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

[mike cole]

Thanks for the tip on the Harris book, David. I know his work mostly
through his book on the origin of writing.

Which reminds me of a question for David K. Why is it that you make
reference to primitive children, David? Why not primitive adults as well?

mike

On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 12:10 AM, WEBSTER, DAVID S. <
d.s.webster@durham.ac.uk> wrote:

> Reflexivity and the thorny question of metalanguage seems to be at issue
> here: might I suggest that the late Roy Harris's book 'The Language
> Connection' might set the scene. Harris's description of how Linguistics
> constantly fails to define the word 'word' is wonderful.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@
> mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of mike cole
> Sent: 21 April 2017 01:47
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value'
>
> Choosing your wording carefully, David, you come up with "wording" to
> describe what I think of as the holophrases in question. To help me clarify
> your point for myself, and to use your way of communicating about it,  how
> does the wording "wording" relate to the wordings "statement" or
> "utterance" offered by Michael in the first case and by others in the group
> on behalf of Bakhtin?
>
> is there a holphorastic rendering/wording that might help us out here?
>
> Mike
>
> PS- As an afterthought, the examples feel like an utterance to me. But
> that might make a liar out of me too :-)
>
> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 4:33 PM, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > In English, the number of syllables or morphemes in a word is often
> > unclear, while the number of words in a sentence is always fairly clear.
> > This isn't true for preliterate children, who have a hard time
> > understanding that "a" and "of" are actually words. It's true enough
> > for people who can read and write, but its really an accident of
> > orthography (notice that "it's" appears to be one syllable but two
> > morphemes, and it's not really clear, even to the normally quite
> > overwheening "wordcount" function in Word, how many words are actually
> > there.
> >
> > Other languages are not like English. So for example in Chinese (a
> > non-alphabetic language), the number of syllables and morphemes is
> > always clear, but the number of words in a sentence is quite unclear
> > (when you read a page of Chinese, there are no spaces between
> > morpho-syllables that mark out "words". Chinese poetry, and classical
> > Chinese, plays with this a lot: the unit is the morpheme rather than
> > the word, and the overall effect (at least on me) is a stream of
> > syllables and morphemes and meanings but not words.
> >
> > So I think the place to look for Vygotsky's unit of analysis is not in
> > the actual word "word" or "word meaning" (slovo or znachenie slova).
> > Holbrook Mahn has proposed translating "znachenie slova" as "verbal
> > meaning", and although this isn't exactly an accurate way of
> > presenting how Russian grammar really works, it IS a good way of
> > getting around the trap set for those who are only going by the English
> word meaning of "word meaning".
> >
> > I think the place to look is in Vygotsky's examples. In the first part
> > of Thinking and Speech, for example, Vygotsky agrees with Stern that
> > the child's first "word" has to be construed as not a word but a whole
> wording.
> > He goes even further: he says it's a whole "wording-in-context", that
> > is, a meaning. (And remember, Vygotsky NEVER agrees with Stern about
> > ANYTHING unless he absolutely has to!) And in the LAST part of
> > Thinking and Speech, Vygotsky gives many examples: 'the clock fell",
> > "the tram B is arriving", "Would you like some tea"? What all of these
> > examples have in common is that they are not single words but they are
> single wordings.
> >
> > Remember that Russian has no articles; this is something that Andy
> > himself points out with respect to whether "perezhivanie" should be "a
> > perizhivanie" or just "perizhivanie". I think Andy's observation is
> > essentially correct (although of course we undo part of his insight
> > when we insist that all languages must "really" have an article of
> > some kind). But it needs to be generalized: Vygotsky could NOT have
> > ever written that the unit of analysis is "a" word meaning, simply
> > because "a", as any preliterate child will tell you, is not a word
> > (and certainly not a Russian word).
> >
> > David Kellogg
> > Macquarie University
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 5:19 PM, WEBSTER, DAVID S. <
> > d.s.webster@durham.ac.uk
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > Re the development of punctuation and the origin of 'words' see
> > > http://www.cogsci.ecs.soton.ac.uk/cgi/psyc/newpsy?3.61
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@
> > > mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of mike cole
> > > Sent: 20 April 2017 01:45
> > > To: Andy Blunden; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value'
> > >
> > > "the word" in Russian, Andy, has shades of meaning tending toward
> > > the biblical from current common understandings of the term as a
> > > sort
> > "lexical
> > > object."  The Vai didnotmakethesamedistinction when writing and
> > > neithr
> > did
> > > the Greeks.
