram problem.
> Howard

Howard, are you suggesting that money as measure of value must be a
commodity today?

Comradely, Fred

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jul 11 2004 - 00:00:01 EDT