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

Sat Apr 22 18:55:54 PDT 2017

Julian, I do think that if you want to integrate theories of 
discourse with theories of social-economic relations, then 
the unit of "utterance" is most important. It seems to shed 
light on positioning, whereas "word meaning" as a unit sheds 
light on concepts, and it would seem that both are needed 
(as are value, commodity, etc.)

Andy

------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Blunden
http://home.mira.net/~andy
http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making 

On 23/04/2017 5:09 AM, Julian Williams wrote:
> Michael
>
> As you were - so we are entirely in disagreement, then.
>
> For me the E-V and U-V of a dialogic exchange has nothing essentially to
> do with the sensual and super sensual moments of the 'word' as per
> Vygotsky. And I don't see at all how these really confer 'value' in any
> Marxist sense of the term on speech/utterance (etc etc).
>
> I am guessing that we are back with analogy of 'commodity' and 'word' in
> dialogue, rather than a holistic understanding of discourse in the
> totality of social-economic relations, and so we have made no progress
> here.
>
> We can take this up another time perhaps.
>
> Julian
>
>
>
> On 22/04/2017 19:47, "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:
>
>> Julian,
>> E-V and U-V, but not of the kind that you are talking about, the abstract
>> .
>> . . You can look at it like LSV, who emphasizes that the word has a
>> sensible (material) part and a supersensual (ideal) part, not in the
>> abstract, but concretely realized in every exchange. 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 Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 11:38 AM, Julian Williams <
>> julian.williams@manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> M.
>>>
>>> Um, hang on a minute - I agree with everything you said here (I
>>> think..).
>>>
>>> So I suppose this means you agree(d) with me; een though I thought I was
>>> challenging your view. I thought you were trying to find E-V and U-V in
>>> the dialogue-in-itself, where I think it's value has to be understood by
>>> the way it is mediated through the wider field of discourse/practice
>>> (i.e.
>>> In its meaning/sense in terms of the real exchanges taking place in
>>> practice).
>>>
>>> So the point is that one can only understand the exchanges taking place
>>> within the wider context- the worker exchanges 10 hours of labour for
>>> the
>>> commodities required to keep themselves alive for a day … but this has
>>> to
>>> be understood within the system that allows the capitalist to exploit
>>> those 10 hours for a profit, and pay wages that do not allow the worker
>>> to
>>> purchase the goods they this produce (or their equivalent)…. There are
>>> obvious analogies in discourse too.
>>>
>>> Julian
>>>
>>> Ps I see I have raised 'mediation' now - oops.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 22/04/2017 19:15, "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:
>>>
>>>> Julian,
>>>> My sense is that you are referring to macro-issues, you need to stand
>>>> back,
>>>> abstract, and look from the outside at a system, let it unfold in
>>> front of
>>>> your eyes.
>>>>
>>>> I am concerned with the actual constitution of society in individual
>>>> exchanges, actual relations between two or more people, the "ensemble"
>>> of
>>>> which constitutes society (Marx, Vygotsky, Leont'ev). I am thus
>>> concerned
>>>> with actual exchange relations, the kind Marx refers to in the first
>>> 100
>>>> pages of das Kapital, where he has the tailor exchange a coat with the
>>>> weaver receiving two yards of cloth . . . The tailor exchanges his/her
>>>> cloth with others, like the farmer, for 40 bushels of grain . . .  In
>>> my
>>>> work, I am following them around, concerned not with "meaning" or
>>> "ideal"
>>>> in the abstract but as realized in every THIS occasion of a social
>>>> relation.
>>>>
>>>> My sense is that the differences you point out (attempt to) lie
>>>> there---perhaps.
>>>>
>>>> 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 Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 10:24 AM, Julian Williams <
>>>> julian.williams@manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Michael
>>>>>
>>>>> Going back many, many posts now: almost 24 hours worth, I think.
>>>>>
>>>>> When I wrote this:
>>>>>
>>>>> '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.'
>>>>>
>>>>> The sort of thing I had in mind was this 'word/utterance/statement'
>>> of
>>>>> yours (I care not at the moment which of these is chosen - in this
>>>>> context
>>>>> I am not clear it matters, though I recognise that every work was
>>> once
>>>>> an
>>>>> utterance and a speech act… and that parsing into words is a
>>> relatively
>>>>> recent cultural artifice):
>>>>>
>>>>> '…. My personal inclination would be to take Ricœur as more
>>>>> authoritative
>>>>> on the subject than any or most of us' (see below)
>>>>>
>>>>> I think the 'value' (i.e. exchange value) of this statement of yours
>>> in
>>>>> my
>>>>> frame has to be understood in the context of its function/workthe
>>>>> academic field (or this section of it), how power is exerted here
>>>>> through
>>>>> reference to 'authorities' like Ricoeur (NB not just 'authors' like
>>> the
>>>>> rest of us? ), whether this is really useful in helping the
>>> community to
>>>>> progress its understanding of the issue for practical purposes (e.g.
>>> How
>>>>> many of the readers of this post have seriously read Ricoeur enough
