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

Tue Apr 25 18:56:59 PDT 2017

Andy--

Are "life" and "living" two different words, or are they two different
wordings of the same word?

David Kellogg
Macquarie University

On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:

> David, after reading this fascinating 2-page narrative about Ricoeur and
> the structuralists out of the blue we get the conclusion: "And the power is
> not in the word, but in the wording." Have I missed something? Is "wording"
> ineffable?
>
> Andy
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> Andy Blunden
> http://home.mira.net/~andy
> http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making
> On 26/04/2017 7:13 AM, David Kellogg wrote:
>
>> I remember Paul Ricoeur. He taught at a seminary at the University of
>> Chicago when I was an undergraduate. I was a member of the campus
>> Spartacus
>> Youth Club, and it was the only place that would allow us a public space
>> for meetings. I tried to sell him a copy of "Young Spartacus" once: I
>> can't
>> remember if he bought it or not. But I remember him as a French gentleman,
>> personally quite conservative, but not at all put off by the presence of
>> a screaming red nineteen year old who for inexplicable reasons had
>> a Parisian accent and spoke the argot of the Versailles banlieue. Maybe he
>> bought our French paper, Le Bolchevik.
>>
>> I have been reading a symposium "On Narrative" that was going on at UC
>> when
>> I was organizing against Milton Friedman's Nobel Prize (he was also a
>> professor there at the time--he won the prize the same year that Saul
>> Bellow, another UC professor, did). Ricoeur, Derrida, and Hayden White all
>> took part.
>>
>> It was the heyday of structuralism, and Ricoeur's contribution is
>> interesting because it's quite ANTI-structuralist: he points out that the
>> effect of structuralism on narrative studies has been to de-historicize,
>> de-memorize, dehumanize; to convert stories into exchange values rather
>> than use values. So the elements that Propp discovers in Ludmilla and
>> Ruslan (and the Firebird and its variants) can come in any order. In
>> contrast, even the simplest act of repetition is historicized, humanized,
>> and memorable. A use value and not an exchange value.
>>
>> Derrida ignores everybody else and embarks on his usual verbal
>> pyrotechnics, but Hayden White develops Ricoeur's idea in a way I think I
>> actually used in my "Thinking of Feeling" paper: human memory goes through
>> stages: medieval annals, Renaissance chronicles, and the nineteenth
>> century
>> narrative, each of which adds something distinctive and makes the
>> meta-narrative that they form together into something non-reversible and
>> developmental. But now I see that the reviewers made me remove all that
>> (it
>> is just as well: sociogenesis is one story and ontogenesis quite another).
>>
>> Ruqaiya Hasan used to say that there is a certain unity imposed on
>> experience by language, from "the living of life" to the child's first
>> real
>> morpho-phoneme. If you take the phrase "the living of life" just as an
>> example, you can see some of what Ricoeur is trying to get at. On the face
>> of it, the phrase is redundant: the word "life" seems to contain
>> absolutely
>> nothing that isn't already there in "living". Yet "of life" must mean
>> something, otherwise it would not enable us to add the specifier "the" to
>> "living".
>>
>> I think Ricoeur would say that "life" is a kind of de-historicized,
>> de-memorized, de-humanized "living", one that is turned from process into
>> entity, and made synoptical, like the various retellings in different
>> orders of the four Gospels. Yes, it's a powerful way of speaking, but it
>> is
>> powerful the way that sculpture is rather than the way that painting is.
>> And the power is not in the word, but in the wording.
>>
>> David Kellogg
>> Macquarie University
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 4:31 AM, <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Mike,
>>> There is a particular example that occurred here when Wolff-Michael
>>> referenced Ricouer’s 3 volume project exploring metaphor and narrativity
>>> and their common unifying theme existing within human temporality
>>> (finitude).
>>> Is there an expectation for ‘us’ to go back and reference Ricouer’s
>>> exploration of this relation in depth? Through reading and re-reading
>>> these
>>> works of scholarship.
>>> I myself turned to the preface of Ricouer’s 3 volume exploration of this
>>> particular relation,  metaphor/narrativity:: Temporality.
>>>
>>> Without human temporality, narrativity and metaphor would not exist.
>>>
>>> On this listserve there was a glance or nod in Ricouer’s direction and
>>> then???.
>>>
>>> This month we are recycling themes which already exist in the archive,
>>> but
>>> is this recycling just repetition,, or renovation, or innovation?.
>>>
>>> Peg’s metaphor of leaving loose threads for others to return to expresses
>>> a temporal sense ability at odds with high impact journals.
>>>
>>>
>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone
>>>
>>> From: mike cole
>>> Sent: April 25, 2017 11:02 AM
