>>> kelley <kcwalker at syr.edu> 08/26/99 06:07PM >>>
>Charles: I'll agree to that if you agree that it is an imperfect kind of
perfect knowledge.
> Yoshie: I think that a non-Hegelian view of knowledge and reality, as
advanced by
Roy Bhaskar (and Marx himself for that matter), obviates an alleged
equation of planning with the presumption of "complete or perfect"
knowledge (which I don't think Charles is presuming in any case, I may
add).
well apparently so given charles reversion to perfect knowledge in the above.
((((((((((((
Charles: If you want a more complete discussion of the dialectic of relative and absolute truth, I suggest you look at _Materialism and Empirio-Criticism_ by V.I. Lenin. I'll tell you the specific chapter if you are interested.
Just to demystify it some, for example, the fact that Napoleon died in 18__ whatever is an absolute truth. Most absolute truth that we know is trivial. I gave the gas station attendant a five dollar bill last night. That is absolutely true. So what ? "Absolute truth" is not a mysterious or religious notion.
You are using the word "perfect" , which I don't.
The truth is infinite and we are finite beings , so our understanding of the absolute truth of the whole is always relative.
The fact that some scientific discovery in the future ( something our knowledge is imperfect about now) will create wants that we cannot anticipate right now in planning the economy, does not prevent a satisfactory planning of the economy based on our current, relative understanding of wants and needs.
Charles Brown