John, after reading your post carefully, it seems that you are inviting   
me to have a discussion about the meaning of truth, about the "most   
important elements in a man's life," and about your novel conception of   
"gift." I do not regard the HES list as the proper forum for such a   
discussion.  
  
I will, however, make two comments on your interpretation of Mises.  
  
1. Regarding the "method of imaginary constructions," there is no real   
puzzle unless you are looking for something more profound than Mises   
intends. I am sure that you will agree that to define anything, we must   
imagine the thing without one or more of the attributes that we employ   
in our definition. What we imagine is, to Mises, an imaginary   
construction. This is all that Mises means by an imaginary construction.   
It is also what he has in mind when he says that economics and   
praxeology cannot do without imaginary constructions. He applies this   
general idea to what he calls praxeological phenomena -- phenomena   
related to what he calls action. The method of imaginary constructions   
is a means of reaching an understanding of a specific case of economic   
interaction by conceiving of the interaction in the absence of some   
characteristic that we use to define it. The significance of the   
procedure lies with how one comes to define economic interaction, an   
issue that is too complex to get into here.  
  
2. Regarding your interpretation of Mises's use of the terms   
"contractual" and "hegemonic" to refer to "social relations" as a basis   
for constructing a "theory of society" (your language), you seem to be   
taking his terms out of context. You apparently want his terms to refer   
to what you have in mind when you use the words "social relations" and   
"society." However, you will see upon closer examination that he uses   
these terms to refer to types of cooperation. So while his goal is to   
build a theory of cooperation, your goal appears to be to build a much   
broader or deeper theory. Do you think it wise to fault a writer for   
writing about a subject that is different from the one with which you   
are concerned? (I think that Mises does write elsewhere about the   
subject you seem concerned with. I would elaborate on this but I prefer   
that you first state independently, without reference to Mises or anyone   
else, the issues that you think one should deal with.)  
  
Permit me to end with a suggestion in the form of a question. If you do   
not believe that you are a Mises scholar, then don't you think it   
inappropriate to include a criticism of Mises's work in your writings   
about other subjects?  
  
Pat Gunning