From lpscholar2@gmail.com Sat Apr 1 04:14:33 2017 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (lpscholar2@gmail.com) Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2017 04:14:33 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Ma (negative space) - Wikipedia In-Reply-To: <20170401044614.000048B5.0940@inf.shizuoka.ac.jp> References: <58df2799.4ea7630a.f28d4.fa1d@mx.google.com> <20170401044614.000048B5.0940@inf.shizuoka.ac.jp> Message-ID: <58df8ba1.d10c620a.4912c.339c@mx.google.com> Be fore it moves on ?. Revocably To be .... Recalled .... Spirals upward >From ? our ? consciousness In the space .... OF time Ah Feathers - Hiatus Sent from my Windows 10 phone From: vwilk@inf.shizuoka.ac.jp Sent: March 31, 2017 9:48 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Ma (negative space) - Wikipedia In the space of time it takes to write a reply without seeing the Wikipedia article OR Keat's Negative Capability, I'll just mention that a common expression in Japan is "'ah' to iu ma ni" which translates as " In the space of time it takes to say, 'Ah'" because I want to stick a feather into the fascinating topic, before it moves on irrevocably without me. Vandy@GST ----- Original Message ----- > Alfredo, > > I am sending this wiki on an orientation or approach that I believe shares a close family resemblance with the way Latour orients to the prism of ?mediation? in the four ways outlined in your post. > The terms (hiatus) (gap) not a ?bridge? which emphasizes (intermediary) between two substantialist poles. > > I may be offering two cryptic a response that lacks resonance? > ?Ma? as presence/place pervades Japanese sensibility. > Mediation (as presented by Latour) seems to explore similar phenomena that opens us to new horizons within the Western sensibility re/thinking consciousness. > > The forward (/ ) indicating the phenomena of (ma). > The (interval). > I hear in Latour a way of approaching ?mediation? through ?ma? as the open local middle voice in Latin ? conversare ? (both active and passive) . > I may be way off base, but probing around the periphery in liminal places, transitional places, on the edges of consciousness (both singular and plural) > > The soul knows no mediators (Mikhailov 2006) referenced in (Theorizing with/out mediators) > > > Ma (negative space) - Wikipedia > > > https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ma_(negative_space) > Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > > > From wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com Sat Apr 1 04:46:48 2017 From: wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com (Wolff-Michael Roth) Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2017 04:46:48 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Ma (negative space) - Wikipedia In-Reply-To: <58df2799.4ea7630a.f28d4.fa1d@mx.google.com> References: <58df2799.4ea7630a.f28d4.fa1d@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Hi Larry, here a piece on Maii, including self-other relation, in the case of karate-do, which we did as part of an inquiry that also included teaching and teacher education. Domenico, at the time, was way into the black belt categories and had done his MA on a phenomenology of karate and his PhD on Piagetian themes of development, but here we worked also around my phenomenological interests in room to maneuver (Spielraum) that I was pursuing at the time Michael -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor Applied Cognitive Science MacLaurin Building A567 University of Victoria Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics * On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 9:07 PM, wrote: > Alfredo, > > I am sending this wiki on an orientation or approach that I believe shares > a close family resemblance with the way Latour orients to the prism of > ?mediation? in the four ways outlined in your post. > The terms (hiatus) (gap) not a ?bridge? which emphasizes (intermediary) > between two substantialist poles. > > I may be offering two cryptic a response that lacks resonance? > ?Ma? as presence/place pervades Japanese sensibility. > Mediation (as presented by Latour) seems to explore similar phenomena that > opens us to new horizons within the Western sensibility re/thinking > consciousness. > > The forward (/ ) indicating the phenomena of (ma). > The (interval). > I hear in Latour a way of approaching ?mediation? through ?ma? as the open > local middle voice in Latin ? conversare ? (both active and passive). > I may be way off base, but probing around the periphery in liminal places, > transitional places, on the edges of consciousness (both singular and > plural) > > The soul knows no mediators (Mikhailov 2006) referenced in (Theorizing > with/out mediators) > > > Ma (negative space) - Wikipedia > > > https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ma_(negative_space) > Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Maciotraetal2001.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 112895 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20170401/e137ba1a/attachment.pdf From lpscholar2@gmail.com Sat Apr 1 08:59:00 2017 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (lpscholar2@gmail.com) Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2017 08:59:00 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: ZPD and DST! In-Reply-To: References: <1490937703564.50878@iped.uio.no> <3cad925a-75c7-a749-53fd-3bf49519a07e@mira.net> Message-ID: <58dfce59.c549620a.b2a4d.5bd1@mx.google.com> Robert, The conclusion to #1 : To fail to enquire into mediation is effectively to close off enquiry and settle for some kind of dichotomy or taxonomy. Would you include Wolff Michael?s [speeching field] and the Japanese notion of [maii : ma + harmony] and Latour?s prism of mediational means as being ?included? in this methodological enquiry into mediation. Or is this particular expanded prism of mediation means aligned with the above multiple approaches/assumptions/spielraum with a common ?mood? outside the bounds of mediation? Spielraum as expanding movements in local places. An accent on ?places? moving beyond 3 dimensional space-time. Playing in the realm of mind/psyche/soul that is both singular and collective consciousness through spielraum: moving in places. Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Robert Lake Sent: March 31, 2017 6:40 AM To: Andy Blunden; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: ZPD and DST! That 2 cents goes a long, long generative way Andy. Thanks! Robert On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 6:52 AM, Andy Blunden wrote: > My 2 cents ... > > 1. Both Hegel and C. S. Peirce promoted mediation not only as essentially > ubiquitous, but as *generative*, in the sense that since every relation is > mediated, every new relation generates a new (mediating) relation. It is a > method of enquiry which is forever uncovering new relations. I would call > this the methodological aspect of mediation. To fail to enquire into > mediation is effectively to close off enquiry and settle for some kind of > dichotomy or taxonomy. > > 2. Vygotsky's *artefact mediation*, is a distinctive type of mediation, to > which other approaches to mind are largely blind. Artefact mediation is not > the answer to every problem of psychology. And it wasn't for Vygotsky > either. > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://home.mira.net/~andy > http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making > On 31/03/2017 8:44 PM, Huw Lloyd wrote: > >> The title has a somewhat oxymoronic flavour to it, Alfredo. Theorising >> gets more interesting when it consists of a minimum of a 3-term system, >> and >> in such a system one term can always be indexed as a mediating one in >> relation to the other two. All the problems arise when these terms are >> reduced to 2-term systems (formal logic, statistical associations, >> descriptions based upon typed categories) in which the mediators are >> elements of a non-unitary analysis. >> >> The issues of misuse of 'mediators' as elements rather than as part of a >> unit is structurally similar to applying formal logic categories such as >> "every" and "there exists" to thinking in terms of complexes, in which >> these phrases merely limit the (1 term) bonding rather than applying to >> the >> (2 term) hierarchical constructs that they are about. In LSV Vol. 1 we >> have a 3+ term analysis (dialectic) of the development of 1-term thinking >> (complexes) towards 2-term thinking (formal logic). >> >> Best, >> Huw >> >> On 31 March 2017 at 06:21, Alfredo Jornet Gil >> wrote: >> >> Thanks a lot for sharing the article, Michael. And yes, considering those >>> copy-distribution issues is important in a forum like this. Is nice to be >>> able to check with you/us authors on how to best share our work. >>> >>> On the issue of Theorizing with/out mediators, Huw, in the article we do >>> recognize the viability of the option you suggest: not dismissing but >>> pursuing an 'adequate' (or 'more developed' that may mean) understanding >>> of the concept. Still, we recommend the other route, and this is part of >>> my >>> view. >>> >>> I think the problem concerns a confusion between treating mediation as a >>> sort of universal premise that 'applies' to everything or as an >>> analytical >>> concept that 'explains' everything. For example, David K. in his post >>> treats the phrase that 'if mediation explains everything then it explains >>> nothing' as being analog to the sentence 'if perception applies to all >>> visible phenomena then it applies to none of them.' 'Applies' and >>> 'Explain', however, seem two very different words to me. You may want to >>> say that mediation applies to all and every human action/relation. But >>> then >>> this is not to say that you are explaining any of them. As I view it, >>> mediation should not be thought of as an analytical unit in the same >>> sense >>> that perezhivanie is, for it is not a concrete unit. In fact, following >>> on >>> David's example, *perception* can indeed be accounted for if you develop >>> and further understand the category perezhivanie. And still, you will not >>> want to use perezhivanie to account for every and any aspect of human >>> existence. Nor every instance of 'human(ing)' will be perezhivanie >>> (unless >>> you reserve the term 'human' to a very specific set of all the things we >>> human-looking animals do.). >>> >>> Alfredo >>> >>> >>> ________________________________________ >>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >>> on behalf of mike cole >>> Sent: 31 March 2017 02:38 >>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: ZPD and DST! >>> >>> Thanks Michael. >>> Establishing fair use in the xmca community seems an important task. >>> >>> Your solution works given current uncertainties. >>> >>> mike >>> >>> On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 5:29 PM, Wolff-Michael Roth < >>> wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Mike, all, >>>> Because I don't know what big companies can do to us if we violate >>>> signed >>>> copyright release, I am more than hesitant to send the type-set version >>>> they published. However, I am appending the final version of the >>>> >>> manuscript >>> >>>> that prior to acceptance. >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >>>> >>> directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the- >>>> mathematics-of-mathematics/>* >>>> >>>> On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 5:09 PM, mike cole wrote: >>>> >>>> Michael -- >>>>> >>>>> XMCA has been operating as an educational collective among whom >>>>> >>>> relevant >>> >>>> written materials are circulated as they are needed for the the >>>>> >>>> members' >>> >>>> education. >>>>> >>>>> Would it incur Springer's wrath to make the paper directly available? >>>>> >>>>> mike >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 3:26 PM, Wolff-Michael Roth < >>>>> wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi all, I did not realize that my reference wasn't updated. The paper >>>>>> >>>>> is >>>> >>>>> here: >>>>>> https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12124-016-9376-0 >>>>>> >>>>>> and by personal request Alfredo or I will mail a copy to those not >>>>>> operating at a uni with access to Springer Link. >>>>>> >>>>>> Michael >>>>>> >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>> -------------------- >>>>>> Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor >>>>>> Applied Cognitive Science >>>>>> MacLaurin Building A567 >>>>>> University of Victoria >>>>>> Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 >>>>>> http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth >>>>>> >>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >>>>>> >>>>> directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the- >>>>>> mathematics-of-mathematics/>* >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 2:33 PM, Wolff-Michael Roth < >>>>>> wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi David, you will disagree even more with this one: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Roth, W.-M., & Jornet, A. (in press). Theorizing with/out >>>>>>> >>>>>> "mediators." >>>> >>>>> Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But people like Feliks Mikhailov, and also Ekaterina Zavershneva >>>>>>> >>>>>> indicate >>>>> >>>>>> that toward the end of his life, Vygotsy was moving away from >>>>>>> >>>>>> mediation. >>>>> >>>>>> We >>>>>> >>>>>>> give an extended argument for theorizing without mediators in the >>>>>>> >>>>>> article. >>>>>> >>>>>>> But I hope you understand that I am not out to interpret and find >>>>>>> >>>>>> out >>> >>>> what >>>>>> >>>>>>> Vygotsky really said even if he did not say it. I think you are >>>>>>> >>>>>> well >>> >>>> positioned to do THAT kind of research. I want to move on. And, >>>>>>> >>>>>> frankly, >>>>> >>>>>> I >>>>>> >>>>>>> have no clue what people are saying when they write that something >>>>>>> >>>>>> is >>> >>>> mediated. It seems to me that they are hiding or refraining from >>>>>>> >>>>>> going >>>> >>>>> after what I am interested in. I am not interested in knowing that >>>>>>> >>>>>> a >>> >>>> tool >>>>> >>>>>> mediates something. I am interested in what the tool actually does, >>>>>>> >>>>>> what >>>>> >>>>>> are the events in which tools participate, shape people and get >>>>>>> >>>>>> shaped >>>> >>>>> by >>>>> >>>>>> them. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In the end, all this is about finding suitable discourses, and >>>>>>> descriptions, for doing the kinds of things we want to do. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> m >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>> -------------------- >>>>>>> Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor >>>>>>> Applied Cognitive Science >>>>>>> MacLaurin Building A567 >>>>>>> University of Victoria >>>>>>> Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 >>>>>>> http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth >>>>>> >>>>>> faculty/mroth/> >>> >>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the- >>>>>> mathematics-of-mathematics/>* >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 2:22 PM, David Kellogg < >>>>>>> >>>>>> dkellogg60@gmail.com >>> >>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think the Roth article I would recommend isn't the editorial, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> but >>> >>>> rather >>>>>> >>>>>>> this one: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Roth, W-M. 2007. On Mediation: Towards a Cultural Historical >>>>>>>> Understanding. >>>>>>>> Theory and Psychology 17 (5): 655-680. