This discussion about Hayek raises an interesting question. Many of 
"us" are involved not so much in the history of economics but the 
history of individuals who are classified consensually as economists. Of 
course these two subjects are not easily separable, since the objects of 
our study typically define their own work in terms of the work of their 
predecessors and peers.

In any case, my point is that many of these objects of our study surely 
have minds that are far more complex than those of us who write papers 
and books about them. The question raised by this discussion of Hayek is 
this. It is difficult for me to imagine anyone who is even partly 
familiar with Hayek's works not stepping back in awe -- in admiration of 
his interpretation of commonplace phenomena in ways that can have no 
other effect than to expand the cognitive horizon of the reader who 
knows how the phenomena has been previously interpreted. Examples are 
his two brilliant papers on equilibrium (Economics and Knowledge) and 
the use of particular knowledge in society. Beyond these strictly 
economic contributions are his various interpretations of philosophy, 
epistemology, politics, and the field of social science in general. 
Given these "awesome" contributions, what kind of mind, and person, 
would it take to interpret his works in a way that would meet with 
Hayek's own, prime state of mind, approval?
A similar question can, of course, be asked about any historian of ideas 
who attempts to study a particular "economist." But for the real masters 
of our "science," it is far more important. If their minds are not 
studied by someone who is up to the task, it is probable that the 
brilliant ideas of our predecessors be lost to future generations.

Studying a great economist in history requires quite a bit of 
self-confidence and perhaps arrogance, doesn't it? An unedited version 
of The Fatal Conceit is research material. But it seems to me that a 
whole lot more is required than one more piece of research material to 
capture Hayek for future generations. Nevertheless, it can hardly hurt. 
On the other hand, I personally don't recall learning anything new from 
the version I read., although this might be due to the fact that the 
editor misinterpreted Hayek's meaning and intent. Am I likely to learn 
something new from an unedited version. What, I might ask a promoter of 
the project, is that likely to be?

I am reminded of the infinite number of monkeys typing away on 
typewriters through infinity. They would eventually type all of the 
great books. But how is that relevant to someone who is trying to 
determine what a great book really is? What, one might ask a supporter 
of the unedited Hayek version of Fatal Conceit, is one likely to learn 
that is useful?

-- 
Pat Gunning
Professor of Economics
Groton, Connecticut
http://www.nomadpress.com/gunning/welcome.htm