[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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



David-

People with very diverse backgrounds, national, internationally,
generationally are trying to understand each other as each seeks to
understand a family of phenomena that span many levels of analysis,
many "domains" (language, culture, development) drawing upon scholars
spanning at least two centuries from vastly different
disciplines/discourses.

You, Michael, Larry, Helena, Andy, and others on the list have a
exceptionally broad & deep,  but varying backgrounds but others, that
others, including myself, do not. About 95% of all of my published work
comes from AFTER I obtained a phd as a mathematical psychologist.
Like my father before me, I am an autodidact of cultural historical
activity approaches to understanding human nature.

So part of what distresses you is that different people are seeking to
interpret and "locate" what you are writing. From your response to the
message where I thought that wording might be akin to what I have read
about holophrases from the American developmental, psychological
literature. From your response, I gather that holophrases are not wording
because they have a teleology built into them, but wordings do not
(necessarily)?

I asked about wording versus statement or utterance because two other
people, using your text as the pre-text, offered these as ways that others
have used the concept. That was interesting to me. You are all much more
knowledgeable about Riceour, Marx, Lacan, ....... than I am, so I was
trying to triangulate your views to try to get at the essence of the
differences.

I guess this means that your text and your examples were insufficient to
induce a feeling of understand in me. I could not, if asked (or
demonstrated above) explain your idea of wording to a colleague without
looking at the text to check what I was saying to see if it made sense.

Which is not to say that you are wrong, or that i disagree with you. I
still do not understand well enough to judge one way or the other.

Only good will here. We are all trying to understand better. Just a failure
of communication. And given the conditions, no big surprise.

Mike
PS- Looks like Sylvia and I misspoke! It happens, today as well as long
ago. Now I have to find a copy of the text!

On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 3:52 PM, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com> wrote:

> p. 25, Mike.
>
> I wasn't saying I had anything figured out. You asked a question about
> "wording"--as you say, it was a carefully chosen word, I am trying rather
> desperately to be clear about my ideas so I can get them published and get
> back to being obscure to students.
>
> I guess I still haven't got it right. First Andy calls to point out that
> Marx died too. Then David says to go read Harris. Then Wolff-Michael says
> that Ricoeur knows more about what I mean to say than I do.
>
> Marx died 16 years after he published his book, and Vygotsky died six
> months before he published his; there is a non-trivial difference here and
> it really does have to do with whether we can consider a single word to be
> a concept (Chapter Five) or not (Chapter Seven and Chapter One).
>
> I  actually have read many books by Roy Harris (I even corresponded with
> him briefly, before he died) and I still find that  the concept of
> "wording" is very useful in dealing with my data.
>
> I have also read enough Ricoeur to know that he doesn't mean the same thing
> by "narrative" that I do--I am trying to distinguish between "dialogue" and
> "narrative", and Ricoeur's observation on the difference between the act of
> saying and the content of saying applies as much to dialogue as it does to
> narrative.
>
> Can't I talk about "wording" without all these footnotes?
>
> David Kellogg
> Macquarie University
>
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 8:27 AM, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:
>
> > Hi David -
> >
> > Thanks for correction of primitive. Preliterate will do. I figured your
> > observations applied to adults. They certainly applied to adults,
> > non-literate or literate in Vai in the later work I did with Sylvia
> > Scribner.
> >
> > OK. I will not read Roy Harris instead of David Kellogg and those members
> > of xmca who have it figured out! Sheesh.
> >
> > I do not know Cole and Gay, 1972. In Cole, Gay, Glick, and Sharp (1971)
> > we wrote:
> >
> > Cultural differences reside more in the differences in situations to
> which
> > cultural groups apply their skills than to differences in the skills
> > possessed by the groups in question.
> >
> >
> > I do not have Cole&Scribner to hand. What page was that quotation from? A
> > shortcoming of our work back in those days and in more recent work as
> well
> > was our failure to fully consider and understand the role
> > of values and normativity in human culture, so it would help to have the
> > context to see why we did not use the cole et al ideas which we were
> still
> > working past in the 1980's.
> >
> > Looking for that quotation from Cole et al. 1971 i came across the one
> > page, attached, commentary on those early works that is very short, but
> > gives the essence of Gay and Cole, the starting point in my own
> involvement
> > in those issues.
> >
> > Word meaning develops in ontogeny.  :-)
> > mike
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 2:18 PM, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > 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
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>