Re: Money, mind and the ontological status of value

From: Paul Zarembka (zarembka@BUFFALO.EDU)
Date: Wed Jun 16 2004 - 17:21:57 EDT

Howard Engelskirchen <howarde@TWCNY.RR.COM> said, on 06/16/04, answering Costas:

>... But my assumption is that exchange
>value is a form of manifestation of value only, so the argument is

>if EV, then V
>EV exists
>Therefore V

>which is a pretty normal form of valid argument. ...


  Why is the above "valid"?  You are still presuming your conclusion, in the most obvious, direct way => "EV exists, therefore V exists"; as in: EV is reality, therefore V is reality.

  I notice that you haven't answered (or did I miss them?) either the posting by myself or Fred M.'s, both on Jun. 7, concerning theory v. reality.

  I now offer "if EV, then Xenobiopsy; EV exists, therefore Xenobiopsy exists".  Except for its unfamilarity, what wrong with my logic?  I believe it is no more better, nor worse, than your own.  That is, both are empty of content (neither V or "Xenobiopsy" add one iota to knowledge once EV is known to exist), UNLESS V or "Xenobiopsy" is independently established.  Why is this point so hard to understand?

Sorry for being a pain in the neck, Paul Z.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jun 18 2004 - 00:00:01 EDT