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There's a lot I disagree with in this paper (e.g. I disagree with >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> the >>>> >>>>> idea >>>>>> >>>>>>> that if mediation "explains" everything then it explains >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> nothing--it >>> >>>> is >>>>> >>>>>> like saying that if perception applies to all visible phenomena >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> then >>> >>>> it >>>>> >>>>>> applies to none of them). But here's why I prefer it to Saeed's >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> paper: >>>> >>>>> a) Roth gets to concrete examples from direct experience almost >>>>>>>> immediately >>>>>>>> (fish feeding, on p. 656). This gives me something to go back to >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> when >>>> >>>>> I >>>>> >>>>>> get >>>>>>>> lost in abstraction, and I need it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> b) Instead of using Theory A to illuminate Theory B, Roth goes >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> back >>> >>>> into >>>>> >>>>>> the historical origins of Theory A and discovers, immanently, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Theory >>> >>>> B, >>>>> >>>>>> C, >>>>>> >>>>>>> etc.. This has two advantages: it avoids chalk-and-cheese >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> eclecticism, >>>> >>>>> and >>>>>> >>>>>>> it helps me understand how Theory A was formed in the first place. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> With >>>>> >>>>>> Saeed's paper, I find myself missing: 1) an account of the >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> CRITICAL >>> >>>> DISTINCTIONS between the two theories, 2) an explanation of how >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> each >>> >>>> MAKES >>>>>> >>>>>>> UP for what the other lacks, and 3) some argument for long term >>>>>>>> COMPATABILITY, some explication of why the emulsion will not >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> re-separate, >>>>>> >>>>>>> like vinegar and oil. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> c) For Vygotsky--no, for mediation more generally--the key problem >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> is >>>> >>>>> volition, free will, choice. Vygotsky once said that the most >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> interesting >>>>>> >>>>>>> problem in the whole of psychology, bar none, is what a human >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> being >>> >>>> would >>>>>> >>>>>>> really do in the situation of Buridan's donkey (that is a >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> situation >>> >>>> of >>>> >>>>> volition, of free will, of choice where the outcomes were either >>>>>>>> apparently >>>>>>>> equal or equally unknown). This isn't true of DST, which has, as >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Saeed >>>> >>>>> admits, an "emergentist" account of volition (to put it >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> uncharitably, >>>> >>>>> handwaving and magic). At the very least, choice is late emerging >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> in a >>>> >>>>> DST >>>>>> >>>>>>> account, and that makes, for example, the child's early and >>>>>>>> successful acquisition of speech very hard to explain. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That said, Saeed--I DID appreciate the part on p. 86 where you >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> remind >>>> >>>>> us >>>>> >>>>>> that learning and development are distinct but linked. As >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Wolff-Michael >>>>> >>>>>> says, the point has been made before, but I think that we've got >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> to >>> >>>> keep >>>>> >>>>>> saying this, until people really see that mixing up "microgenesis" >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> and >>>> >>>>> ontogenesis is, in our own time, the same kind of error that >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> mixing >>> >>>> up >>>> >>>>> ontogenesis and phylogenesis was in Vygotsky's. If I read one more >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> article >>>>>> >>>>>>> which invokes the ZPD for some trivial incident of learning, I'm >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> getting a >>>>>> >>>>>>> tattoo that says: "Look here, mate, just because it didn't kill ya >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> doesn't >>>>>> >>>>>>> mean it made ya any stronger". >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> David Kellogg >>>>>>>> Macquarie University >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >> > -- Robert Lake Ed.D. Associate Professor Social Foundations of Education Dept. of Curriculum, Foundations, and Reading Georgia Southern University P. O. Box 8144, Statesboro, GA 30460 Secretary/Treasurer-AERA- Paulo Freire Special Interest Group Webpage: https://georgiasouthern.academia.edu/RobertLake*Democracy must be born anew in every generation, and education is its midwife.* John Dewey-*Democracy and Education*,1916, p. 139 From lpscholar2@gmail.com Sun Apr 2 06:13:28 2017 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (lpscholar2@gmail.com) Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2017 06:13:28 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Ma (negative space) - Wikipedia In-Reply-To: References: <58df2799.4ea7630a.f28d4.fa1d@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <58e0f904.8836630a.36b20.e188@mx.google.com> Wolff-Michael, Your comment that Here, we worked around phenomenological issues of room to maneuver. (spielraum: Play +space). In the Western imaginary this has a spatial focus. Maai (Japanese sensibility) adds the temporal and spielraum becoming ?place-time? as room to maneuver. Your recent articles now exploring speech (fields) and (zones) of proximal development and existing with/out mediation. It seems that there may be a continuity, a rhythmic flow or pulsing offering room to maneuver that is playing out. On page 123 of your article discussing Maai you comment on spatial/ITY THROUGH knowing and mastering Maai: Envisioning and enacting ?spielraum?; giving rise to the very (spatiality) IN which maai operates. The ?intervals? for any action -including- an interval to start, an interval to take actions course, an interval to end, and an interval to recover/recall. 16 years later you are re/thinking mediation and maneuvering with/out mediation, moving through speeching (fields). Developing room to maneuver. I appreciate your and Alfredo?s collaboration. Not sure if I have clearly indicated my abiding interest in this theme that plays through maai, spielraum, mediation (as Latour accents). Playspaces. Play worlds. Will return to reading the posted articles. I wanted to acknowledge the importance of your unfolding interests generating openings in which to maneuver. Sent from my Windows 10 phone From: Wolff-Michael Roth Sent: April 1, 2017 4:48 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Ma (negative space) - Wikipedia Hi Larry, here a piece on Maii, including self-other relation, in the case of karate-do, which we did as part of an inquiry that also included teaching and teacher education. Domenico, at the time, was way into the black belt categories and had done his MA on a phenomenology of karate and his PhD on Piagetian themes of development, but here we worked also around my phenomenological interests in room to maneuver (Spielraum) that I was pursuing at the time Michael -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor Applied Cognitive Science MacLaurin Building A567 University of Victoria Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics * On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 9:07 PM, wrote: > Alfredo, > > I am sending this wiki on an orientation or approach that I believe shares > a close family resemblance with the way Latour orients to the prism of > ?mediation? in the four ways outlined in your post. > The terms (hiatus) (gap) not a ?bridge? which emphasizes (intermediary) > between two substantialist poles. > > I may be offering two cryptic a response that lacks resonance? > ?Ma? as presence/place pervades Japanese sensibility. > Mediation (as presented by Latour) seems to explore similar phenomena that > opens us to new horizons within the Western sensibility re/thinking > consciousness. > > The forward (/ ) indicating the phenomena of (ma). > The (interval). > I hear in Latour a way of approaching ?mediation? through ?ma? as the open > local middle voice in Latin ? conversare ? (both active and passive). > I may be way off base, but probing around the periphery in liminal places, > transitional places, on the edges of consciousness (both singular and > plural) > > The soul knows no mediators (Mikhailov 2006) referenced in (Theorizing > with/out mediators) > > > Ma (negative space) - Wikipedia > > > https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ma_(negative_space) > Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > From wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com Sun Apr 2 06:20:25 2017 From: wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com (Wolff-Michael Roth) Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2017 06:20:25 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Ma (negative space) - Wikipedia In-Reply-To: <58e0f904.8836630a.36b20.e188@mx.google.com> References: <58df2799.4ea7630a.f28d4.fa1d@mx.google.com> <58e0f904.8836630a.36b20.e188@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Larry, Spielraum is not just about the physical room to maneuver, though the term clearly arises from concerns how much "Spiel" (leeway) there is for something, so Spielraum also is "wiggle-room." You can think about options or power for acting. Though developed out of a phenomenological agenda, it clearly has a cultural and mind dimension Michael -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor Applied Cognitive Science MacLaurin Building A567 University of Victoria Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics * On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 6:13 AM, wrote: > Wolff-Michael, > > Your comment that > > Here, we worked around phenomenological issues of room to maneuver. > (spielraum: Play +space). > > In the Western imaginary this has a spatial focus. > > Maai (Japanese sensibility) adds the temporal and spielraum becoming > ?place-time? as room to maneuver. > > Your recent articles now exploring speech (fields) and (zones) of proximal > development and existing with/out mediation. > > > > > > It seems that there may be a continuity, a rhythmic flow or pulsing > offering room to maneuver that is playing out. > > > > On page 123 of your article discussing Maai you comment on spatial/ITY > THROUGH knowing and mastering Maai: > > > > Envisioning and enacting ?spielraum?; giving rise to the very (spatiality) > IN which maai operates. > > The ?intervals? for any action -including- an interval to start, an > interval to take actions course, an interval to end, and an interval to > recover/recall. > > > > 16 years later you are re/thinking mediation and maneuvering with/out > mediation, moving through speeching (fields). > > Developing room to maneuver. > > > > I appreciate your and Alfredo?s collaboration. Not sure if I have clearly > indicated my abiding interest in this theme that plays through maai, > spielraum, mediation (as Latour accents). Playspaces. Play worlds. > > > > Will return to reading the posted articles. I wanted to acknowledge the > importance of your unfolding interests generating openings in which to > maneuver. > > > > > > Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > > > *From: *Wolff-Michael Roth > *Sent: *April 1, 2017 4:48 AM > *To: *eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > *Subject: *[Xmca-l] Re: Ma (negative space) - Wikipedia > > > > Hi Larry, here a piece on Maii, including self-other relation, in the case > > of karate-do, which we did as part of an inquiry that also included > > teaching and teacher education. Domenico, at the time, was way into the > > black belt categories and had done his MA on a phenomenology of karate and > > his PhD on Piagetian themes of development, but here we worked also around > > my phenomenological interests in room to maneuver (Spielraum) that I was > > pursuing at the time Michael > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > -------------------- > > Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor > > Applied Cognitive Science > > MacLaurin Building A567 > > University of Victoria > > Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 > > http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth > > > > New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the- > mathematics-of-mathematics/>* > > > > On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 9:07 PM, wrote: > > > > > Alfredo, > > > > > > I am sending this wiki on an orientation or approach that I believe > shares > > > a close family resemblance with the way Latour orients to the prism of > > > ?mediation? in the four ways outlined in your post. > > > The terms (hiatus) (gap) not a ?bridge? which emphasizes (intermediary) > > > between two substantialist poles. > > > > > > I may be offering two cryptic a response that lacks resonance? > > > ?Ma? as presence/place pervades Japanese sensibility. > > > Mediation (as presented by Latour) seems to explore similar phenomena > that > > > opens us to new horizons within the Western sensibility re/thinking > > > consciousness. > > > > > > The forward (/ ) indicating the phenomena of (ma). > > > The (interval). > > > I hear in Latour a way of approaching ?mediation? through ?ma? as the > open > > > local middle voice in Latin ? conversare ? (both active and passive). > > > I may be way off base, but probing around the periphery in liminal > places, > > > transitional places, on the edges of consciousness (both singular and > > > plural) > > > > > > The soul knows no mediators (Mikhailov 2006) referenced in (Theorizing > > > with/out mediators) > > > > > > > > > Ma (negative space) - Wikipedia > > > > > > > > > https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ma_(negative_space) > > > Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > > > > > > > > From lpscholar2@gmail.com Sun Apr 2 06:35:13 2017 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (lpscholar2@gmail.com) Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2017 06:35:13 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Ma (negative space) - Wikipedia In-Reply-To: References: <58df2799.4ea7630a.f28d4.fa1d@mx.google.com> <58e0f904.8836630a.36b20.e188@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <58e0fe1d.016a620a.6149b.eab2@mx.google.com> Michael, Thanks for this addition Holding spiel as leeway and wiggle-room. Entangling phenomenological, mind, and cultural (dimensions). I hope others enter upon this stage engaging spiel. Sent from my Windows 10 phone From: Wolff-Michael Roth Sent: April 2, 2017 6:20 AM To: Larry Purss Cc: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: Ma (negative space) - Wikipedia Larry, Spielraum is not just about the physical room to maneuver, though the term clearly arises from concerns how much "Spiel" (leeway) there is for something, so Spielraum also is "wiggle-room." You can think about options or power for acting. Though developed out of a phenomenological agenda, it clearly has a cultural and mind dimension Michael -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor Applied Cognitive Science MacLaurin Building A567 University of Victoria Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth New book:?The Mathematics of Mathematics On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 6:13 AM, wrote: Wolff-Michael, Your comment that Here, we worked around phenomenological issues of room to maneuver. (spielraum: Play +space). In the Western imaginary this has a spatial focus. Maai (Japanese sensibility) adds the temporal and spielraum becoming ?place-time? as room to maneuver. Your recent articles now exploring speech (fields) and (zones) of proximal development and existing with/out mediation. ? ? It seems that there may be a continuity, a rhythmic flow or pulsing offering room to maneuver that is playing out. ? On page 123 of your article discussing Maai you comment on spatial/ITY THROUGH knowing and mastering Maai: ? Envisioning and enacting ?spielraum?; giving rise to the very (spatiality) IN which maai operates. The ?intervals? for any action -including- an interval to start, an interval to take actions course, an interval to end, and an interval to recover/recall. ? 