>>> To: Larry Purss
>>> Cc: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>> Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value'
>>>
>>> Right Larry. A lot of high impact journals (not all) are deeply
>>> a-historical.
>>>
>>> When my wife and I were writing a textbook, we had, with each addition,
>>> to cut out older refs. To be allow to refer to Gesell, Rousseau in a
>>> serious manner was a constant battle.
>>>
>>> But what the heck. In a lot of classes that use the textbook, students
>>> are
>>> not required to remember or re-cover material from the mid-term on the
>>> final exam. In a course on development in a field that makes a big deal
>>> of
>>> sequence and growth over time. Live for the moment, no need to know the
>>> history of behavior in order to understand it.
>>>
>>> Yes, mediation has not gone away, despite its claimed ailments and
>>> devious
>>> traps.  :-)
>>>
>>> mike
>>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 2:00 PM, <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> So... If more than 10 years old makes thinking and thought anethema WHAT
>>> does that say about the scope of thinking of high impact journals?
>>>
>>> When returning to wording, statement, and utterance I hope we also turn
>>> back to ‘mediation’.
>>> I have this definition of mediation to consider: (carrying across -within
>>> back/forth) BOTH (giving/receiving) within a singular relation
>>> This is felt differently than mediation: (carrying over to the other
>>> side)
>>> which may imply bridges  required for joining or linking two pre-existing
>>> sides (first one and then the other).
>>>
>>>
>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone
>>>
>>> From: mike cole
>>> Sent: April 23, 2017 9:54 AM
>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value'
>>>
>>> Hi David et al --
>>>
>>> Found my copy of Cole and Scribner! To my relief, it appears that
>>> somewhere
>>> along the way there was a misattribution of that quote you posted that
>>> Hasan criticized and that I wanted to disavow (but there it was in black
>>> and white!).
>>>
>>> So, apropos, we have a problem of context here.  If you look at p. 25 of
>>> Scribner and Cole, you will find that the quotation was in a paper by
>>> Cole
>>> and Gay (1972) (A paper on culture and memory in the American
>>> Anthropologist I had did not recall the date of. If you go just one
>>> sentence above the quotation you find the following:
>>>
>>> *For instance, one anthropologist commented, upon hearing about the
>>> results
>>> of our first research in this area (Gay and Cole 1967): The reasoning and
>>> thinking processes of different people in different cultures don't
>>> differ .
>>> . . just their values, beliefs, and ways of classifying differ [personal
>>> correspondence ].*
>>>
>>>
>>> We were *contesting *this statement which was the anthropological
>>> consensus
>>> at the time. For those interested in our own views at the time,
>>>
>>> it is best to consult Chapter 8 of that book by Cole and Scribner on
>>> *Culture
>>> and Thought. *(Its all antiquarian stuff anyway. Its now 50 years since
>>> the
>>> first publication of that line of work! References more than 10 years old
>>> are anethema to HIGH IMPACT  journals!  :-) and :-(
>>>
>>>
>>> mike
>>>
>>>
>>> Which takes the discussion back to the discussion of wording, stating,
>>> and
>>> uttering.
>>>
>>> On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Wolff-Michael Roth <
>>> wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Julian,
>>>> I suggest reading Rossi-Landi, and Italian Marxist scholar, where I have
>>>> taken this:
>>>>
>>>> Like other products of labor, signs, words, expressions,
>>>> and messages have use value in communication and are subject to
>>>> exchange,
>>>> distribution, and consumption; the markets within which these
>>>> products circulate as commodities are linguistic communities (Rossi-
>>>> Landi 1983).
>>>>
>>>> An appreciation of his contributions by Cianca Bianchi states: "Through
>>>>
>>> his
>>>
>>>> "homological schema",
>>>> material and linguistic production are conceived to be the result of a
>>>> single process
>>>> that is particular to human beings and that can best be understood in
>>>>
>>> terms
>>>
>>>> of work
>>>> and trade. "
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> Michael
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> --------------------
>>>> Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor
>>>> Applied Cognitive Science
>>>> MacLaurin Building A567
>>>> University of Victoria
>>>> Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2
>>>> http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth <http://education2.uvic.ca/faculty/mroth/>
>>>>
>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics
>>>> <https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/new-
>>>> directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the-
>>>> mathematics-of-mathematics/>*
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 12:09 PM, Julian Williams <
>>>> julian.williams@manchester.ac.uk> 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
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>