> > > I believe there are those who would include the utterance in its
> > > meaning as used by Vygotsky. Slippery these translation problems!
> > > But discussion
> > of
> > > them often reveals clarification of the various concepts involved as
> > > they appear in different peoples' vocabularies. Mediation has some
> > > of those properties.
> > >
> > > The polysemy of just one language is enough for one poor translator
> > > to deal with! The polsyemic playing field when you cross
> > > language/cultural systems is what gives academics something to do.
> > > :-)
> > >
> > > mike
> > >
> > > mike
> > >
> > > On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 5:26 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > and as a further note of caution, the unit in "Thinking and
> > > > Speech" is a word, not an utterance, and yet it is utterance which
> > > > seems to be analogous to "commodity."
> > > >
> > > > Andy
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > Andy Blunden
> > > > http://home.mira.net/~andy
> > > > http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-mak
> > > > ing On 20/04/2017 7:01 AM, Julian Williams wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Michael/all
> > > >>
> > > >> I  go back a few posts (as ever being a bit slower than this
> > > >> list-serve demands - let me do this before the discussion moves
> > > >> to 'binocular
> > > >> vision') and challenge the metaphor of commodity/utterance: I can
> > > >> see it has merit but also I want to look at the limitations.
> > > >>
> > > >> You say: 'the sign is to the verbal exchange what the commodity
> > > >> is to the Commodity-exchange' … But I think I was asking for a
> > > >> characterisation of the larger totality involved - e.g. The
> > > >> 'economy/mode of production and its contradictions/collapse' and
> > > >> 'what
> > > - dialogue?'
> > > >>
> > > >> And I think Andy B agrees with you when he says 'both take an
> > > >> artefact-mediated relation between individuals as the unit'… But
> > > >> suggests he recognises my problem when he refers to 'its language'
> > > >> (or I might say 'consciousness', 'discourse'  or maybe
> 'intercourse').
> > > >>
> > > >> But - as I argued in critique of the metaphor 'labour =
> > > >> learning', this mapping only goes so far, and has certain
> > > >> dangers. The relation between commodity/economy (and the mode of
> > > >> production) and utterance/discourse (and the ideological
> > > >> super/infra-structure) is much more interesting in the concrete
> > > >> relations of history. I refer to Marx (the German ideology) and
> Volosinov.
> > > >>
> > > >> In reality the relation between commodity production and
> > > >> 'sign-related/mediated' discourse (Marx calls 'intercourse') is
> > > >> dialectical. Each 'mediates' the other in historical development,
> > > >> and even in collective production-and-dialogue.
> > > >>
> > > >> Thus, I suggest, the 'exchange/use value' of an
> > > >> utterance/dialogic exchange maybe ought to be examined in the
> > > >> ideological context of its relationship with the 'whole' of
> > > >> social re/production where class power becomes visible. I don't
> > > >> know how to do this, but the argument is there in
> > > >> Bourdieu: the power relations between people are part of the
> > > >> capital-mediated structure of relations in a field (including the
> > > >> field of opinion/discourse), and this explains the forms of
> > > >> discourse that express these power relationships and help to hold
> > > >> powerful positions in place in the field. In this view it is not
> > > >> possible to identify the 'value' of an utterance or a sign
> > > >> outside of this wider analysis… and an analysis of the particular
> > > >> discursive/cultural field
> > > within its wider sociality.
> > > >>
> > > >> Sorry this is a bit prolix and so likely to provoke tangential
> > > responses:
> > > >> I did not have time tonight to write a shorter more focussed post.
> > > >>
> > > >> Best wishes
> > > >>
> > > >> Julian
> > > >>
> > > >> Ps The separate discussion on mediation: this might be another
> > > >> thread. I only want to note here that the mediation of the
> > > >> 'intercourse' through its 'other' in the material form of
> > > >> 'production' (I call the economy above) and vice versa does not
> > > >> involve a mediator 'between' the two, but is purely hegelian in
> > > >> seeing the mediation of 'x' through 'not x' in a totality.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On 18/04/2017 16:34, "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:
> > > >>
> > > >> Larry, do not be confused. Take it with Bateson (Mind and
> > > >> Nature), and see
> > > >>> Andy and Michael as two eyes. You then get this:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> It is correct (and a great improvement) to begin to think of the
> > > >>> two parties to the interaction as two eyes , each giving a
> > > >>> monocular view of what goes on and , together , giving a
> > > >>> binocular view in depth. This double view is the relationship .
> > > >>> (p.133)
> > > >>>
> > > >>> What is gained by comparing the data collected by one eye with
> > > >>> the data collected by the other? Typically , both eyes are aimed
> > > >>> at the same region of the surrounding universe, and this might
> > > >>> seem to be a wasteful use of the sense organs. But the anatomy
