On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 9:44 PM, Anand Manikutty
<[email protected]> wrote:
> I see. So you don't know what elasticity of substitution is. Well then, we
> have a bigger problem than you not following this particular argument.
> The issue : there is a structure to the arguments here that you are not
> following, and I could see that you weren't seeing it from the beginning.
> The concern : the elasticity of substitution is a rather precise concept and
> until one understands the calculus and the mathematical derivation of this
> concept, there is no point in proceeding further. So really, none of these
> rejoinders ("Bzzt"," It would help if you would start making sense." et
> cetera) were necessary (since they indicate your lack of understanding of my
> responses, not mine of yours), and no response to them is required of me. I
> am concerned about the implication here that there is a problem on my part,
> when, in fact, the problem lies elsewhere.
> The economic concepts I am talking about ('elasticity of substitution', et
> cetera) are nice compact ways of thinking about certain things, but they are
> absolutely foundational. As a start, one could begin by reading the work of
> the Carnegie School on this matter. In particular, I am thinking of the work
> of Herbert Simon. Herbert Simon dealt quite a bit with this topic of the
> substitution of men and women with machines.
I really couldn't make sense of this paragraph no matter how hard I
try to wrap my mind around this. I see that you use the English
alphabet but your floral and verbose language doesn't make any sense
to me. Looks like I am getting a little dense with age.
> As for your question on me being a philosopher, there is no harm in me
> admitting that I have some competency in philosophy, but to appreciate the
> arguments, you would need to understand the literature in economics and
> organizations, not philosophy. That said, many of the world's leading
> philosophers (and religious thinkers) - Moses, Jesus, Mohammed, the Buddha -
> would most likely not follow this argument either, and so if it is any
> consolation, you and Deepa are in good company.
Good one. Nice to see that my favorite god/superhuman historical
figure is not there on your list. It validates what I always knew -
Hinduism is superior to Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Buddhism (in
that order).
> In fact, I wish those philosophers were around so that I could convert them.
> My process of conversion is an amazingly enjoyable one and is nothing more
> than the process of Gnana yoga ("the yoga of knowledge"). I would especially
> enjoy converting Jesus to my way of thinking, I think.
> Anand
> P.S. This is another overarching theoretical response and so one is unable
> to strictly observe the top-post consideration (it has always been a
> consideration in Internet forums, not a requirement) since the theoretical
> considerations are paramount.
PPS W(hat) T(heoretical) F(oundations) !!
