Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 10:26:28 -0600 (MDT)
Subject: BHA: Re: Diffraction Post one



I think you just gave the right amount of info, Ruth.  Now
that we know that you will talk about ontological
monovalence next, we can wait with the continuance of this
discussion until it is your turn.


Here is another remark in response to Gary: does RB really
insist that Marx's dialectic is epistemological?  Whatever
RB says, I don't think it is, but since you are bringing it
up, I'd like to make there the following observation:

The usual translations of *Capital* (both Moore-Aveling
and Fowkes) often transpose passages where Marx talks about
the movement and activity of the social relations into
passages where the thinking about these processes is
described, not the processes themselves.  I.e., the
translation introduces the epistemic fallacy into Marx's
text, which is not there originally.  I collected a number
of such places in my Annotations to Capital, and if there is
interest, I would be willing to send these examples to the
list.  This is important in the present context: if RB
claims that Marx criticizes Hegel for committing the
epistemic fallacy, then it is important to know that Marx
himself, in the German text of *Capital*, did *not* commit
the epistemic fallacy.


Hans E.




     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---