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

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



Not sure if you’re agreeing or disagreeing with me, David. Or how it links to Mike and Sylvia, or to Wolff-Michael. Anyhow:

In “Phase II” of Nigel’s language [around 18 months], “The need for a grammar arises out of the pragmatic and mathetic functions…  The introduction of grammatical structure makes it possible… to combine both functions in one utterance” (Halliday, 1975, p. 241). 

Martin

> On Apr 23, 2017, at 4:17 PM, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Thanks, Mike. Ruqaiya also says that on p. 26 you and Sylvia wrote "the
> basic difference is in the material for thought". That does bring us back,
> of all places, to Wolff-Michael's obscure quote from Ricoeur, and also to
> Martin Packer's remark that Halliday sees the child's first true wordings
> not as names but rather as the moment where the function of enacting speech
> roles (THAT I am saying) can be fused with the function of conveying the
> material of thought (WHAT I am saying).
> 
> This seems like a strange place to locate a key epiphany. It would be more
> dramatic to have some flash of light, some burst of thunder, some road to
> Damascus moment, not least because Halliday's insight suggests that
> learning how to mean is a process of learning how to word that takes years,
> and that sounds hard to study.
> 
> But of course that WAS the key difference that separated Vygotsky's view
> from Stern's: Vygotsky said that there was no single moment, and Stern said
> there was. And for those like me who consider that real authority is a
> matter of data and not name recognition, you can confirm Vygotsky's
> rectitude in the matter pretty easily by just counting the number of times
> a seven year old "prefaces" a remark with some non-statement command or
> question like "Guess what!" or "Know what?" rather than simply using a
> declarative wording that can preface THAT and dive into WHAT at one and the
> same moment.
> 
> Why "wording"? Well, Vygotsky often talks about a "new approach" to
> linguistics that begins in 1928. He mentions that it has something to do
> with phonemes, which he says are seamless fusions of sound and meaning. But
> today the year 1928 means nothing in particular (Saussure's book came out
> in 1916, three years after his death in 1913), and the phoneme means even
> less (it is a "bundle of distinctive features" which only "means" in the
> context of minimal pairings like "bin/pin" or "bin/ban" or "bin/bit" that
> rarely if ever occur in speech). What gives?
> 
> In 1928 Trubetskoy (who was probably LSV's old phonetics prof) and Jakobson
> (who was certainly LSV's classmate) moved the Moscow Linguistic Circle to
> Prague. They were both anti-Bolshevik, or anyway anti-Bukharin/Stalin,
> which explains why LSV is not more explicit about his sources. In Prague,
> they laid the foundation for the view of language that Ruqaiya and Halliday
> built: language is a three layered construct of semantics, lexicogrammar (a
> single stratum for both vocabulary and grammar), and phonology/phonetics.
> The reason I use "wording" for lexicogrammar is that most people find it
> hard, after a whole century of "rules and words" models, to see
> lexicogrammar as a single continuum, from "open class" nouns and adjectives
> to "closed class" articles, prepositions, and modal auxiliaries.
> 
> But everybody can see that "Know what?" has one function and "That's what!"
> has another, and the difference is not just "material for thought" but the
> form that thought takes. It's not just the words; it's the wordings.
> 
> I suppose ONE way to express this difference would be to say that the
> grammatical, closed class end of "wording" has more "use value", because it
> is valuable in situ, while the lexical end has more "exchange value"
> because it is more decontexualizable. But all words are really more like
> love than money: the more you give away, the more you have.
> 
> David Kellogg
> Macquarie University
> 
> On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 2:52 AM, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:
> 
>> 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
>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>