16 years later you are re/thinking mediation and maneuvering with/out mediation, moving through speeching (fields). Developing room to maneuver. ? I appreciate your and Alfredo?s collaboration. Not sure if I have clearly ?indicated my abiding interest in this theme that plays through maai, spielraum, mediation (as Latour accents). Playspaces. Play worlds. ? Will return to reading the posted articles. I wanted to acknowledge the importance of your unfolding interests generating openings in which to maneuver. ? ? Sent from my Windows 10 phone ? From: Wolff-Michael Roth Sent: April 1, 2017 4:48 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Ma (negative space) - Wikipedia ? Hi Larry, here a piece on Maii, including self-other relation, in the case of karate-do, which we did as part of an inquiry that also included teaching and teacher education. Domenico, at the time, was way into the black belt categories and had done his MA on a phenomenology of karate and his PhD on Piagetian themes of development, but here we worked also around my phenomenological interests in room to maneuver (Spielraum) that I was pursuing at the time? Michael ? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor Applied Cognitive Science MacLaurin Building A567 University of Victoria Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth ? New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics * ? On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 9:07 PM, wrote: ? > Alfredo, >? > I am sending this wiki on an orientation or approach that I believe shares > a close? family resemblance with the way Latour orients to the prism of > ?mediation? in the four ways outlined in your post. > The terms (hiatus) (gap) not a ?bridge? which emphasizes (intermediary) > between two substantialist poles. >? > I may be offering two cryptic a response that lacks resonance? > ?Ma? as presence/place pervades Japanese sensibility. > Mediation (as presented by Latour) seems to explore similar phenomena that > opens us to new horizons within the Western sensibility re/thinking > consciousness. >? > The forward (/ ) indicating the phenomena of (ma). > The (interval). > I hear in Latour a way of approaching ?mediation? through ?ma? as the open > local middle voice in Latin ? conversare ? (both active and passive). > I may be way off base, but probing around the periphery in liminal places, > transitional places, on the edges of consciousness (both singular and > plural) >? > The soul knows no mediators (Mikhailov 2006) referenced in (Theorizing > with/out mediators) >? >? > Ma (negative space) - Wikipedia >? >? > https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ma_(negative_space) > Sent from my Windows 10 phone >? >? ? From EDiaz@csusb.edu Sat Apr 8 15:15:11 2017 From: EDiaz@csusb.edu (Stephen Diaz) Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2017 22:15:11 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Playworlds, Performance, Perezhivanie, Apophasis ... and TRUMP'S speech! In-Reply-To: References: <5893695b.c32f630a.3d640.41ee@mx.google.com> <1486189210098.72503@iped.uio.no> <838a8d3c-2559-3984-64e3-e3cf8bd98266@mira.net> , Message-ID: Hi Bruce, Don't know if you are still the one for xmcc but I am not getting any emails from that list serve. Can you please check on that. I still want to continue on it if possible. Thanks. Esteban Diaz ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Bruce Jones Sent: Sunday, February 5, 2017 3:23 PM To: mike cole; Andy Blunden; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Playworlds, Performance, Perezhivanie, Apophasis ... and TRUMP'S speech! On 2/5/17 2:39 PM, mike cole wrote: > Bruce's email is not bouncing from san diego. > Perhaps there is only one c in unsubscribe? Spelling mistakes will not cause bounces. I do the unsubscribes by hand in order to make sure they are removed from the database. -- Bruce Jones Sys Admin, LCHC bjones@ucsd.edu 619-823-8281 -- From helenaworthen@gmail.com Sat Apr 8 18:11:46 2017 From: helenaworthen@gmail.com (Helena Worthen) Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2017 18:11:46 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Playworlds, Performance, Perezhivanie, Apophasis ... and TRUMP'S speech! In-Reply-To: References: <5893695b.c32f630a.3d640.41ee@mx.google.com> <1486189210098.72503@iped.uio.no> <838a8d3c-2559-3984-64e3-e3cf8bd98266@mira.net> Message-ID: <8029C164-2A9F-4CAA-B0EF-7799A55E7194@gmail.com> Hi, Esteban - Things have been a little quiet recently. I suspect my co-xmca-ers in the US are either mid-semester or digging in on big projects that will have some significance, hopefully, given what we?re dealing with here. You may or may not be aware that our new Secretary of Education is the sister of Erik Prince, http://www.ibtimes.com/who-betsy-devos-brother-erik-princes-involvement-blackwater-chinese-money-laundering-2493834 Just a hint of what is happening to education, top to bottom, in the US. Helena Helena Worthen helenaworthen@gmail.com Berkeley, CA 94707 Blog about US and Viet Nam: helenaworthen.wordpress.com > On Apr 8, 2017, at 3:15 PM, Stephen Diaz wrote: > > Hi Bruce, > > Don't know if you are still the one for xmcc but I am not getting any emails from that list serve. Can you please check on that. I still want to continue on it if possible. Thanks. > > Esteban Diaz > > > ________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Bruce Jones > Sent: Sunday, February 5, 2017 3:23 PM > To: mike cole; Andy Blunden; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Playworlds, Performance, Perezhivanie, Apophasis ... and TRUMP'S speech! > > On 2/5/17 2:39 PM, mike cole wrote: >> Bruce's email is not bouncing from san diego. >> Perhaps there is only one c in unsubscribe? > > Spelling mistakes will not cause bounces. I do the unsubscribes by hand > in order to make sure they are removed from the database. > > > -- > Bruce Jones > Sys Admin, LCHC > bjones@ucsd.edu > 619-823-8281 > > -- From a.j.gil@iped.uio.no Sat Apr 8 22:17:50 2017 From: a.j.gil@iped.uio.no (Alfredo Jornet Gil) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 05:17:50 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky In-Reply-To: <8029C164-2A9F-4CAA-B0EF-7799A55E7194@gmail.com> References: <5893695b.c32f630a.3d640.41ee@mx.google.com> <1486189210098.72503@iped.uio.no> <838a8d3c-2559-3984-64e3-e3cf8bd98266@mira.net> , <8029C164-2A9F-4CAA-B0EF-7799A55E7194@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1491715069810.47906@iped.uio.no> Hi Esteban, yes, things have been a little quiet lately, but there have been few threads going on, perhaps most importantly the one discussing Jang's (this issue's) paper on multi-ethnic issues on Second Language. Other threads have seemed to resonate on recent articles/works attempting to re-work (or work further) some of Vygotsky's key concepts, in particular ZPD and Mediation (with a couple of articles having been circulated). Connecting to the latter, it seems that several of those efforts are making emphasis on Vygotsky's later period, suggesting that much of the prior and current uptakes have focused almost exclusively on the instrumental aspects that were more salient in his middle period, and not so much on the lines of inquiry that the psychologist was opening never had the chance to pursue. I attach yet another such work, this time by del R?o and ?lvarez. Much is being written about how and to what extent Vygotsky was revising his own prior work. This one tells as more about that, and does so both in English and in Spanish. I wonder how do xmca'ers (who likely are busy reading world news as things are getting more and more perplexing) feel and think about this tendency/prospect in cultural-historical theory literature. Alfredo ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Helena Worthen Sent: 09 April 2017 03:11 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Playworlds, Performance, Perezhivanie, Apophasis ... and TRUMP'S speech! Hi, Esteban - Things have been a little quiet recently. I suspect my co-xmca-ers in the US are either mid-semester or digging in on big projects that will have some significance, hopefully, given what we?re dealing with here. You may or may not be aware that our new Secretary of Education is the sister of Erik Prince, http://www.ibtimes.com/who-betsy-devos-brother-erik-princes-involvement-blackwater-chinese-money-laundering-2493834 Just a hint of what is happening to education, top to bottom, in the US. Helena Helena Worthen helenaworthen@gmail.com Berkeley, CA 94707 Blog about US and Viet Nam: helenaworthen.wordpress.com > On Apr 8, 2017, at 3:15 PM, Stephen Diaz wrote: > > Hi Bruce, > > Don't know if you are still the one for xmcc but I am not getting any emails from that list serve. Can you please check on that. I still want to continue on it if possible. Thanks. > > Esteban Diaz > > > ________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Bruce Jones > Sent: Sunday, February 5, 2017 3:23 PM > To: mike cole; Andy Blunden; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Playworlds, Performance, Perezhivanie, Apophasis ... and TRUMP'S speech! > > On 2/5/17 2:39 PM, mike cole wrote: >> Bruce's email is not bouncing from san diego. >> Perhaps there is only one c in unsubscribe? > > Spelling mistakes will not cause bounces. I do the unsubscribes by hand > in order to make sure they are removed from the database. > > > -- > Bruce Jones > Sys Admin, LCHC > bjones@ucsd.edu > 619-823-8281 > > -- -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: del R?o 2017 Vygotsky and beyond.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 585613 bytes Desc: =?Windows-1252?Q?del_R=EDo_2017_Vygotsky_and_beyond.pdf?= Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20170409/522b081b/attachment-0001.pdf From lpscholar2@gmail.com Sun Apr 9 05:21:01 2017 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (lpscholar2@gmail.com) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 05:21:01 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky In-Reply-To: <1491715069810.47906@iped.uio.no> References: <5893695b.c32f630a.3d640.41ee@mx.google.com> <1486189210098.72503@iped.uio.no> <838a8d3c-2559-3984-64e3-e3cf8bd98266@mira.net> , <8029C164-2A9F-4CAA-B0EF-7799A55E7194@gmail.com> <1491715069810.47906@iped.uio.no> Message-ID: <58ea273d.494b620a.8865b.ba36@mx.google.com> Alfredo, I have been slowly reading (and digesting) your and Wolff-Michael?s article (Theorizing ? with/out mediators) that joins the current ?takes? on the later Vygotsky. My impression (and appreciation) of this emerging tradition is significant as an enlarging of the scope and ?re-working? of the Vygotsky who was known in the process of moving into the West European and North Atlantic form of theorizing. I am reading your article in relation to the notion of ?playworlds? and ?spielraum? (translated playrooms). A key re-working of (mediation) has to do with re/thinking triangle diagrams as static (with mediation at the apex). This generates a PREsumption of two variables at the base of the triangle assumed as (elements, essences, things) that inter/act through an ?intermediary? third (element, essence, thing). Your article indicates this is the classical or canonical version of (mediation) as the third thing/element through which the other two things/elements become changed or develop. Your re-working of (mediation) adds the temporal, duration, and (unit of analysis) and implies it is not the elements or parts that each individually change or develop (classic intermediary model of elements transformed by going through a third element IN a triangle with an apex mediator) But rather There are only relation of (within UNITS). When a tool, technique, sign, word, artifact) develops then the ENTIRE UNIT (not elements) develops. Alfredo, I personally believe your approach (currently re-working classical and Western canonical versions) deserves to have its own (place) as a subsection on the XMCA site. To become more clear on this ?later? Vygotsky. Then a conversation may generate that puts in question this re-working BUT In a spirit of ?play? in rooms. A movement back and forth, oscillating, spiralling, developing, and never reaching a determinate conclusion, once and forever. Putting in play triangles with mediators at the apex as static diagrams. More open, fluid, theorizing with ANDA WITHOUT ?mediators? as we play with these notions. I recommend others read the article ?Theorizing with/out mediators?. Reading the (/) to mean interval where we tarry awhile in a spirit of re-working theorizing with/out mediators. I believe we need to create a subsection on XMCA to let these notions percolate and permeate the more classical boundary markers. My way of saying your article is a pro-found re-working of the notions of (within) and (without) and (mediation) at the core of this re-working PRE-assumptions. My morning muse Sent from my Windows 10 phone From: Alfredo Jornet Gil Sent: April 8, 2017 10:20 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky Hi Esteban, yes, things have been a little quiet lately, but there have been few threads going on, perhaps most importantly the one discussing Jang's (this issue's) paper on multi-ethnic issues on Second Language. Other threads have seemed to resonate on recent articles/works attempting to re-work (or work further) some of Vygotsky's key concepts, in particular ZPD and Mediation (with a couple of articles having been circulated). Connecting to the latter, it seems that several of those efforts are making emphasis on Vygotsky's later period, suggesting that much of the prior and current uptakes have focused almost exclusively on the instrumental aspects that were more salient in his middle period, and not so much on the lines of inquiry that the psychologist was opening never had the chance to pursue. I attach yet another such work, this time by del R?o and ?lvarez. Much is being written about how and to what extent Vygotsky was revising his own prior work. This one tells as more about that, and does so both in English and in Spanish. I wonder how do xmca'ers (who likely are busy reading world news as things are getting more and more perplexing) feel and think about this tendency/prospect in cultural-historical theory literature. Alfredo ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Helena Worthen Sent: 09 April 2017 03:11 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Playworlds, Performance, Perezhivanie, Apophasis ... and TRUMP'S speech! Hi, Esteban - Things have been a little quiet recently. I suspect my co-xmca-ers in the US are either mid-semester or digging in on big projects that will have some significance, hopefully, given what we?re dealing with here. You may or may not be aware that our new Secretary of Education is the sister of Erik Prince, http://www.ibtimes.com/who-betsy-devos-brother-erik-princes-involvement-blackwater-chinese-money-laundering-2493834 Just a hint of what is happening to education, top to bottom, in the US. Helena Helena Worthen helenaworthen@gmail.com Berkeley, CA 94707 Blog about US and Viet Nam: helenaworthen.wordpress.com > On Apr 8, 2017, at 3:15 PM, Stephen Diaz wrote: > > Hi Bruce, > > Don't know if you are still the one for xmcc but I am not getting any emails from that list serve. Can you please check on that. I still want to continue on it if possible. Thanks. > > Esteban Diaz > > > ________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Bruce Jones > Sent: Sunday, February 5, 2017 3:23 PM > To: mike cole; Andy Blunden; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Playworlds, Performance, Perezhivanie, Apophasis ... and TRUMP'S speech! > > On 2/5/17 2:39 PM, mike cole wrote: >> Bruce's email is not bouncing from san diego. >> Perhaps there is only one c in unsubscribe? > > Spelling mistakes will not cause bounces. I do the unsubscribes by hand > in order to make sure they are removed from the database. > > > -- > Bruce Jones > Sys Admin, LCHC > bjones@ucsd.edu > 619-823-8281 > > -- From lpscholar2@gmail.com Sun Apr 9 05:36:36 2017 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (lpscholar2@gmail.com) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 05:36:36 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky In-Reply-To: <58ea273d.494b620a.8865b.ba36@mx.google.com> References: <5893695b.c32f630a.3d640.41ee@mx.google.com> <1486189210098.72503@iped.uio.no> <838a8d3c-2559-3984-64e3-e3cf8bd98266@mira.net> , <8029C164-2A9F-4CAA-B0EF-7799A55E7194@gmail.com> <1491715069810.47906@iped.uio.no> <58ea273d.494b620a.8865b.ba36@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <58ea2ae3.9561630a.3f702.b325@mx.google.com> Alfredo, I offer a quote from the ?later? Vygotsky that you cite in your article that may prime the pump: Language is NOT the relation between a sound and a denoted thing. It is the relation between the speaker and the listener, the relation between people directed toward an object. IT IS THE INTERPSYCHIC REACTION THAT ESTABLISHES THE UNITY OF TWO ORAGANISMS IN THE SAME ORIENTATION, Toward an object The focus hear on ?establishing the UNITY? of teacher and student IN their orientation. The IN includes (within) Sent from my Windows 10 phone From: lpscholar2@gmail.com Sent: April 9, 2017 5:21 AM To: Alfredo Jornet Gil; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: RE: [Xmca-l] Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky Alfredo, I have been slowly reading (and digesting) your and Wolff-Michael?s article (Theorizing ? with/out mediators) that joins the current ?takes? on the later Vygotsky. My impression (and appreciation) of this emerging tradition is significant as ?an enlarging of the scope and ?re-working? of the Vygotsky who was known in the process of moving into the West European ?and North Atlantic form of theorizing. I am reading your article in relation to the notion of ?playworlds? and ?spielraum? (translated playrooms). A key re-working of (mediation) has to do with re/thinking triangle diagrams as static (with mediation at the apex). This generates a PREsumption of two variables at the base of the triangle assumed as (elements, essences, things) that inter/act through an ?intermediary? third (element, essence, thing). Your article indicates this is the classical or canonical version of (mediation) as the third thing/element through which the other two things/elements become changed or develop. Your re-working of (mediation) adds the temporal, duration, and (unit of analysis) and implies it is not the elements or parts that each individually change or develop (classic intermediary model of elements transformed by going through a third element IN a triangle with an apex mediator) But rather There are only relation of (within UNITS). When a tool, technique, sign, word, artifact) develops then the ENTIRE UNIT (not elements) develops. Alfredo, I personally believe your approach (currently re-working classical and Western canonical versions) deserves to have its own (place) as a subsection on the XMCA site. To become more clear on this ?later? Vygotsky. Then a conversation may generate that puts in question this re-working BUT In a spirit of ?play? in rooms. A movement back and forth, oscillating, spiralling, developing, and never reaching a determinate conclusion, once and forever. Putting in play triangles with mediators at the apex as static diagrams. More open, fluid, theorizing with ANDA WITHOUT ?mediators? as we play with these notions. I recommend others read the article ?Theorizing with/out mediators?. Reading the (/) to mean interval where we tarry awhile in a spirit of re-working theorizing with/out mediators. I believe we need to create a subsection on XMCA to let these notions percolate and permeate the more classical boundary markers. My way of saying your article is a pro-found re-working of the notions of (within) and (without) and (mediation) at the core of this re-working PRE-assumptions. My morning muse Sent from my Windows 10 phone From: Alfredo Jornet Gil Sent: April 8, 2017 10:20 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky Hi Esteban, yes, things have been a little quiet lately, but there have been few threads going on, perhaps most importantly the one discussing Jang's (this issue's) paper on multi-ethnic issues on Second Language. Other threads have seemed to resonate on recent articles/works attempting to re-work (or work further) some of Vygotsky's key concepts, in particular ZPD and Mediation (with a couple of articles having been circulated). Connecting to the latter, it seems that several of those efforts are making emphasis on Vygotsky's later period, suggesting that much of the prior and current uptakes have focused almost exclusively on the instrumental aspects that were more salient in his middle period, and not so much on the lines of inquiry that the psychologist was opening never had the chance to pursue. I attach yet another such work, this time by del R?o and ?lvarez. Much is being written about how and to what extent Vygotsky was revising his own prior work. This one tells as more about that, and does so both in English and in Spanish. I wonder how do xmca'ers (who likely are busy reading world news as things are getting more and more perplexing) feel and think about this tendency/prospect in cultural-historical theory literature. Alfredo ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Helena Worthen Sent: 09 April 2017 03:11 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Playworlds, Performance, Perezhivanie,??? Apophasis ... and TRUMP'S speech! Hi, Esteban - Things have been a little quiet recently. I suspect my co-xmca-ers in the US are either mid-semester or digging in on big projects that will have some significance, hopefully, given what we?re dealing with here. You may or may not be aware that our new Secretary of Education is the sister of Erik Prince, http://www.ibtimes.com/who-betsy-devos-brother-erik-princes-involvement-blackwater-chinese-money-laundering-2493834 Just a hint of what is happening to education, top to bottom, in the US. Helena Helena Worthen helenaworthen@gmail.com Berkeley, CA 94707 Blog about US and Viet Nam: helenaworthen.wordpress.com > On Apr 8, 2017, at 3:15 PM, Stephen Diaz wrote: > > Hi Bruce, > > Don't know if you are still the one for xmcc but I am not getting any emails from that list serve.? Can you please check on that.? I still want to continue on it if possible.? Thanks. > > Esteban Diaz > > > ________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Bruce Jones > Sent: Sunday, February 5, 2017 3:23 PM > To: mike cole; Andy Blunden; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Playworlds, Performance, Perezhivanie, Apophasis ... and TRUMP'S speech! > > On 2/5/17 2:39 PM, mike cole wrote: >> Bruce's email is not bouncing from san diego. >> Perhaps there is only one c in unsubscribe? > > Spelling mistakes will not cause bounces.? I do the unsubscribes by hand > in order to make sure they are removed from the database. > > > -- > Bruce Jones > Sys Admin, LCHC > bjones@ucsd.edu > 619-823-8281 > > -- From jamesma320@gmail.com Sun Apr 9 06:32:24 2017 From: jamesma320@gmail.com (James Ma) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 14:32:24 +0100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky In-Reply-To: <58ea2ae3.9561630a.3f702.b325@mx.google.com> References: <5893695b.c32f630a.3d640.41ee@mx.google.com> <1486189210098.72503@iped.uio.no> <838a8d3c-2559-3984-64e3-e3cf8bd98266@mira.net> <8029C164-2A9F-4CAA-B0EF-7799A55E7194@gmail.com> <1491715069810.47906@iped.uio.no> <58ea273d.494b620a.8865b.ba36@mx.google.com> <58ea2ae3.9561630a.3f702.b325@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Good point, I'd just like to add here: language as a system of signs creates meaning and social interaction - both Saussure and Peirce have a lot to say about this, particularly language is seen as both human constitution and human institution. James *__________________________________* *James Ma * https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa On 9 April 2017 at 13:36, wrote: > Alfredo, > I offer a quote from the ?later? Vygotsky that you cite in your article > that may prime the pump: > > Language is NOT the relation between a sound and a denoted thing. It is > the relation between the speaker and the listener, the relation between > people directed toward an object. IT IS THE INTERPSYCHIC REACTION THAT > ESTABLISHES THE UNITY OF TWO ORAGANISMS IN THE SAME ORIENTATION, Toward an > object > > The focus hear on ?establishing the UNITY? of teacher and student IN their > orientation. > The IN includes (within) > > Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > From: lpscholar2@gmail.com > Sent: April 9, 2017 5:21 AM > To: Alfredo Jornet Gil; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: RE: [Xmca-l] Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky > > Alfredo, > I have been slowly reading (and digesting) your and Wolff-Michael?s > article (Theorizing ? with/out mediators) that joins the current ?takes? on > the later Vygotsky. > > My impression (and appreciation) of this emerging tradition is significant > as an enlarging of the scope and ?re-working? of the Vygotsky who was > known in the process of moving into the West European and North Atlantic > form of theorizing. > > I am reading your article in relation to the notion of ?playworlds? and > ?spielraum? (translated playrooms). > > A key re-working of (mediation) has to do with re/thinking triangle > diagrams as static (with mediation at the apex). > This generates a PREsumption of two variables at the base of the triangle > assumed as (elements, essences, things) that inter/act through an > ?intermediary? third (element, essence, thing). > Your article indicates this is the classical or canonical version of > (mediation) as the third thing/element through which the other two > things/elements become changed or develop. > > Your re-working of (mediation) adds the temporal, duration, and (unit of > analysis) and implies it is not the elements or parts that each > individually change or develop (classic intermediary model of elements > transformed by going through a third element IN a triangle with an apex > mediator) > But rather > There are only relation of (within UNITS). > When a tool, technique, sign, word, artifact) develops then the ENTIRE > UNIT (not elements) develops. > > Alfredo, I personally believe your approach (currently re-working > classical and Western canonical versions) deserves to have its own (place) > as a subsection on the XMCA site. To become more clear on this ?later? > Vygotsky. > Then a conversation may generate that puts in question this re-working > BUT > In a spirit of ?play? in rooms. > A movement back and forth, oscillating, spiralling, developing, and never > reaching a determinate conclusion, once and forever. > > Putting in play triangles with mediators at the apex as static diagrams. > More open, fluid, theorizing with ANDA WITHOUT ?mediators? as we play with > these notions. > > I recommend others read the article ?Theorizing with/out mediators?. > Reading the (/) to mean interval where we tarry awhile in a spirit of > re-working theorizing with/out mediators. > > I believe we need to create a subsection on XMCA to let these notions > percolate and permeate the more classical boundary markers. > > My way of saying your article is a pro-found re-working of the notions of > (within) and (without) and (mediation) at the core of this re-working > PRE-assumptions. > > My morning muse > > Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > From: Alfredo Jornet Gil > Sent: April 8, 2017 10:20 PM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky > > Hi Esteban, > > yes, things have been a little quiet lately, but there have been few > threads going on, perhaps most importantly the one discussing Jang's (this > issue's) paper on multi-ethnic issues on Second Language. > > Other threads have seemed to resonate on recent articles/works attempting > to re-work (or work further) some of Vygotsky's key concepts, in particular > ZPD and Mediation (with a couple of articles having been circulated). > > Connecting to the latter, it seems that several of those efforts are > making emphasis on Vygotsky's later period, suggesting that much of the > prior and current uptakes have focused almost exclusively on the > instrumental aspects that were more salient in his middle period, and not > so much on the lines of inquiry that the psychologist was opening never had > the chance to pursue. > > I attach yet another such work, this time by del R?o and ?lvarez. Much is > being written about how and to what extent Vygotsky was revising his own > prior work. This one tells as more about that, and does so both in English > and in Spanish. > > I wonder how do xmca'ers (who likely are busy reading world news as things > are getting more and more perplexing) feel and think about this > tendency/prospect in cultural-historical theory literature. > > Alfredo > ________________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Helena Worthen > Sent: 09 April 2017 03:11 > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Playworlds, Performance, Perezhivanie, Apophasis > ... and TRUMP'S speech! > > Hi, Esteban - > > Things have been a little quiet recently. I suspect my co-xmca-ers in the > US are either mid-semester or digging in on big projects that will have > some significance, hopefully, given what we?re dealing with here. > > You may or may not be aware that our new Secretary of Education is the > sister of Erik Prince, http://www.ibtimes.com/who- > betsy-devos-brother-erik-princes-involvement-blackwater-chinese-money- > laundering-2493834 > > Just a hint of what is happening to education, top to bottom, in the US. > > > Helena > > > Helena Worthen > helenaworthen@gmail.com > Berkeley, CA 94707 > Blog about US and Viet Nam: helenaworthen.wordpress.com > > > > > On Apr 8, 2017, at 3:15 PM, Stephen Diaz wrote: > > > > Hi Bruce, > > > > Don't know if you are still the one for xmcc but I am not getting any > emails from that list serve. Can you please check on that. I still want > to continue on it if possible. Thanks. > > > > Esteban Diaz > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Bruce Jones > > Sent: Sunday, February 5, 2017 3:23 PM > > To: mike cole; Andy Blunden; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Playworlds, Performance, Perezhivanie, Apophasis > ... and TRUMP'S speech! > > > > On 2/5/17 2:39 PM, mike cole wrote: > >> Bruce's email is not bouncing from san diego. > >> Perhaps there is only one c in unsubscribe? > > > > Spelling mistakes will not cause bounces. I do the unsubscribes by hand > > in order to make sure they are removed from the database. > > > > > > -- > > Bruce Jones > > Sys Admin, LCHC > > bjones@ucsd.edu > > 619-823-8281 > > > > -- > > > > From greg.a.thompson@gmail.com Sun Apr 9 09:03:16 2017 From: greg.a.thompson@gmail.com (Greg Thompson) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 10:03:16 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky In-Reply-To: <58ea2ae3.9561630a.3f702.b325@mx.google.com> References: <5893695b.c32f630a.3d640.41ee@mx.google.com> <1486189210098.72503@iped.uio.no> <838a8d3c-2559-3984-64e3-e3cf8bd98266@mira.net> <8029C164-2A9F-4CAA-B0EF-7799A55E7194@gmail.com> <1491715069810.47906@iped.uio.no> <58ea273d.494b620a.8865b.ba36@mx.google.com> <58ea2ae3.9561630a.3f702.b325@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Larry, The late Vygotsky quote you offered sounds very much like Peirce (P was critical of "correspondence" theories of semiosis (V's NOT a relation between sound and thing), and the intrepretant is about the holding of a particular sign relation in the same way as another (V's unity)). Perhaps Vygotsky's late turn was from a Saussurean understanding of the sign to a Peircean one? -greg On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 6:36 AM, wrote: > Alfredo, > I offer a quote from the ?later? Vygotsky that you cite in your article > that may prime the pump: > > Language is NOT the relation between a sound and a denoted thing. It is > the relation between the speaker and the listener, the relation between > people directed toward an object. IT IS THE INTERPSYCHIC REACTION THAT > ESTABLISHES THE UNITY OF TWO ORAGANISMS IN THE SAME ORIENTATION, Toward an > object > > The focus hear on ?establishing the UNITY? of teacher and student IN their > orientation. > The IN includes (within) > > Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > From: lpscholar2@gmail.com > Sent: April 9, 2017 5:21 AM > To: Alfredo Jornet Gil; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: RE: [Xmca-l] Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky > > Alfredo, > I have been