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