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

Sat Apr 22 14:18:59 PDT 2017

Mike:  I think what I said was "preliterate" children and not "primitive"
children. But what I said is true of preliterate adults as well: they are
often unable to say how many words there are in a sentence, just as
literate speakers of English find it hard to say how many syllables there
are "upholstery" or how many morphemes there are in "nuclear".

I don't think we need Roy Harris to "prove" that "word" is ineffable. Yes,
a definition is made of words. So when you define a word, you simply
replace one word with many. Anybody who has tried to learn a language with
a monolingual dictionary knows this. And because "word" is itself a
word, the same thing happens when you define "word".

That doesn't mean linguistics is useless; it only means that linguistics
doesn't have some privileged ontological, quasi-metaphysical status: it is
just language turned back on itself, as Firth used to say. But so what?
Psychology is consciousness turned back on itself. Chemical and physical
experiments are matter turned back on itself.

And we keep finding that some ways of turning language back on itself are
more useful than others. The word "word" all by itself is not very useful
because it is a little like Bakhtin's "utterance". It's the space between
two spaces on a typewriter, just as the word "utterance" is the space
between two changes of speaker. It's phenomenological, in the sense of
pre-analytical.

But "wording" is not a word all by itself; it's part of a system of
concepts. A "morpheme", a "word", a "group", a "clause" or a "clause
complex" is not "in between" the utterance on the one hand and the
statement on the other. All of them are distinct, but linked, levels of
structure. A word ("worker") is made up of one or more morphemes ("work",
"~er"), a group is made up of one or more words ("workers and peasants"), a
clause is made up of one more word groups ("the means of production belongs
to the workers and peasants") and a clause complex of one or more clauses
("Socialism is possible in the USSR because the means of production belongs
to the workers and peasants").

Vygotsky says that word meanings develop. That's true. But the specific way
in which we watch this development in data is neither through counting
morphemes (Brown) or trying to observe "meanings" (Freud) but rather
through wordings. We need a view of grammar that will allow us to do that.

Ruqaiya Hasan criticizes Cole and Gay (1972), and later Cole and Scribner
(1974), for saying "The reasoning and thinking processes of different
people in different cultures do not differ--just their value, beliefs, and
ways of classifying differ." Ruqaiya asks--how could one differ and not the
other? And how would you know that was the case?

David Kellogg
Macquarie University

gropu

On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 2:05 AM, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:

> 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
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>