slowly reading (and digesting) your and Wolff-Michael?s > article (Theorizing ? with/out mediators) that joins the current ?takes? on > the later Vygotsky. > > My impression (and appreciation) of this emerging tradition is significant > as an enlarging of the scope and ?re-working? of the Vygotsky who was > known in the process of moving into the West European and North Atlantic > form of theorizing. > > I am reading your article in relation to the notion of ?playworlds? and > ?spielraum? (translated playrooms). > > A key re-working of (mediation) has to do with re/thinking triangle > diagrams as static (with mediation at the apex). > This generates a PREsumption of two variables at the base of the triangle > assumed as (elements, essences, things) that inter/act through an > ?intermediary? third (element, essence, thing). > Your article indicates this is the classical or canonical version of > (mediation) as the third thing/element through which the other two > things/elements become changed or develop. > > Your re-working of (mediation) adds the temporal, duration, and (unit of > analysis) and implies it is not the elements or parts that each > individually change or develop (classic intermediary model of elements > transformed by going through a third element IN a triangle with an apex > mediator) > But rather > There are only relation of (within UNITS). > When a tool, technique, sign, word, artifact) develops then the ENTIRE > UNIT (not elements) develops. > > Alfredo, I personally believe your approach (currently re-working > classical and Western canonical versions) deserves to have its own (place) > as a subsection on the XMCA site. To become more clear on this ?later? > Vygotsky. > Then a conversation may generate that puts in question this re-working > BUT > In a spirit of ?play? in rooms. > A movement back and forth, oscillating, spiralling, developing, and never > reaching a determinate conclusion, once and forever. > > Putting in play triangles with mediators at the apex as static diagrams. > More open, fluid, theorizing with ANDA WITHOUT ?mediators? as we play with > these notions. > > I recommend others read the article ?Theorizing with/out mediators?. > Reading the (/) to mean interval where we tarry awhile in a spirit of > re-working theorizing with/out mediators. > > I believe we need to create a subsection on XMCA to let these notions > percolate and permeate the more classical boundary markers. > > My way of saying your article is a pro-found re-working of the notions of > (within) and (without) and (mediation) at the core of this re-working > PRE-assumptions. > > My morning muse > > Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > From: Alfredo Jornet Gil > Sent: April 8, 2017 10:20 PM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky > > Hi Esteban, > > yes, things have been a little quiet lately, but there have been few > threads going on, perhaps most importantly the one discussing Jang's (this > issue's) paper on multi-ethnic issues on Second Language. > > Other threads have seemed to resonate on recent articles/works attempting > to re-work (or work further) some of Vygotsky's key concepts, in particular > ZPD and Mediation (with a couple of articles having been circulated). > > Connecting to the latter, it seems that several of those efforts are > making emphasis on Vygotsky's later period, suggesting that much of the > prior and current uptakes have focused almost exclusively on the > instrumental aspects that were more salient in his middle period, and not > so much on the lines of inquiry that the psychologist was opening never had > the chance to pursue. > > I attach yet another such work, this time by del R?o and ?lvarez. Much is > being written about how and to what extent Vygotsky was revising his own > prior work. This one tells as more about that, and does so both in English > and in Spanish. > > I wonder how do xmca'ers (who likely are busy reading world news as things > are getting more and more perplexing) feel and think about this > tendency/prospect in cultural-historical theory literature. > > Alfredo > ________________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Helena Worthen > Sent: 09 April 2017 03:11 > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Playworlds, Performance, Perezhivanie, Apophasis > ... and TRUMP'S speech! > > Hi, Esteban - > > Things have been a little quiet recently. I suspect my co-xmca-ers in the > US are either mid-semester or digging in on big projects that will have > some significance, hopefully, given what we?re dealing with here. > > You may or may not be aware that our new Secretary of Education is the > sister of Erik Prince, http://www.ibtimes.com/who- > betsy-devos-brother-erik-princes-involvement-blackwater-chinese-money- > laundering-2493834 > > Just a hint of what is happening to education, top to bottom, in the US. > > > Helena > > > Helena Worthen > helenaworthen@gmail.com > Berkeley, CA 94707 > Blog about US and Viet Nam: helenaworthen.wordpress.com > > > > > On Apr 8, 2017, at 3:15 PM, Stephen Diaz wrote: > > > > Hi Bruce, > > > > Don't know if you are still the one for xmcc but I am not getting any > emails from that list serve. Can you please check on that. I still want > to continue on it if possible. Thanks. > > > > Esteban Diaz > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Bruce Jones > > Sent: Sunday, February 5, 2017 3:23 PM > > To: mike cole; Andy Blunden; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Playworlds, Performance, Perezhivanie, Apophasis > ... and TRUMP'S speech! > > > > On 2/5/17 2:39 PM, mike cole wrote: > >> Bruce's email is not bouncing from san diego. > >> Perhaps there is only one c in unsubscribe? > > > > Spelling mistakes will not cause bounces. I do the unsubscribes by hand > > in order to make sure they are removed from the database. > > > > > > -- > > Bruce Jones > > Sys Admin, LCHC > > bjones@ucsd.edu > > 619-823-8281 > > > > -- > > > > -- Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Anthropology 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson From lpscholar2@gmail.com Sun Apr 9 09:18:57 2017 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (lpscholar2@gmail.com) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 09:18:57 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky In-Reply-To: References: <5893695b.c32f630a.3d640.41ee@mx.google.com> <1486189210098.72503@iped.uio.no> <838a8d3c-2559-3984-64e3-e3cf8bd98266@mira.net> <8029C164-2A9F-4CAA-B0EF-7799A55E7194@gmail.com> <1491715069810.47906@iped.uio.no> <58ea273d.494b620a.8865b.ba36@mx.google.com> <58ea2ae3.9561630a.3f702.b325@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <58ea5f00.067d630a.cab9c.d0e6@mx.google.com> Greg, Would this Peircean perspective be consistent with the Alvarez article sent by Alfredo today contrasting (sequential) ways in early V with (simultaneous) ways in later V Sent from my Windows 10 phone From: Greg Thompson Sent: April 9, 2017 9:06 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky Larry, The late Vygotsky quote you offered sounds very much like Peirce (P was critical of "correspondence" theories of semiosis (V's NOT a relation between sound and thing), and the intrepretant is about the holding of a particular sign relation in the same way as another (V's unity)). Perhaps Vygotsky's late turn was from a Saussurean understanding of the sign to a Peircean one? -greg On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 6:36 AM, wrote: > Alfredo, > I offer a quote from the ?later? Vygotsky that you cite in your article > that may prime the pump: > > Language is NOT the relation between a sound and a denoted thing. It is > the relation between the speaker and the listener, the relation between > people directed toward an object. IT IS THE INTERPSYCHIC REACTION THAT > ESTABLISHES THE UNITY OF TWO ORAGANISMS IN THE SAME ORIENTATION, Toward an > object > > The focus hear on ?establishing the UNITY? of teacher and student IN their > orientation. > The IN includes (within) > > Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > From: lpscholar2@gmail.com > Sent: April 9, 2017 5:21 AM > To: Alfredo Jornet Gil; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: RE: [Xmca-l] Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky > > Alfredo, > I have been slowly reading (and digesting) your and Wolff-Michael?s > article (Theorizing ? with/out mediators) that joins the current ?takes? on > the later Vygotsky. > > My impression (and appreciation) of this emerging tradition is significant > as an enlarging of the scope and ?re-working? of the Vygotsky who was > known in the process of moving into the West European and North Atlantic > form of theorizing. > > I am reading your article in relation to the notion of ?playworlds? and > ?spielraum? (translated playrooms). > > A key re-working of (mediation) has to do with re/thinking triangle > diagrams as static (with mediation at the apex). > This generates a PREsumption of two variables at the base of the triangle > assumed as (elements, essences, things) that inter/act through an > ?intermediary? third (element, essence, thing). > Your article indicates this is the classical or canonical version of > (mediation) as the third thing/element through which the other two > things/elements become changed or develop. > > Your re-working of (mediation) adds the temporal, duration, and (unit of > analysis) and implies it is not the elements or parts that each > individually change or develop (classic intermediary model of elements > transformed by going through a third element IN a triangle with an apex > mediator) > But rather > There are only relation of (within UNITS). > When a tool, technique, sign, word, artifact) develops then the ENTIRE > UNIT (not elements) develops. > > Alfredo, I personally believe your approach (currently re-working > classical and Western canonical versions) deserves to have its own (place) > as a subsection on the XMCA site. To become more clear on this ?later? > Vygotsky. > Then a conversation may generate that puts in question this re-working > BUT > In a spirit of ?play? in rooms. > A movement back and forth, oscillating, spiralling, developing, and never > reaching a determinate conclusion, once and forever. > > Putting in play triangles with mediators at the apex as static diagrams. > More open, fluid, theorizing with ANDA WITHOUT ?mediators? as we play with > these notions. > > I recommend others read the article ?Theorizing with/out mediators?. > Reading the (/) to mean interval where we tarry awhile in a spirit of > re-working theorizing with/out mediators. > > I believe we need to create a subsection on XMCA to let these notions > percolate and permeate the more classical boundary markers. > > My way of saying your article is a pro-found re-working of the notions of > (within) and (without) and (mediation) at the core of this re-working > PRE-assumptions. > > My morning muse > > Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > From: Alfredo Jornet Gil > Sent: April 8, 2017 10:20 PM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky > > Hi Esteban, > > yes, things have been a little quiet lately, but there have been few > threads going on, perhaps most importantly the one discussing Jang's (this > issue's) paper on multi-ethnic issues on Second Language. > > Other threads have seemed to resonate on recent articles/works attempting > to re-work (or work further) some of Vygotsky's key concepts, in particular > ZPD and Mediation (with a couple of articles having been circulated). > > Connecting to the latter, it seems that several of those efforts are > making emphasis on Vygotsky's later period, suggesting that much of the > prior and current uptakes have focused almost exclusively on the > instrumental aspects that were more salient in his middle period, and not > so much on the lines of inquiry that the psychologist was opening never had > the chance to pursue. > > I attach yet another such work, this time by del R?o and ?lvarez. Much is > being written about how and to what extent Vygotsky was revising his own > prior work. This one tells as more about that, and does so both in English > and in Spanish. > > I wonder how do xmca'ers (who likely are busy reading world news as things > are getting more and more perplexing) feel and think about this > tendency/prospect in cultural-historical theory literature. > > Alfredo > ________________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Helena Worthen > Sent: 09 April 2017 03:11 > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Playworlds, Performance, Perezhivanie, Apophasis > ... and TRUMP'S speech! > > Hi, Esteban - > > Things have been a little quiet recently. I suspect my co-xmca-ers in the > US are either mid-semester or digging in on big projects that will have > some significance, hopefully, given what we?re dealing with here. > > You may or may not be aware that our new Secretary of Education is the > sister of Erik Prince, http://www.ibtimes.com/who- > betsy-devos-brother-erik-princes-involvement-blackwater-chinese-money- > laundering-2493834 > > Just a hint of what is happening to education, top to bottom, in the US. > > > Helena > > > Helena Worthen > helenaworthen@gmail.com > Berkeley, CA 94707 > Blog about US and Viet Nam: helenaworthen.wordpress.com > > > > > On Apr 8, 2017, at 3:15 PM, Stephen Diaz wrote: > > > > Hi Bruce, > > > > Don't know if you are still the one for xmcc but I am not getting any > emails from that list serve. Can you please check on that. I still want > to continue on it if possible. Thanks. > > > > Esteban Diaz > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Bruce Jones > > Sent: Sunday, February 5, 2017 3:23 PM > > To: mike cole; Andy Blunden; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Playworlds, Performance, Perezhivanie, Apophasis > ... and TRUMP'S speech! > > > > On 2/5/17 2:39 PM, mike cole wrote: > >> Bruce's email is not bouncing from san diego. > >> Perhaps there is only one c in unsubscribe? > > > > Spelling mistakes will not cause bounces. I do the unsubscribes by hand > > in order to make sure they are removed from the database. > > > > > > -- > > Bruce Jones > > Sys Admin, LCHC > > bjones@ucsd.edu > > 619-823-8281 > > > > -- > > > > -- Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Anthropology 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson From mcole@ucsd.edu Sun Apr 9 09:42:06 2017 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 09:42:06 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky In-Reply-To: <1491715069810.47906@iped.uio.no> References: <5893695b.c32f630a.3d640.41ee@mx.google.com> <1486189210098.72503@iped.uio.no> <838a8d3c-2559-3984-64e3-e3cf8bd98266@mira.net> <8029C164-2A9F-4CAA-B0EF-7799A55E7194@gmail.com> <1491715069810.47906@iped.uio.no> Message-ID: Hi Pablo, Amelia As you will see, your paper is up for discussion on xmca. I hope you will be able to participate. If you are not on xmca, it should be easy to join by going to the xmca webpage at xmca.ucsd.edu. The webpage also has the archive of the discussion in this and prior months/years. Thanks for posting, Alfredo. mike On Sat, Apr 8, 2017 at 10:17 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > Hi Esteban, > > yes, things have been a little quiet lately, but there have been few > threads going on, perhaps most importantly the one discussing Jang's (this > issue's) paper on multi-ethnic issues on Second Language. > > Other threads have seemed to resonate on recent articles/works attempting > to re-work (or work further) some of Vygotsky's key concepts, in particular > ZPD and Mediation (with a couple of articles having been circulated). > > Connecting to the latter, it seems that several of those efforts are > making emphasis on Vygotsky's later period, suggesting that much of the > prior and current uptakes have focused almost exclusively on the > instrumental aspects that were more salient in his middle period, and not > so much on the lines of inquiry that the psychologist was opening never had > the chance to pursue. > > I attach yet another such work, this time by del R?o and ?lvarez. Much is > being written about how and to what extent Vygotsky was revising his own > prior work. This one tells as more about that, and does so both in English > and in Spanish. > > I wonder how do xmca'ers (who likely are busy reading world news as things > are getting more and more perplexing) feel and think about this > tendency/prospect in cultural-historical theory literature. > > Alfredo > ________________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Helena Worthen > Sent: 09 April 2017 03:11 > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Playworlds, Performance, Perezhivanie, Apophasis > ... and TRUMP'S speech! > > Hi, Esteban - > > Things have been a little quiet recently. I suspect my co-xmca-ers in the > US are either mid-semester or digging in on big projects that will have > some significance, hopefully, given what we?re dealing with here. > > You may or may not be aware that our new Secretary of Education is the > sister of Erik Prince, http://www.ibtimes.com/who- > betsy-devos-brother-erik-princes-involvement-blackwater-chinese-money- > laundering-2493834 > > Just a hint of what is happening to education, top to bottom, in the US. > > > Helena > > > Helena Worthen > helenaworthen@gmail.com > Berkeley, CA 94707 > Blog about US and Viet Nam: helenaworthen.wordpress.com > > > > > On Apr 8, 2017, at 3:15 PM, Stephen Diaz wrote: > > > > Hi Bruce, > > > > Don't know if you are still the one for xmcc but I am not getting any > emails from that list serve. Can you please check on that. I still want > to continue on it if possible. Thanks. > > > > Esteban Diaz > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Bruce Jones > > Sent: Sunday, February 5, 2017 3:23 PM > > To: mike cole; Andy Blunden; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Playworlds, Performance, Perezhivanie, Apophasis > ... and TRUMP'S speech! > > > > On 2/5/17 2:39 PM, mike cole wrote: > >> Bruce's email is not bouncing from san diego. > >> Perhaps there is only one c in unsubscribe? > > > > Spelling mistakes will not cause bounces. I do the unsubscribes by hand > > in order to make sure they are removed from the database. > > > > > > -- > > Bruce Jones > > Sys Admin, LCHC > > bjones@ucsd.edu > > 619-823-8281 > > > > -- > > From wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com Sun Apr 9 09:43:38 2017 From: wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com (Wolff-Michael Roth) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 09:43:38 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky In-Reply-To: References: <5893695b.c32f630a.3d640.41ee@mx.google.com> <1486189210098.72503@iped.uio.no> <838a8d3c-2559-3984-64e3-e3cf8bd98266@mira.net> <8029C164-2A9F-4CAA-B0EF-7799A55E7194@gmail.com> <1491715069810.47906@iped.uio.no> <58ea273d.494b620a.8865b.ba36@mx.google.com> <58ea2ae3.9561630a.3f702.b325@mx.google.com> Message-ID: My hunch would be that he was heading toward a Marxian perspective. In a 2006 article in SEMIOTICA (appended), I showed how when you replace "commodity" in *Das Kapital *by "sign" and all examples of commodities by examples of signs, you get texts that could have been written by philosophers of difference. At the time, I didn't understand much of Vygotsky, the earlier or the later---I guess, I still don't if you take as a measure everything we, as a culture, know about his writing and thinking---and I was still thinking more in the old way. But I already did suggest that we can think differently about language, moving away from reference and "meaning." Michael -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor Applied Cognitive Science MacLaurin Building A567 University of Victoria Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics * On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 9:03 AM, Greg Thompson wrote: > Larry, > The late Vygotsky quote you offered sounds very much like Peirce (P was > critical of "correspondence" theories of semiosis (V's NOT a relation > between sound and thing), and the intrepretant is about the holding of a > particular sign relation in the same way as another (V's unity)). Perhaps > Vygotsky's late turn was from a Saussurean understanding of the sign to a > Peircean one? > -greg > > On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 6:36 AM, wrote: > > > Alfredo, > > I offer a quote from the ?later? Vygotsky that you cite in your article > > that may prime the pump: > > > > Language is NOT the relation between a sound and a denoted thing. It is > > the relation between the speaker and the listener, the relation between > > people directed toward an object. IT IS THE INTERPSYCHIC REACTION THAT > > ESTABLISHES THE UNITY OF TWO ORAGANISMS IN THE SAME ORIENTATION, Toward > an > > object > > > > The focus hear on ?establishing the UNITY? of teacher and student IN > their > > orientation. > > The IN includes (within) > > > > Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > > > From: lpscholar2@gmail.com > > Sent: April 9, 2017 5:21 AM > > To: Alfredo Jornet Gil; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > Subject: RE: [Xmca-l] Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky > > > > Alfredo, > > I have been slowly reading (and digesting) your and Wolff-Michael?s > > article (Theorizing ? with/out mediators) that joins the current ?takes? > on > > the later Vygotsky. > > > > My impression (and appreciation) of this emerging tradition is > significant > > as an enlarging of the scope and ?re-working? of the Vygotsky who was > > known in the process of moving into the West European and North Atlantic > > form of theorizing. > > > > I am reading your article in relation to the notion of ?playworlds? and > > ?spielraum? (translated playrooms). > > > > A key re-working of (mediation) has to do with re/thinking triangle > > diagrams as static (with mediation at the apex). > > This generates a PREsumption of two variables at the base of the triangle > > assumed as (elements, essences, things) that inter/act through an > > ?intermediary? third (element, essence, thing). > > Your article indicates this is the classical or canonical version of > > (mediation) as the third thing/element through which the other two > > things/elements become changed or develop. > > > > Your re-working of (mediation) adds the temporal, duration, and (unit of > > analysis) and implies it is not the elements or parts that each > > individually change or develop (classic intermediary model of elements > > transformed by going through a third element IN a triangle with an apex > > mediator) > > But rather > > There are only relation of (within UNITS). > > When a tool, technique, sign, word, artifact) develops then the ENTIRE > > UNIT (not elements) develops. > > > > Alfredo, I personally believe your approach (currently re-working > > classical and Western canonical versions) deserves to have its own > (place) > > as a subsection on the XMCA site. To become more clear on this ?later? > > Vygotsky. > > Then a conversation may generate that puts in question this re-working > > BUT > > In a spirit of ?play? in rooms. > > A movement back and forth, oscillating, spiralling, developing, and never > > reaching a determinate conclusion, once and forever. > > > > Putting in play triangles with mediators at the apex as static diagrams. > > More open, fluid, theorizing with ANDA WITHOUT ?mediators? as we play > with > > these notions. > > > > I recommend others read the article ?Theorizing with/out mediators?. > > Reading the (/) to mean interval where we tarry awhile in a spirit of > > re-working theorizing with/out mediators. > > > > I believe we need to create a subsection on XMCA to let these notions > > percolate and permeate the more classical boundary markers. > > > > My way of saying your article is a pro-found re-working of the notions of > > (within) and (without) and (mediation) at the core of this re-working > > PRE-assumptions. > > > > My morning muse > > > > Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > > > From: Alfredo Jornet Gil > > Sent: April 8, 2017 10:20 PM > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky > > > > Hi Esteban, > > > > yes, things have been a little quiet lately, but there have been few > > threads going on, perhaps most importantly the one discussing Jang's > (this > > issue's) paper on multi-ethnic issues on Second Language. > > > > Other threads have seemed to resonate on recent articles/works attempting > > to re-work (or work further) some of Vygotsky's key concepts, in > particular > > ZPD and Mediation (with a couple of articles having been circulated). > > > > Connecting to the latter, it seems that several of those efforts are > > making emphasis on Vygotsky's later period, suggesting that much of the > > prior and current uptakes have focused almost exclusively on the > > instrumental aspects that were more salient in his middle period, and not > > so much on the lines of inquiry that the psychologist was opening never > had > > the chance to pursue. > > > > I attach yet another such work, this time by del R?o and ?lvarez. Much is > > being written about how and to what extent Vygotsky was revising his own > > prior work. This one tells as more about that, and does so both in > English > > and in Spanish. > > > > I wonder how do xmca'ers (who likely are busy reading world news as > things > > are getting more and more perplexing) feel and think about this > > tendency/prospect in cultural-historical theory literature. > > > > Alfredo > > ________________________________________ > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > on behalf of Helena Worthen > > Sent: 09 April 2017 03:11 > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Playworlds, Performance, Perezhivanie, Apophasis > > ... and TRUMP'S speech! > > > > Hi, Esteban - > > > > Things have been a little quiet recently. I suspect my co-xmca-ers in the > > US are either mid-semester or digging in on big projects that will have > > some significance, hopefully, given what we?re dealing with here. > > > > You may or may not be aware that our new Secretary of Education is the > > sister of Erik Prince, http://www.ibtimes.com/who- > > betsy-devos-brother-erik-princes-involvement-blackwater-chinese-money- > > laundering-2493834 > > > > Just a hint of what is happening to education, top to bottom, in the US. > > > > > > Helena > > > > > > Helena Worthen > > helenaworthen@gmail.com > > Berkeley, CA 94707 > > Blog about US and Viet Nam: helenaworthen.wordpress.com > > > > > > > > > On Apr 8, 2017, at 3:15 PM, Stephen Diaz wrote: > > > > > > Hi Bruce, > > > > > > Don't know if you are still the one for xmcc but I am not getting any > > emails from that list serve. Can you please check on that. I still want > > to continue on it if possible. Thanks. > > > > > > Esteban Diaz > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > on behalf of Bruce Jones > > > Sent: Sunday, February 5, 2017 3:23 PM > > > To: mike cole; Andy Blunden; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Playworlds, Performance, Perezhivanie, Apophasis > > ... and TRUMP'S speech! > > > > > > On 2/5/17 2:39 PM, mike cole wrote: > > >> Bruce's email is not bouncing from san diego. > > >> Perhaps there is only one c in unsubscribe? > > > > > > Spelling mistakes will not cause bounces. I do the unsubscribes by > hand > > > in order to make sure they are removed from the database. > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Bruce Jones > > > Sys Admin, LCHC > > > bjones@ucsd.edu > > > 619-823-8281 > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. > Assistant Professor > Department of Anthropology > 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower > Brigham Young University > Provo, UT 84602 > http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: SEM.2006.043.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 819165 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20170409/3f7b8eee/attachment-0001.pdf From mcole@ucsd.edu Sun Apr 9 09:56:07 2017 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 09:56:07 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky In-Reply-To: References: <5893695b.c32f630a.3d640.41ee@mx.google.com> <1486189210098.72503@iped.uio.no> <838a8d3c-2559-3984-64e3-e3cf8bd98266@mira.net> <8029C164-2A9F-4CAA-B0EF-7799A55E7194@gmail.com> <1491715069810.47906@iped.uio.no> <58ea273d.494b620a.8865b.ba36@mx.google.com> <58ea2ae3.9561630a.3f702.b325@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Perhaps, Michael. Lets see what Pablo and Amelia have to say. mike On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 9:43 AM, Wolff-Michael Roth < wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote: > My hunch would be that he was heading toward a Marxian perspective. In a > 2006 article in SEMIOTICA (appended), I showed how when you replace > "commodity" in *Das Kapital *by "sign" and all examples of commodities by > examples of signs, you get texts that could have been written by > philosophers of difference. > At the time, I didn't understand much of Vygotsky, the earlier or the > later---I guess, I still don't if you take as a measure everything we, as a > culture, know about his writing and thinking---and I was still thinking > more in the old way. But I already did suggest that we can think > differently about language, moving away from reference and "meaning." > Michael > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > -------------------- > Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor > Applied Cognitive Science > MacLaurin Building A567 > University of Victoria > Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 > http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth > > New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the- > mathematics-of-mathematics/>* > > On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 9:03 AM, Greg Thompson > wrote: > > > Larry, > > The late Vygotsky quote you offered sounds very much like Peirce (P was > > critical of "correspondence" theories of semiosis (V's NOT a relation > > between sound and thing), and the intrepretant is about the holding of a > > particular sign relation in the same way as another (V's unity)). Perhaps > > Vygotsky's late turn was from a Saussurean understanding of the sign to a > > Peircean one? > > -greg > > > > On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 6:36 AM, wrote: > > > > > Alfredo, > > > I offer a quote from the ?later? Vygotsky that you cite in your article > > > that may prime the pump: > > > > > > Language is NOT the relation between a sound and a denoted thing. It > is > > > the relation between the speaker and the listener, the relation between > > > people directed toward an object. IT IS THE INTERPSYCHIC REACTION THAT > > > ESTABLISHES THE UNITY OF TWO ORAGANISMS IN THE SAME ORIENTATION, Toward > > an > > > object > > > > > > The focus hear on ?establishing the UNITY? of teacher and student IN > > their > > > orientation. > > > The IN includes (within) > > > > > > Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > > > > > From: lpscholar2@gmail.com > > > Sent: April 9, 2017 5:21 AM > > > To: Alfredo Jornet Gil; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > Subject: RE: [Xmca-l] Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky > > > > > > Alfredo, > > > I have been slowly reading (and digesting) your and Wolff-Michael?s > > > article (Theorizing ? with/out mediators) that joins the current > ?takes? > > on > > > the later Vygotsky. > > > > > > My impression (and appreciation) of this emerging tradition is > > significant > > > as an enlarging of the scope and ?re-working? of the Vygotsky who was > > > known in the process of moving into the West European and North > Atlantic > > > form of theorizing. > > > > > > I am reading your article in relation to the notion of ?playworlds? and > > > ?spielraum? (translated playrooms). > > > > > > A key re-working of (mediation) has to do with re/thinking triangle > > > diagrams as static (with mediation at the apex). > > > This generates a PREsumption of two variables at the base of the > triangle > > > assumed as (elements, essences, things) that inter/act through an > > > ?intermediary? third (element, essence, thing). > > > Your article indicates this is the classical or canonical version of > > > (mediation) as the third thing/element through which the other two > > > things/elements become changed or develop. > > > > > > Your re-working of (mediation) adds the temporal, duration, and (unit > of > > > analysis) and implies it is not the elements or parts that each > > > individually change or develop (classic intermediary model of elements > > > transformed by going through a third element IN a triangle with an apex > > > mediator) > > > But rather > > > There are only relation of (within UNITS). > > > When a tool, technique, sign, word, artifact) develops then the ENTIRE > > > UNIT (not elements) develops. > > > > > > Alfredo, I personally believe your approach (currently re-working > > > classical and Western canonical versions) deserves to have its own > > (place) > > > as a subsection on the XMCA site. To become more clear on this ?later? > > > Vygotsky. > > > Then a conversation may generate that puts in question this re-working > > > BUT > > > In a spirit of ?play? in rooms. > > > A movement back and forth, oscillating, spiralling, developing, and > never > > > reaching a determinate conclusion, once and forever. > > > > > > Putting in play triangles with mediators at the apex as static > diagrams. > > > More open, fluid, theorizing with ANDA WITHOUT ?mediators? as we play > > with > > > these notions. > > > > > > I recommend others read the article ?Theorizing with/out mediators?. > > > Reading the (/) to mean interval where we tarry awhile in a spirit of > > > re-working theorizing with/out mediators. > > > > > > I believe we need to create a subsection on XMCA to let these notions > > > percolate and permeate the more classical boundary markers. > > > > > > My way of saying your article is a pro-found re-working of the notions > of > > > (within) and (without) and (mediation) at the core of this re-working > > > PRE-assumptions. > > > > > > My morning muse > > > > > > Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > > > > > From: Alfredo Jornet Gil > > > Sent: April 8, 2017 10:20 PM > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky > > > > > > Hi Esteban, > > > > > > yes, things have been a little quiet lately, but there have been few > > > threads going on, perhaps most importantly the one discussing Jang's > > (this > > > issue's) paper on multi-ethnic issues on Second Language. > > > > > > Other threads have seemed to resonate on recent articles/works > attempting > > > to re-work (or work further) some of Vygotsky's key concepts, in > > particular > > > ZPD and Mediation (with a couple of articles having been circulated). > > > > > > Connecting to the latter, it seems that several of those efforts are > > > making emphasis on Vygotsky's later period, suggesting that much of the > > > prior and current uptakes have focused almost exclusively on the > > > instrumental aspects that were more salient in his middle period, and > not > > > so much on the lines of inquiry that the psychologist was opening never > > had > > > the chance to pursue. > > > > > > I attach yet another such work, this time by del R?o and ?lvarez. Much > is > > > being written about how and to what extent Vygotsky was revising his > own > > > prior work. This one tells as more about that, and does so both in > > English > > > and in Spanish. > > > > > > I wonder how do xmca'ers (who likely are busy reading world news as > > things > > > are getting more and more perplexing) feel and think about this > > > tendency/prospect in cultural-historical theory literature. > > > > > > Alfredo > > > ________________________________________ > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > on behalf of Helena Worthen > > > Sent: 09 April 2017 03:11 > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Playworlds, Performance, Perezhivanie, > Apophasis > > > ... and TRUMP'S speech! > > > > > > Hi, Esteban - > > > > > > Things have been a little quiet recently. I suspect my co-xmca-ers in > the > > > US are either mid-semester or digging in on big projects that will have > > > some significance, hopefully, given what we?re dealing with here. > > > > > > You may or may not be aware that our new Secretary of Education is the > > > sister of Erik Prince, http://www.ibtimes.com/who- > > > betsy-devos-brother-erik-princes-involvement-blackwater-chinese-money- > > > laundering-2493834 > > > > > > Just a hint of what is happening to education, top to bottom, in the > US. > > > > > > > > > Helena > > > > > > > > > Helena Worthen > > > helenaworthen@gmail.com > > > Berkeley, CA 94707 > > > Blog about US and Viet Nam: helenaworthen.wordpress.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 8, 2017, at 3:15 PM, Stephen Diaz wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Bruce, > > > > > > > > Don't know if you are still the one for xmcc but I am not getting any > > > emails from that list serve. Can you please check on that. I still > want > > > to continue on it if possible. Thanks. > > > > > > > > Esteban Diaz > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu edu > > > > > > on behalf of Bruce Jones > > > > Sent: Sunday, February 5, 2017 3:23 PM > > > > To: mike cole; Andy Blunden; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Playworlds, Performance, Perezhivanie, > Apophasis > > > ... and TRUMP'S speech! > > > > > > > > On 2/5/17 2:39 PM, mike cole wrote: > > > >> Bruce's email is not bouncing from san diego. > > > >> Perhaps there is only one c in unsubscribe? > > > > > > > > Spelling mistakes will not cause bounces. I do the unsubscribes by > > hand > > > > in order to make sure they are removed from the database. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Bruce Jones > > > > Sys Admin, LCHC > > > > bjones@ucsd.edu > > > > 619-823-8281 > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. > > Assistant Professor > > Department of Anthropology > > 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower > > Brigham Young University > > Provo, UT 84602 > > http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson > > > From wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com Sun Apr 9 10:38:00 2017 From: wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com (Wolff-Michael Roth) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 10:38:00 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky In-Reply-To: References: <5893695b.c32f630a.3d640.41ee@mx.google.com> <1486189210098.72503@iped.uio.no> <838a8d3c-2559-3984-64e3-e3cf8bd98266@mira.net> <8029C164-2A9F-4CAA-B0EF-7799A55E7194@gmail.com> <1491715069810.47906@iped.uio.no> <58ea273d.494b620a.8865b.ba36@mx.google.com> <58ea2ae3.9561630a.3f702.b325@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Mike, to me a clue would be the last couple of paragraphs of *Thinking and Speech*, what he says about the word being reality for two but impossible for one. Same for commodity, indeed, this goes back to Feuerbach's articulation of a Spinozist-materialist approach, and thus would have been consistent with the other Spinozist inclinations of Vygotsky during that final period. It would be consistent with the emergence of the general (Kapital), as articulated by Il'enkov and, with respect to consciousness, by Mamardashvili. Michael -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor Applied Cognitive Science MacLaurin Building A567 University of Victoria Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics * On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 9:56 AM, mike cole wrote: > Perhaps, Michael. > > Lets see what Pablo and Amelia have to say. > mike > > On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 9:43 AM, Wolff-Michael Roth < > wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote: > > > My hunch would be that he was heading toward a Marxian perspective. In a > > 2006 article in SEMIOTICA (appended), I showed how when you replace > > "commodity" in *Das Kapital *by "sign" and all examples of commodities by > > examples of signs, you get texts that could have been written by > > philosophers of difference. > > At the time, I didn't understand much of Vygotsky, the earlier or the > > later---I guess, I still don't if you take as a measure everything we, > as a > > culture, know about his writing and thinking---and I was still thinking > > more in the old way. But I already did suggest that we can think > > differently about language, moving away from reference and "meaning." > > Michael > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > -------------------- > > Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor > > Applied Cognitive Science > > MacLaurin Building A567 > > University of Victoria > > Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 > > http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth > > > > New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > > directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the- > > mathematics-of-mathematics/>* > > > > On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 9:03 AM, Greg Thompson > > > wrote: > > > > > Larry, > > > The late Vygotsky quote you offered sounds very much like Peirce (P was > > > critical of "correspondence" theories of semiosis (V's NOT a relation > > > between sound and thing), and the intrepretant is about the holding of > a > > > particular sign relation in the same way as another (V's unity)). > Perhaps > > > Vygotsky's late turn was from a Saussurean understanding of the sign > to a > > > Peircean one? > > > -greg > > > > > > On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 6:36 AM, wrote: > > > > > > > Alfredo, > > > > I offer a quote from the ?later? Vygotsky that you cite in your > article > > > > that may prime the pump: > > > > > > > > Language is NOT the relation between a sound and a denoted thing. It > > is > > > > the relation between the speaker and the listener, the relation > between > > > > people directed toward an object. IT IS THE INTERPSYCHIC REACTION > THAT > > > > ESTABLISHES THE UNITY OF TWO ORAGANISMS IN THE SAME ORIENTATION, > Toward > > > an > > > > object > > > > > > > > The focus hear on ?establishing the UNITY? of teacher and student IN > > > their > > > > orientation. > > > > The IN includes (within) > > > > > > > > Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > > > > > > > From: lpscholar2@gmail.com > > > > Sent: April 9, 2017 5:21 AM > > > > To: Alfredo Jornet Gil; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > > Subject: RE: [Xmca-l] Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky > > > > > > > > Alfredo, > > > > I have been slowly reading (and digesting) your and Wolff-Michael?s > > > > article (Theorizing ? with/out mediators) that joins the current > > ?takes? > > > on > > > > the later Vygotsky. > > > > > > > > My impression (and appreciation) of this emerging tradition is > > > significant > > > > as an enlarging of the scope and ?re-working? of the Vygotsky who > was > > > > known in the process of moving into the West European and North > > Atlantic > > > > form of theorizing. > > > > > > > > I am reading your article in relation to the notion of ?playworlds? > and > > > > ?spielraum? (translated playrooms). > > > > > > > > A key re-working of (mediation) has to do with re/thinking triangle > > > > diagrams as static (with mediation at the apex). > > > > This generates a PREsumption of two variables at the base of the > > triangle > > > > assumed as (elements, essences, things) that inter/act through an > > > > ?intermediary? third (element, essence, thing). > > > > Your article indicates this is the classical or canonical version of > > > > (mediation) as the third thing/element through which the other two > > > > things/elements become changed or develop. > > > > > > > > Your re-working of (mediation) adds the temporal, duration, and (unit > > of > > > > analysis) and implies it is not the elements or parts that each > > > > individually change or develop (classic intermediary model of > elements > > > > transformed by going through a third element IN a triangle with an > apex > > > > mediator) > > > > But rather > > > > There are only relation of (within UNITS). > > > > When a tool, technique, sign, word, artifact) develops then the > ENTIRE > > > > UNIT (not elements) develops. > > > > > > > > Alfredo, I personally believe your approach (currently re-working > > > > classical and Western canonical versions) deserves to have its own > > > (place) > > > > as a subsection on the XMCA site. To become more clear on this > ?later? > > > > Vygotsky. > > > > Then a conversation may generate that puts in question this > re-working > > > > BUT > > > > In a spirit of ?play? in rooms. > > > > A movement back and forth, oscillating, spiralling, developing, and > > never > > > > reaching a determinate conclusion, once and forever. > > > > > > > > Putting in play triangles with mediators at the apex as static > > diagrams. > > > > More open, fluid, theorizing with ANDA WITHOUT ?mediators? as we play > > > with > > > > these notions. > > > > > > > > I recommend others read the article ?Theorizing with/out mediators?. > > > > Reading the (/) to mean interval where we tarry awhile in a spirit of > > > > re-working theorizing with/out mediators. > > > > > > > > I believe we need to create a subsection on XMCA to let these notions > > > > percolate and permeate the more classical boundary markers. > > > > > > > > My way of saying your article is a pro-found re-working of the > notions > > of > > > > (within) and (without) and (mediation) at the core of this re-working > > > > PRE-assumptions. > > > > > > > > My morning muse > > > > > > > > Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > > > > > > > From: Alfredo Jornet Gil > > > > Sent: April 8, 2017 10:20 PM > > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky > > > > > > > > Hi Esteban, > > > > > > > > yes, things have been a little quiet lately, but there have been few > > > > threads going on, perhaps most importantly the one discussing Jang's > > > (this > > > > issue's) paper on multi-ethnic issues on Second Language. > > > > > > > > Other threads have seemed to resonate on recent articles/works > > attempting > > > > to re-work (or work further) some of Vygotsky's key concepts, in > > > particular > > > > ZPD and Mediation (with a couple of articles having been circulated). > > > > > > > > Connecting to the latter, it seems that several of those efforts are > > > > making emphasis on Vygotsky's later period, suggesting that much of > the > > > > prior and current uptakes have focused almost exclusively on the > > > > instrumental aspects that were more salient in his middle period, and > > not > > > > so much on the lines of inquiry that the psychologist was opening > never > > > had > > > > the chance to pursue. > > > > > > > > I attach yet another such work, this time by del R?o and ?lvarez. > Much > > is > > > > being written about how and to what extent Vygotsky was revising his > > own > > > > prior work. This one tells as more about that, and does so both in > > > English > > > > and in Spanish. > > > > > > > > I wonder how do xmca'ers (who likely are busy reading world news as > > > things > > > > are getting more and more perplexing) feel and think about this > > > > tendency/prospect in cultural-historical theory literature. > > > > > > > > Alfredo > > > > ________________________________________ > > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu edu > > > > > > > on behalf of Helena Worthen > > > > Sent: 09 April 2017 03:11 > > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Playworlds, Performance, Perezhivanie, > > Apophasis > > > > ... and TRUMP'S speech! > > > > > > > > Hi, Esteban - > > > > > > > > Things have been a little quiet recently. I suspect my co-xmca-ers in > > the > > > > US are either mid-semester or digging in on big projects that will > have > > > > some significance, hopefully, given what we?re dealing with here. > > > > > > > > You may or may not be aware that our new Secretary of Education is > the > > > > sister of Erik Prince, http://www.ibtimes.com/who- > > > > betsy-devos-brother-erik-princes-involvement- > blackwater-chinese-money- > > > > laundering-2493834 > > > > > > > > Just a hint of what is happening to education, top to bottom, in the > > US. > > > > > > > > > > > > Helena > > > > > > > > > > > > Helena Worthen > > > > helenaworthen@gmail.com > > > > Berkeley, CA 94707 > > > > Blog about US and Viet Nam: helenaworthen.wordpress.