A history is different from a genealogical dictionary.-E. Roy Weintraub  
  
   It seems to me that history is like literacy.  They both have superficial,  
   seemingly concrete versions that read like a check list and deeper, more  
   sophisticated definitions that are what we are really chasing. -Humberto  
   Barreto  
   ==  
  
   I would wish that some enterprise in deep history would embark on exploring  
   the evolution of the concept, to support  Humberto's chase for the deeper,  
   more sophisticated definitions.  
  
   First, equilibrium as a technical mathematical concept may be far narrower  
   than the intention to convey a sense of causality. In a causal exploration,  
   the historian would like to contrast the mechanistic perspective with the  
   teleological one, and show how the tension between these two approaches  
   affected the concept.  
  
   Secondly, following Roy, I would much rather wish to know what the author  
   managed to convey by using the term equilibrium as a tool. Why would we want  
   to spend much energy just to conduct a genealogical check while we could  
   enrich our understanding if we were to relate the concept of equilibrium  
   with stability for example. Admittedly, the word did already exist in the  
   dictionary. Its use becomes interesting once we are told what meanings it  
   was deployed to carry, and with what success.  
  
   Thirdly, I would love to see someone clarifying the mechanistic conception  
   of equality of opposing forces with the teleological conception of agreement  
   between two people who pursue opposite goals.  The emphasis on the term  
   agreement might reveal the presence of institutional rules that define an  
   otherwise missing context in which the term equilibrium is used commonly.  
   This  is  a  broader  and deeper issue than the mere usage of the term  
   equilibrium. It involves using the term equilibrium within a well-specified  
   concept of causal framework further extended by concepts that establish the  
   economists worldview with clear links to the institutional setting. The  
   institutional setting itself clarifies how the market fits into the overall  
   social situation via-a-vis the state and  element of culture.  
  
   My third point is probably obscure. The intention is to recognize that  
   voluntary exchange is an institutional alternative to plunder, and that the  
   institution must exist to ensure that the buyer pays the seller according to  
   well understood rules of exchange. These rules are enforceable by society  
   which wants to prevent plunder and mandate payment. To connect the notion of  
   equilibrium (as agreement) to the institutional basis of market agreement  
   would  vastly improve our understanding and bring the kind of economic  
   literacy Humberto mentioned in his message. To go beyond a dictionary, we  
   need to build our worldview in which the term has to represent a certain  
   clear piece of the economic universe. In that universe, the individual is  
   connected to others in the market's catallaxy.  
  
   Such a deep history would help us understand the various streams of thought  
   with a more profound immersion. But who is to take the dive?  
  
   Mohammad Gani