>>> to
>>>>> get
>>>>> the point?).
>>>>>
>>>>> How our community of discourse comes to be structured so that power
>>>>> 'works' like this - that is a wider issue - and  here it does get
>>> hard
>>>>> for
>>>>> us academics to see ourselves as we perhaps could or should be seen.
>>>>>
>>>>> Michael: I hope you don't take this cheeky affront too personally: I
>>>>> could
>>>>> do the same to most of the posts that one reads on xmca, and probably
>>>>> my
>>>>> own-  I don't mean to suggest that they have no use-value, and
>>> certainly
>>>>> not that the collective dialogue has no use value. Yet still… we
>>> should
>>>>> recognise that there is a power game in this field of
>>> discourse/opinion,
>>>>> if we are to understand one another well. It may even be argued (with
>>>>> some
>>>>> merit?) that a quote appealing to Marx - or even Ricoeur - has some
>>> use
>>>>> as
>>>>> well as exchange value (or lets say merit) in linking ideas to a
>>> body of
>>>>> previous revolutionary work.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hugs!
>>>>>
>>>>> Julian
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 21/04/2017 16:53, "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:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Ricœur (1985), in *Time and Narrative 2*, uses the following
>>>>> distinction
>>>>>> for the purposes of theorizing the difference between narrated time
>>> and
>>>>>> time of narration. Accordingly, "narrative posses" "the remarkable
>>>>>> property" "of being split into utterance [*énociation*] and
>>> statement [
>>>>>> *énoncé*]."
>>>>>> To introduce this distinction, it suffices to recall that the
>>>>>> configurating
>>>>>> act presiding
>>>>>> over emplotment is a judicative act, involving a "grasping
>>> together."
>>>>> More
>>>>>> precisely, this act belongs to the family of reflective judgments.1
>>> We
>>>>>> have
>>>>>> been
>>>>>> led to say therefore that to narrate a story is already to "reflect
>>>>> upon"
>>>>>> the event
>>>>>> narrated. For this reason, narrative "grasping together" carries
>>> with
>>>>> it
>>>>>> the capacity
>>>>>> for distancing itself from its own production and in this way
>>> dividing
>>>>>> itself in two. (p. 61)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My personal inclination would be to take Ricœur as more
>>> authoritative
>>>>> on
>>>>>> the subject than any or most of us.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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 Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 10:38 PM, David Kellogg
>>> <dkellogg60@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think that "statement" is too tight, and "utterance" is too
>>> loose.
>>>>> A
>>>>>>> statement is an indicative-declarative wording of some kind: we
>>> don't
>>>>>>> usually refer to commands (imperatives), questions
>>>>>>> (indicative-interrogatives), or exclamations as "statements"
>>> because
>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>> primary purpose is not to state facts (that is, if there are
>>> facts,
>>>>> they
>>>>>>> are ancillary, and not constitutive: we can have a command, a
>>>>> question,
>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>> an exclamation without any statement of any state of affairs, e.g.
>>>>> "Look
>>>>>>> out!" "Why?" "Oh, no!"). So "statement" is too narrow.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> An utterance, as Bakhtin defines it, is simply the stretch of
>>>>> language
>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>> find between two changes in speaker (this is why a book is a
>>> single
>>>>>>> utterance). This is an entirely descriptive unit: if I give you a
>>>>> tape
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> listening test dialogues for the Test of Proficiency in Korean,
>>> you
>>>>>>> will be
>>>>>>> able to tell me exactly how many utterances there are in each
>>>>> dialogue,
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> even whether the speakers are men or women, without understanding
>>>>> any of
>>>>>>> the language. As a link between thinking and speech, such a unit
>>> is
>>>>>>> beside
>>>>>>> the point. So "utterance" is too broad.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And linking thinking and speech IS the point. I think you and
>>>>> Vygotsky
>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>> using the word "holophrase" somewhat teleologically, like a fond,
>>> but
>>>>>>> expectant, grandpa. You both think that the baby who says "mama"
>>>>> really
>>>>>>> means a holophrase like "Mama, put me in the high chair". It's not
>>>>> the
>>>>>>> case
>>>>>>> that "Mama" is a reduction of a full sentence (like "Fine, thanks,
>>>>> and
>>>>>>> you?"). It's more like the Ur Wir, or "Grandwe", the "we" that
>>>>>>> pre-exists
>>>>>>> "me" and "you" the way that my grandpa pre-existed me. I am also
>>>>> using
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> word "wording" teleologically, you notice: "Mama" is, from the
>>>>> child's
>>>>>>> point of view, meaning and sounding, but not wording at all. But
>>>>>>> teleology
>>>>>>> is very useful here; indeed, I think that teleology in speech
>>>>>>> ontogenesis
>>>>>>> is a more useful principle than evolution: there is, after all, a
>>>>>>> "complete
>>>>>>> form" right there in the environment.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The problem with Thinking and Speech is that, unlike Capital, the
>>>>> author
>>>>>>> died in the middle of writing it, and it had to be eked out with
>>> his
>>>>> old
>>>>>>> articles. So although Chapter One and Chapter Seven really do use
>>>>>>> wording
>>>>>>> and not word as a unit of analysis (and the "phoneme" is really
>>> the
>>>>>>> morpho-phoneme, e.g. a Russian case ending, something Vygotsky
>>>>> probably
>>>>>>> learned all about from his old professor Trubetskoy and his
>>>>> classmate at
>>>>>>> Moscow University Jakobson). you also have Chapter Five, which our
>>>>> late,
>>>>>>> beloved friend Paula Towsey loved so much.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> She had reason: Chapter Five is Vygotsky, and so it's brilliant.
>>> But
>>>>>>> it's
>>>>>>> OLD Vygotsky, 1928-1929 Vygotsky (that was the year that
>>> Trubetskoy
>>>>> and
>>>>>>> Jakobson left Moscow for Prague and set up the Prague Linguistic
>>>>> Circle
>>>>>>> which eventually became systemic-functional linguistics). Chapter
>>> 5
>>>>>>> is based on something from the German idealist psychologists
>>> Reimat
>>>>> and
>>>>>>> Ach, who really DID believe in one-word concepts. And so we have
>>> this
>>>>>>> weird
>>>>>>> block-like model of word meaning. Vygotsky tries to disenchant and
>>>>>>> de-fetishize the blocks by saying the concept is really the
>>> process
>>>>> of
>>>>>>> relating the word meaning to the block, but that still means that
>>> a
>>>>>>> concept
>>>>>>> is an abstraction and a generalization of some block-like quality.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Chapter Six is better, because here the "model" of word meaning
>>> is a
>>>>>>> RELATOR, like "because" or "although". Notice that these are the
>>>>> kinds
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> words that preliterate children do not consider words. And in fact
>>>>>>> that's
>>>>>>> why Piaget got the results he did--the kids really couldn't figure
>>>>> out
>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>> he meant when he asked them to explain what the word "because"
>>> meant
>>>>> in
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>> particular sentence--they assumed he wanted to know what the
>>> sentence
>>>>>>> meant, because asking what a word like "because" means in a
>>> sentence
>>>>>>> without the rest of the sentence is really a little like asking if
>>>>> there
>>>>>>> are more white flowers or more flowers in a bouquet of red and
>>> white
>>>>>>> flowers. But suppose (over a period of some years) we give the kid
>>>>> the
>>>>>>> following
>>>>>>>
>>> utterances-cum-statement/wordings-cum-wordgroup/wordings-cum-words.
>>>>>>> a) A rational, designed, and planned economy is possible in the
>>> USSR.
>>>>>>> (Why
>>>>>>> is that, Teacher?) Oh, it is just because all the means of
>>> production
>>>>>>> belong to the workers and peasants.
>>>>>>> b) Planned economy is possible in the USSR because all the means
>>> of
>>>>>>> production belong to the workers and peasants.
>>>>>>> c) All the means of production belong to the workers and peasants
>>> so
>>>>>>> economic planning is possible in the USSR.
>>>>>>> d) Workers and peasant's ownership of the means of production
>>> means
>>>>>>> socialist construction is possible.
>>>>>>> e) Public ownership of production enables social construction.
>>>>>>> f) the proprietary preconditions of construction
>>>>>>> g) socialist property forms
>>>>>>> h) socialist property
>>>>>>> i) socialism
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> By the time the child is the age when children beget other
>>> children,
>>>>>>> this child will see that the clause wording "all the means of
>>>>> production
>>>>>>> belong to the workers and peasants" has become a nominal group
>>>>> wording
>>>>>>> "public ownership", and the nominal group wording "a rational,
>>>>> designed,
>>>>>>> and planned economy" has become a single, block-like word
>>>>> "socialism".
>>>>>>> And
>>>>>>> because for Vygotsky the "internal" really means the
>>> psychological,
>>>>>>> while
>>>>>>> the "external" really just means the interpersonal, and because
>>>>> wording
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>> inversely proportional to the internalization of inner speech, I
>>>>> think
>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>> can see that e) is a kind of internalization of a) and I) is an
>>>>>>> internalization of e).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But neither tight knickers nor baggy trousers will show this. We
>>> will
>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>> a theory of grammar that can make fine distinctions between
>>>>> clause-level
>>>>>>> wording, group-level wording, and word-level wording in order to
>>>>>>> describe
>>>>>>> and explain it, much less intervene in it and promote it.
>>> Otherwise,
>>>>> not
>>>>>>> only will our model of the concept look like a wooden block, our
>>>>> model
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> "internalization" will look like a "suture" or  an "ingrowing"
>>> (c.f.
>>>>>>> end of
>>>>>>> HDHMF Chapter Five). No fond, expectant, grandpa wants a
>>> grandchild's
>>>>>>> mind covered with scars.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> David Kellogg
>>>>>>> Macquarie University
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 10:47 AM, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 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-making
>>>>>>>>>>> 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-
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>