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 8, 2017, at 3:15 PM, Stephen Diaz wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hi Bruce, > > > > > > > > > > Don't know if you are still the one for xmcc but I am not getting > any > > > > emails from that list serve. Can you please check on that. I still > > want > > > > to continue on it if possible. Thanks. > > > > > > > > > > Esteban Diaz > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > edu > > > > > > > > on behalf of Bruce Jones > > > > > Sent: Sunday, February 5, 2017 3:23 PM > > > > > To: mike cole; Andy Blunden; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Playworlds, Performance, Perezhivanie, > > Apophasis > > > > ... and TRUMP'S speech! > > > > > > > > > > On 2/5/17 2:39 PM, mike cole wrote: > > > > >> Bruce's email is not bouncing from san diego. > > > > >> Perhaps there is only one c in unsubscribe? > > > > > > > > > > Spelling mistakes will not cause bounces. I do the unsubscribes by > > > hand > > > > > in order to make sure they are removed from the database. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Bruce Jones > > > > > Sys Admin, LCHC > > > > > bjones@ucsd.edu > > > > > 619-823-8281 > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. > > > Assistant Professor > > > Department of Anthropology > > > 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower > > > Brigham Young University > > > Provo, UT 84602 > > > http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson > > > > > > From a.j.gil@iped.uio.no Sun Apr 9 10:37:44 2017 From: a.j.gil@iped.uio.no (Alfredo Jornet Gil) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 17:37:44 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky In-Reply-To: References: <5893695b.c32f630a.3d640.41ee@mx.google.com> <1486189210098.72503@iped.uio.no> <838a8d3c-2559-3984-64e3-e3cf8bd98266@mira.net> <8029C164-2A9F-4CAA-B0EF-7799A55E7194@gmail.com> <1491715069810.47906@iped.uio.no>, Message-ID: <1491759462974.39787@iped.uio.no> Mike, thanks for inviting Amelia and Pablo. If they were interested and not yet subscribers, I hope they will find it easy to subscribe through this link: http://lchc-resources.org/xmca/ The archive Mike mentions is here: http://lchc.ucsd.edu/MCA/Mail/index.html Alfredo ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of mike cole Sent: 09 April 2017 18:42 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Cc: Amelia ?lvarez Rodr?guez; Pablo del R?o Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky Hi Pablo, Amelia As you will see, your paper is up for discussion on xmca. I hope you will be able to participate. If you are not on xmca, it should be easy to join by going to the xmca webpage at xmca.ucsd.edu. The webpage also has the archive of the discussion in this and prior months/years. Thanks for posting, Alfredo. mike On Sat, Apr 8, 2017 at 10:17 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > Hi Esteban, > > yes, things have been a little quiet lately, but there have been few > threads going on, perhaps most importantly the one discussing Jang's (this > issue's) paper on multi-ethnic issues on Second Language. > > Other threads have seemed to resonate on recent articles/works attempting > to re-work (or work further) some of Vygotsky's key concepts, in particular > ZPD and Mediation (with a couple of articles having been circulated). > > Connecting to the latter, it seems that several of those efforts are > making emphasis on Vygotsky's later period, suggesting that much of the > prior and current uptakes have focused almost exclusively on the > instrumental aspects that were more salient in his middle period, and not > so much on the lines of inquiry that the psychologist was opening never had > the chance to pursue. > > I attach yet another such work, this time by del R?o and ?lvarez. Much is > being written about how and to what extent Vygotsky was revising his own > prior work. This one tells as more about that, and does so both in English > and in Spanish. > > I wonder how do xmca'ers (who likely are busy reading world news as things > are getting more and more perplexing) feel and think about this > tendency/prospect in cultural-historical theory literature. > > Alfredo > ________________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Helena Worthen > Sent: 09 April 2017 03:11 > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Playworlds, Performance, Perezhivanie, Apophasis > ... and TRUMP'S speech! > > Hi, Esteban - > > Things have been a little quiet recently. I suspect my co-xmca-ers in the > US are either mid-semester or digging in on big projects that will have > some significance, hopefully, given what we?re dealing with here. > > You may or may not be aware that our new Secretary of Education is the > sister of Erik Prince, http://www.ibtimes.com/who- > betsy-devos-brother-erik-princes-involvement-blackwater-chinese-money- > laundering-2493834 > > Just a hint of what is happening to education, top to bottom, in the US. > > > Helena > > > Helena Worthen > helenaworthen@gmail.com > Berkeley, CA 94707 > Blog about US and Viet Nam: helenaworthen.wordpress.com > > > > > On Apr 8, 2017, at 3:15 PM, Stephen Diaz wrote: > > > > Hi Bruce, > > > > Don't know if you are still the one for xmcc but I am not getting any > emails from that list serve. Can you please check on that. I still want > to continue on it if possible. Thanks. > > > > Esteban Diaz > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Bruce Jones > > Sent: Sunday, February 5, 2017 3:23 PM > > To: mike cole; Andy Blunden; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Playworlds, Performance, Perezhivanie, Apophasis > ... and TRUMP'S speech! > > > > On 2/5/17 2:39 PM, mike cole wrote: > >> Bruce's email is not bouncing from san diego. > >> Perhaps there is only one c in unsubscribe? > > > > Spelling mistakes will not cause bounces. I do the unsubscribes by hand > > in order to make sure they are removed from the database. > > > > > > -- > > Bruce Jones > > Sys Admin, LCHC > > bjones@ucsd.edu > > 619-823-8281 > > > > -- > > From a.j.gil@iped.uio.no Sun Apr 9 10:50:29 2017 From: a.j.gil@iped.uio.no (Alfredo Jornet Gil) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 17:50:29 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky In-Reply-To: <58ea273d.494b620a.8865b.ba36@mx.google.com> References: <5893695b.c32f630a.3d640.41ee@mx.google.com> <1486189210098.72503@iped.uio.no> <838a8d3c-2559-3984-64e3-e3cf8bd98266@mira.net> , <8029C164-2A9F-4CAA-B0EF-7799A55E7194@gmail.com> <1491715069810.47906@iped.uio.no>, <58ea273d.494b620a.8865b.ba36@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <1491760229133.43007@iped.uio.no> Thank you Larry for sharing your reading of our article, which I think is a very sensible read. I hope that by posting Amelia and Pablo's article, we can cover the ground by reference to a wider literature as well. Obviously, ours is only one among other takes in current literature that point in the similar direction; and there are yet others quiet critical to these 'revisionist' takes. As you anticipate, getting these into dialogue would be a great xmca accomplishment. Alfredo ________________________________ From: lpscholar2@gmail.com Sent: 09 April 2017 14:21 To: Alfredo Jornet Gil; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: RE: [Xmca-l] Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky Alfredo, I have been slowly reading (and digesting) your and Wolff-Michael?s article (Theorizing ? with/out mediators) that joins the current ?takes? on the later Vygotsky. My impression (and appreciation) of this emerging tradition is significant as an enlarging of the scope and ?re-working? of the Vygotsky who was known in the process of moving into the West European and North Atlantic form of theorizing. I am reading your article in relation to the notion of ?playworlds? and ?spielraum? (translated playrooms). A key re-working of (mediation) has to do with re/thinking triangle diagrams as static (with mediation at the apex). This generates a PREsumption of two variables at the base of the triangle assumed as (elements, essences, things) that inter/act through an ?intermediary? third (element, essence, thing). Your article indicates this is the classical or canonical version of (mediation) as the third thing/element through which the other two things/elements become changed or develop. Your re-working of (mediation) adds the temporal, duration, and (unit of analysis) and implies it is not the elements or parts that each individually change or develop (classic intermediary model of elements transformed by going through a third element IN a triangle with an apex mediator) But rather There are only relation of (within UNITS). When a tool, technique, sign, word, artifact) develops then the ENTIRE UNIT (not elements) develops. Alfredo, I personally believe your approach (currently re-working classical and Western canonical versions) deserves to have its own (place) as a subsection on the XMCA site. To become more clear on this ?later? Vygotsky. Then a conversation may generate that puts in question this re-working BUT In a spirit of ?play? in rooms. A movement back and forth, oscillating, spiralling, developing, and never reaching a determinate conclusion, once and forever. Putting in play triangles with mediators at the apex as static diagrams. More open, fluid, theorizing with ANDA WITHOUT ?mediators? as we play with these notions. I recommend others read the article ?Theorizing with/out mediators?. Reading the (/) to mean interval where we tarry awhile in a spirit of re-working theorizing with/out mediators. I believe we need to create a subsection on XMCA to let these notions percolate and permeate the more classical boundary markers. My way of saying your article is a pro-found re-working of the notions of (within) and (without) and (mediation) at the core of this re-working PRE-assumptions. My morning muse Sent from my Windows 10 phone From: Alfredo Jornet Gil Sent: April 8, 2017 10:20 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky Hi Esteban, yes, things have been a little quiet lately, but there have been few threads going on, perhaps most importantly the one discussing Jang's (this issue's) paper on multi-ethnic issues on Second Language. Other threads have seemed to resonate on recent articles/works attempting to re-work (or work further) some of Vygotsky's key concepts, in particular ZPD and Mediation (with a couple of articles having been circulated). Connecting to the latter, it seems that several of those efforts are making emphasis on Vygotsky's later period, suggesting that much of the prior and current uptakes have focused almost exclusively on the instrumental aspects that were more salient in his middle period, and not so much on the lines of inquiry that the psychologist was opening never had the chance to pursue. I attach yet another such work, this time by del R?o and ?lvarez. Much is being written about how and to what extent Vygotsky was revising his own prior work. This one tells as more about that, and does so both in English and in Spanish. I wonder how do xmca'ers (who likely are busy reading world news as things are getting more and more perplexing) feel and think about this tendency/prospect in cultural-historical theory literature. Alfredo ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Helena Worthen Sent: 09 April 2017 03:11 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Playworlds, Performance, Perezhivanie, Apophasis ... and TRUMP'S speech! Hi, Esteban - Things have been a little quiet recently. I suspect my co-xmca-ers in the US are either mid-semester or digging in on big projects that will have some significance, hopefully, given what we?re dealing with here. You may or may not be aware that our new Secretary of Education is the sister of Erik Prince, http://www.ibtimes.com/who-betsy-devos-brother-erik-princes-involvement-blackwater-chinese-money-laundering-2493834 Just a hint of what is happening to education, top to bottom, in the US. Helena Helena Worthen helenaworthen@gmail.com Berkeley, CA 94707 Blog about US and Viet Nam: helenaworthen.wordpress.com > On Apr 8, 2017, at 3:15 PM, Stephen Diaz wrote: > > Hi Bruce, > > Don't know if you are still the one for xmcc but I am not getting any emails from that list serve. Can you please check on that. I still want to continue on it if possible. Thanks. > > Esteban Diaz > > > ________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Bruce Jones > Sent: Sunday, February 5, 2017 3:23 PM > To: mike cole; Andy Blunden; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Playworlds, Performance, Perezhivanie, Apophasis ... and TRUMP'S speech! > > On 2/5/17 2:39 PM, mike cole wrote: >> Bruce's email is not bouncing from san diego. >> Perhaps there is only one c in unsubscribe? > > Spelling mistakes will not cause bounces. I do the unsubscribes by hand > in order to make sure they are removed from the database. > > > -- > Bruce Jones > Sys Admin, LCHC > bjones@ucsd.edu > 619-823-8281 > > -- From lpscholar2@gmail.com Sun Apr 9 16:53:00 2017 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (Larry Purss) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 16:53:00 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky In-Reply-To: <1491760229133.43007@iped.uio.no> References: <5893695b.c32f630a.3d640.41ee@mx.google.com> <1486189210098.72503@iped.uio.no> <838a8d3c-2559-3984-64e3-e3cf8bd98266@mira.net> , <8029C164-2A9F-4CAA-B0EF-7799A55E7194@gmail.com> <1491715069810.47906@iped.uio.no>, <58ea273d.494b620a.8865b.ba36@mx.google.com> <1491760229133.43007@iped.uio.no> Message-ID: <58eac975.9d3e620a.eb34a.c238@mx.google.com> Alfredo, Amelia, and Pablo, Alfredo, Your hope that we will cover this ground by reference to a wider literature by ?expanding ? the field, may have the unintended consequence of also ?abbreviating? the focus on ?with/out mediation, at the core of your paper. This notion of abbreviation and expansion and when each direction is appropriate. This speaks to your article?s notion of ?accented?. When contents are accented by some reference [I.e. deictic, body orientation, verbal indication] then, the semantic, sense-giving *field* changes. The contents no longer have to be said because the presence of the contents in the *field* goes ?without? saying, being an aspect of the integral co-inhabited space. Following this line, I notice Amelia and Pablo?s article explores five usually overlooked aspects of Vygotsky?s work. The first overlooked aspect is: ?the understanding of the mediational system as a trans-organic, EXTENDED branch of the psychological system. This first aspect explored by Amelia and Pablo may or may not share a family resemblance to your and Michael?s exploration of theorizing with/out mediation? I hope Amelia and Pablo read through your article so that we can read each article through the perspective of the other article thus expanding our notion of ?mediation?? I am referring to the title of Amelia and Pablo?s article [Vygotsky and beyond: Horizons for the Future of Psychology]. This is a theme of ?extending? with/out premature abbreviation. May require a middle path? I will re-send your and Michael?s article in the hope of engaging both articles with the potential to open possible new horizons through engaging with the ?later? Vygotsky [1932-1934] and his re/thinking his life?s work and this new direction?s relevance for our current moment in time. I am referring to the title of Amelia and Pablo?s article Also recognizing this is contested ground. Searching for a new con/sensus Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Alfredo Jornet Gil Sent: April 9, 2017 10:50 AM To: lpscholar2@gmail.com; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky Thank you Larry for sharing your?reading of our article, which?I think is?a very sensible read. I hope that by posting Amelia and Pablo's article, we can cover the ground by?reference to a wider literature as well. Obviously, ours is only?one among other takes in current literature?that point in the?similar direction; and there are yet others quiet critical to?these 'revisionist' takes. As you anticipate, getting these into dialogue would be a great xmca accomplishment. Alfredo From: lpscholar2@gmail.com Sent: 09 April 2017 14:21 To: Alfredo Jornet Gil; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: RE: [Xmca-l] