[OPE-L:6525] Re: [OPE] What is prior?

Alan Freeman (a.freeman@greenwich.ac.uk)
Thu, 30 Apr 1998 22:44:46 +0200

Chris writes:
> 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

Why avoid it?

It seems to me that the result is neither clarity, nor unity.

It could be that I jumped the gun in my reading of Fred's response,
however, since I assumed it contained a typo.

It looks to me as if Fred agrees only if the shift is interpreted in terms
of logical levels, and disagrees if interpreted temporally. So avoiding the
choice brings no

Moreover, that which is temporally prior, is not logically prior, and vice
versa. When we use the word 'prior' as with any contentious or abiguous
terms, I think we have a duty to the reader to make clear what we mean; so
avoiding the choice adds no clarity, either.

Otherwise, surely, an unqualified use of the word 'prior' muddies the
water; it leaves the reader with the impression that temporal priority is
involved when, as Fred has I think made clear, this is not what he intends.
Using the word therefore covers up the fact that, on the basis of Fred's
interpretation, the value created in production can indeed be altered in
the process of distribution, after (temporally) it has been created.