Subject: | |
From: | |
Date: | Fri Mar 31 17:18:34 2006 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
----------------- 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]
|
|
|