[Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value'

[Wolff-Michael Roth]

Julian,
I have shown it in a number of cases: the contradiction exists in the
in-principle different supersensuous aspect, what Bateson refers to as the
double vision that IS the relation! Michael

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor
Applied Cognitive Science
MacLaurin Building A567
University of Victoria
Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2
http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth <http://education2.uvic.ca/faculty/mroth/>

New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics
<https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/new-directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of-mathematics/>*

On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 2:01 PM, Julian Williams <
julian.williams@manchester.ac.uk> wrote:

> Michael
>
> In principle I am Ok with the idea of the unit that contains the essential
> contradictions… but of what?
>
> For Marx the whole point of commodity exchange/value is that it is the
> beginning of an explanation of the 'economy', capitalism, and the labour
> theory of value is the key to its collapse …
>
> What is the equivalent 'point' of sign exchange in dialogue? And where is
> the equivalent of the theory of value? I think the sensuous/supersensuous
> is a distraction from the 'point'.
>
> That’s my puzzle.
>
> Julian
>
>
>
> On 17/04/2017 21:49, "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of
> Wolff-Michael Roth" <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of
> wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Hi Julian,
> >the sign is to the verbal exchange what the commodity is to the commodity
> >exchange--both the sensuous and supersensuous parts are there that Marx
> >and
> >Vygotsky are writing about. :-)
> >Michael
> >
> >-----------------------------------------------------------
> ---------------
> >------
> >Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor
> >Applied Cognitive Science
> >MacLaurin Building A567
> >University of Victoria
> >Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2
> >http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth <http://education2.uvic.ca/faculty/mroth/>
> >
> >New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics
> ><https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/new-
> directions-in-mat
> >hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of-mathematics/>*
> >
> >On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 12:11 PM, Julian Williams <
> >julian.williams@manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> Michael and all
> >>
> >> I am coming late to this discussion and maybe have been missing some
> >> important thingsŠ but I want to see a few issues addressed by the
> >>Functor:
> >> Commodity => Sign: my skepticism follows to some extent the critique I
> >> wrote of the mapping 'labor = learning' that you are familiar with: but
> >>in
> >> some ways I am even more skeptical of this metaphor. So:
> >>
> >> Commodity to sign, is a unit of a totality as in 'economy' to .. 'Š? Š '
> >> What ? Maybe 'dialogue/discourse'?
> >>
> >> What is the 'value' that is exchanged in discourse, and how does it
> >> ultimately realise its 'use value' in some sort of dialogic
> >>'consumption'
> >> of useful understanding?
> >>
> >> How does the producer of value 'labour' to produce it, and how is the
> >> 'labour time' related to the 'exchange value' of the sign that results?
> >> [Bearing in mind that the labour theory of value is Marx's essential
> >> contribution.]
> >>
> >> Then how does this work relate to devious studies: we already have the
> >> work of Bourdieu who assigns cultural capital/value to symbolic power in
> >> the cultural fieldŠ is there a connection here?
> >>
> >> Best regards as ever
> >>
> >> Julian
> >>
> >> Ps I need to come back to you about Hegel (I am far from happy with
> >> reading the 'Ideal' as a straightforward negation of the 'Real' implicit
> >> in what you sayŠ) when I have thought about this a bit more - maybe in
> >> 2018Š we should pick up!   :-)
> >>
> >> On 17/04/2017 18:22, "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of
> >> Wolff-Michael Roth" <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of
> >> wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Hi Larry,
> >> >things become easier to think through if you do not take an
> >>individualist
> >> >starting point but a relational one---not "she has to produce . .  ."
> >>but
> >> >look at what is happening in the exchange, where each giving also is
> >> >taking, such that in a commodity exchange, you have double
> >>giving-taking;
> >> >in a verbal exchange, each speaking also involves listening and
> >>receiving,
> >> >and the receiving is for the purpose of giving (speaking, replying). As
> >> >soon as you do this, you remain with back-and-forth movement, no longer
> >> >action but transaction.
> >> >
