Subject: | |
From: | |
Date: | Fri Mar 31 17:18:24 2006 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
On 12/9/95, Brad De Long wrote:
>it is far from clear to me that postmodern cultural studies
>has anything to contribute or is the right language in which
>to try to think about conceptual frameworks helpful for
>analyzing post-industrial economies.
In response, I would offer Brad's own response to Greg
Ransom on 12/3/95: Argument? Citations?
Even....evidence?
I agree with Brad that the "post-industrial (economies)...are
harder to express in my native tongue--modern economics."
That is why I explore some of these approaches from
outside of the discipline. It is clear that these approaches do
not hold all, if any, answers for economics. But it is possible
that by exploring them new interesting avenues of research
may arise, new topics of debate may be created, or old
topics may become revitalized due to new perspectives.
Even with these philosophical sidetrips, I still manage to do
work on the "real world."
Also, to respond to the "epistemoi," as you call them, that
you propose as determinants of social consciousness, I
would offer your own counsel to Robin Neill on 12/7
concerning a possible epistemological break between
Cantillon, Smith and Mill. That is, that your "epistemoi" are
"mainly a matter of one's taste and purpose." On this
matter, you and Foucault are in agreement.
Jonathon E. Mote
1822 Chestnut #3F
Philadelphia, PA 19103
[log in to unmask]
|
|
|