Thanks for your extensive elaboration. My understanding of "mapping" in mathematics is, that it has a more specific meaning than you use.
I get your idea about a fixed point, but it is only one way of looking at it, and not the only logically compelling or most obvious one. If JB at time (t1) is the same and yet different at time (t2), the continuities and discontinuities can be expressed in the first instance simply as constants and variables. The concept of aggregation is essentially an empiricist concept, whereby we arrive at a generalization by adding up and distinguishing groups of sense data (observations). An empiricist generalization is certainly useful, but has its limits. Firstly, there are generalizations from experience which are not reducible to particular experiences but go beyond them (reductionism has its pitfalls). Secondly, in dialectical theory we can envisage the particular and the general as existing together and related to each other as part of a totality. A "social force" would then for example presuppose the actions of individuals, but also be semi-autonomous from them, in such a way that they mutually influence each other. But this is just talking very abstractly, and it is not very useful - after all we want to know how specifically the interaction of individuals'activity and a social force actually occurs. The basic problem with abstract labour is analogous to me staying the same, and yet not staying the same. I mean abstract labour is a developing category and not an eternally fixed one. So for example, if labour is traded as a commodity in the market, this has evolutionary consequences for the way that labour is treated and organized in the workplace and elsewhere. J.
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
