Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 12:20:46 +0200
From: Bwanika <Daniel.BwanikaH961-AT-stud.oru.se>
Subject: Re: BHA: individual-based models vs. TMSA



Tobin 

Thanks for your explanation. It is also known that different atoms have
different atomic weight and resonance i.e. vibrations. Therefore if I were
to measure copper or an iron plate atomic structure, I will get different
resonance at different wavelength. Therefore atoms in copper as opposed to
those of iron resonate on the same wave length- therefore rational.  It
will be untrue of people le us say in view of the collapse of the stock
exchange or watching a documentary on nature in Alps late in the evening.

To assume particular people will respond to low prices exactly in the same
way, as when one heats an iron bar can lead us to ask many questions. I do
believe this were rational choice theory is facing great problems.

It brings me back to the difficult of causation and reductionism in social
science. It seems there is a tendency to assume, there is no particularity
among persons.

In Plato etc. pg., 78 Bhaskar writes that it is important to differentiate
within the class of
 
a) concrete singularities, conceived as compounds, conjunctures,
condensates, outcomes or results

b) the concrete singularity of the inividual human agent.  The latter will
have (i) a universal aspect, constituted by our shared species-being (which
gives grounds for a core equality), (ii) particular mediations
characterising her by age, gender, nationality , ethnicity , class etc.
(iii) in various process of rhythmic formation, (iv) with idiograhic
features uniquely individuating her.

I have linked this argument to the social cube and derivation the nexus of
antagonistic ideologies thereof.  This is an interesting explanatory critic
of dialectic causality since within present social models, particularly in
regard to those arguing for symbolic interaction (I) and Social Psychology.

Likewise in the economics of the organisation ( just imagine combination of
input to reach optimal output) one will find that firms are organised
differently. Therefore IBM computers are not the cheapest though sales
might be slightly higher than DELL. The entire argument puts in question
what is meant by democracy. 

thanks again.

bwanika
At 07:26 2000-03-26 -0500, you wrote:
>Bwanika wrote:
>
>> What is the etymology of the word "person" and "individual"
>
>Person: from the Greek "persona," meaning mask, character, or role (in
>classical times, as in a play; earlier, probably in religious rituals).
>
>Individual: not divided or divisible.  The classical Latin translation for
>the Greek "atomia," or atom.  (Of course, now we know that atoms *are*
>divisible, extensively so, but we're stuck with the word.)
>
>The question being...?  There are difficulties in making philosophical
>arguments through etymology (as indicated by the etymology of "etymology":
>the "true" meaning is the original meaning), though it can be very
>suggestive nevertheless.  In any case, the two terms are clearly not
>identical in meaning, and from at least one (and probably more)
>perspectives, one might rationally argue that society consists of people but
>not of individuals.  I think (D)CR would go with some version of that
>position.  Regardless, the person = individual equation is not necessarily
>obvious or true.
>
>---
>Tobin Nellhaus
>nellhaus-AT-mail.com
>"Faith requires us to be materialists without flinching": C.S. Peirce
>
>
>
>
>     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>
>


__________________

Bwanika

Uganda  Home Pages Ltd.

url: http://www.uganda.co.ug
tel:     +256 (0) 41 235  910 
e-mail   uhpl-AT-starcom.co.ug
             Bwanika-AT-nero.oru.se




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