> >> >The other interesting thing is that the Russian word znachenie,
> >>translated
> >> >as "meaning" (really, signification) also translates as "value" and
> >> >"magnitude," and Il'enkov (2009) parenthetically adds "function" and
> >> >"rôle". I am quoting from p. 178:
> >> >
> >> >Marx joins Hegel as regards terminology, and not Kant or Fichte,
> >> >who tried to solve the problem of Œideality¹ (i.e., activity) while
> >> >remaining Œinside
> >> >consciousness¹, without venturing into the external
> >>sensuously-perceptible
> >> >corporeal
> >> >world, the world of the palpable-corporeal forms and relations of
> >>things.
> >> >     This Hegelian definition of the term Œideality¹ takes in the whole
> >> >range of phenomena
> >> >within which the Œideal¹, understood as the corporeally embodied form
> >>of
> >> >the activity of
> >> >social man, really exists ­ as activity in the form of the thing, or
> >> >conversely, as the thing
> >> >in the form of activity, as a Œmoment¹ of this activity, as its
> >>fleeting
> >> >metamorphoses.
> >> >     Without an understanding of this state of affairs it would be
> >>totally
> >> >impossible to fathom
> >> >the miracles performed by the commodity before people¹s eyes, the
> >> >commodity-form of
> >> >the product, particularly in its dazzling money-form, in the form of
> >>the
> >> >notorious Œreal
> >> >talers¹, Œreal roubles¹, or Œreal dollars¹, things which, as soon as we
> >> >have the slightest
> >> >theoretical understanding of them, immediately turn out to be not
> >>Œreal¹
> >> >at
> >> >all, but Œideal¹
> >> >through and through, things whose category quite unambiguously includes
> >> >words, the
> >> >units of language, and many other Œthings¹. Things that, while being
> >> >wholly
> >> >Œmaterial¹,
> >> >palpable-corporeal formations, acquire all their Œmeaning¹ (function
> >>and
> >> >rôle) from Œspirit¹,
> >> >from Œthought¹ and even owe to it their specific corporeal existence.
> >> >Outside spirit and
> >> >without it there cannot even be words; there is merely a vibration of
> >>the
> >> >air.
> >> >
> >> >Michael
> >> >
> >> >-----------------------------------------------------------
> >> ---------------
> >> >------
> >> >Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor
> >> >Applied Cognitive Science
> >> >MacLaurin Building A567
> >> >University of Victoria
> >> >Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2
> >> >http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth <http://education2.uvic.ca/faculty/mroth/>
> >> >
> >> >New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics
> >> ><https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/new-
> >> directions-in-mat
> >> >hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of-mathematics/>*
> >> >
> >> >On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 8:31 AM, <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> I am attempting to follow Wolff-Michael¹s trajectory as presented in
> >>his
> >> >> article (A Dialectical Materialist Reading of the Sign). On page 149
> >>he
> >> >> attempts to clarify the difference between sign complex Œuse-value¹ &
> >> >>sign
> >> >> complex Œvalue¹.
> >> >> His methodology is to read Marx Œsubstituting¹ the word ŒSIGN¹
> >>(implying
> >> >> sign complex) FOR Œcommodity¹ and intuites this method will be
> >> >>generative.
> >> >>
> >> >> Here is his realization through the method of re-reading as (trading,
> >> >> translation, transposition) as I am carried along.
> >> >>
> >> >> a) USE-VALUE:  Œnatural signs¹ such as animal footprints are
> >> >> useful/functional to the hunter inherently; they do NOT have Œvalue¹
> >> >> (exchangeble value) though they do have use-value for the hunter or
> >> >>hunting
> >> >> party in finding game.  Similarly a sign complex can be useful and
> >>the
> >> >> product of human labour without being Œvalue¹ (exchangeable). Someone
> >> >>who
> >> >> satisfies HER needs through her product produces Œuse-value¹ but NOT
> >> >> Œvalue¹.
> >> >> b) VALUE: (exchangeable). To produce SIGNS (complexes), she has to
> >> >>produce
> >> >> not only Œuse-value¹ but use-value FOR others. She has to produce
> >> >> Œsocietal¹ use-values.... To be/come (exchangeable) SIGN, the product
> >> >>HAS
> >> >> TO BE TRANSFERRED to another, FOR whom the SIGN complex Œconstitutes¹
> >> >> use-value.
> >> >>
> >> >> The production of signs that produce no Œvalue¹ that is exchangeable
> >>FOR
> >> >> others leads to personal notes often having NO use-value to others.
> >>To
> >> >> trans/form use-value to BE come Œvalue¹ requires exchangeability
> >>under
> >> >> lighting various forms of SIGN (complexes).
> >> >>
> >> >> Apologies to Wolff-Michael if my echoing his re-reading methodology
> >> >> garrbled the trans/mission?
> >> >>
> >> >> I offer this because it helps clarify my reading of Œuse-value¹ &
> >> >>Œvalue¹
> >> >> (exchangeable)
> >> >> My morning musement
> >> >>
> >> >> Sent from my Windows 10 phone
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>
>