IMPORTANT: If you cite this message, OPE-L policy requires you not to reveal the identity of the author.
You may cite this message only if you do not disclose who wrote it.
|
> What
do you propose then?
Hi Diego:
I propose that one begin by identifying and then
ordering all
of the levels of abstraction associated with the
subject. This
requires, as a prerequisite, that one has a clear
idea of
exactly what the subject is that you wish to
explain.
Then fill in that 'outline' enough so that
one is more clear
which questions/issues are answered at each level
of
abstraction.
Then, always being clear which level of
abstraction you are
dealing with, discuss the subject systematically
from the
most abstract to the most concrete necessary level
of
abstraction. It might be possible (and,
indeed, I think it is
permissible) to have an order of exposition which
doesn't follow quite the same order provided one
has already
worked out analytically all of the
inter-connections. But,
for purposes of dialogue, it is less confusing to
proceed
in the above order.
In solidarity,
Jerry
|
- Re: [OPE-L] questions on the interpretation of labour values, (continued)
- Re: [OPE-L] questions on the interpretation of labour values, Jerry Levy Thu 22 Feb 2007, 15:56 GMT
- Re: [OPE-L] questions on the interpretation of labour values, Diego Guerrero Fri 23 Feb 2007, 10:27 GMT
- Re: [OPE-L] questions on the interpretation of labour values, Jerry Levy Fri 23 Feb 2007, 14:59 GMT
- Re: [OPE-L] questions on the interpretation of labour values, Diego Guerrero Sun 25 Feb 2007, 09:04 GMT
- Re: [OPE-L] questions on the interpretation of labour values, Jerry Levy Sun 25 Feb 2007, 15:09 GMT
- Re: [OPE-L] questions on the interpretation of labour values, Diego Guerrero Sun 25 Feb 2007, 20:27 GMT
- Re: [OPE-L] questions on the interpretation of labour values, Philip Dunn Mon 26 Feb 2007, 02:07 GMT
- Re: [OPE-L] questions on the interpretation of labour values, Pen-L Fred Moseley Mon 26 Feb 2007, 02:51 GMT
- Re: [OPE-L] questions on the interpretation of labour values, Howard Engelskirchen Mon 26 Feb 2007, 04:32 GMT