----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- 
 
Attempting to name the greatest economist MAY be an "unproductive"  
exercise.  But, can we explain WHY is may be "unproductive"?   
 
>From a Postmodern view, the author of a text is dead, and the text  
itself takes on meaning only in the information environment in which it  
is placed.  In short, from another point of view, knowledge is  
subjective and relative.  Selection of the greatest economist is only a  
reflection of the present state of opinion and concern, and of the  
subjective beliefs of the selector.  All of which is to say  that,  
objectively, there is no such thing as "the greatest economist".   
 
If all of this is true, however, selecting the greatest economist is the  
same thing as specifying the bias [or set of biases] in the current  
information environment.  Would not that be "productive"?   
 
The term "productive" has to be put in quotes, to indicate some  
ambiguity in its meaning.  The process of chosing the greatest  
economist requires a definition of the term "productive".  To simply  
assert that the exercise is "unproductive" is just to plunge into a sea of  
semiotic confusion.   
 
Robin Neill 
 
------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]