> > > >>> indicates that very considerable advantage must accrue from this
> > > >>> usage. The innervation of the two retinas and the creation at
> > > >>> the optic chiasma of pathways for the redistribution of
> > > >>> information is such an extraordinary feat of morphogenesis as
> > > >>> must surely denote great evolutionary advantage . (p.69)
> > > >>>
> > > >>> 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-dir
> > > >>> ections-in-mat
> > > >>> hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of-mathematics/>*
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 8:18 AM, Andy Blunden
> > > >>> <ablunden@mira.net>
> > > wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> different trajectories, Larry.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> a
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >>>> Andy Blunden
> > > >>>> http://home.mira.net/~andy
> > > >>>> http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-
> > > >>>> maki ng On 18/04/2017 11:44 PM, lpscholar2@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Andy, Julian, Michael,
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> My learning curve at this moment is in the way of Michael
> > > >>>>> describing the back and forth double movement. That is both
> > > >>>>> giving/receiving, both
> > > >>>>> (expressing/listening) occurring WITHIN our relationship. This
> > > >>>>> prior to or more primordial then taking the individual stance
> > > >>>>> as primary and the relation as derivative.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> So... In this ‘spirit’ I will pose a question?
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Andy says: ‘artefact mediated relation BETWEEN INDIVIDUALS as
> > > >>>>> a
> > unit.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Michael says: You remain with back-and-forth movement that is
> > > >>>>> NEVER action but IS transcation. Here the back-and-forth
> > > >>>>> ‘relation’ is the UNIT, and the individuals emerge from WITHIN
> > > >>>>> this primordial double relation.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Are Andy and Michael on the same trajectory, shifting the
> > > >>>>> accent, or are imdividuals situated differently in the
> > > >>>>> comtrasting notions of units.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> In particular does Andy ‘figure’ bridges whereas Michael
> ‘figures’
> > > >>>>> gaps in the notion of BETWEEN.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Pursuing my growing edge, going out on a limb
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> *From: *Andy Blunden <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>
> > > >>>>> *Sent: *April 17, 2017 11:54 PM
> > > >>>>> *To: *xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> > > >>>>> *Subject: *[Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value'
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Julian/Michael,
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> I remember getting very excited back in the early '80s when
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> I spotted the symmetry between the first chapters of Capital
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> and Marx's critique of algebra in his Mathematical
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Manuscripts. That lasted about a week. The symmetry between
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Vygotsky's analysis of speech and Marx's analysis of
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> production is a strong one because both take an
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> artefact-mediated relation between individuals as the unit.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> There is a symmetry at the level of the molar unit as well,
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> which, so far as I know has been neglected. But this
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> structural symmetry cannot usefully be taken too far. The
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> "point" is that the unit is a unit of a whole, and the
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> productive activity of a community is not the same as its
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> language, which as Marx said "the philosophers are bound to
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> make into an independent realm." Concretely, speaking is not
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> producing. But like all human activities, both are subject
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> to analysis by units of artefact-mediated actions.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Andy
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Andy Blunden
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> http://home.mira.net/~andy
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision
> > > >>>>> -mak
> > > >>>>> ing
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> On 18/04/2017 7:01 AM, Julian Williams 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-dir
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> ections-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-mathemat
> > > >>>>>>>>> ics/
> > > >>>>>>>>> >* 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
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>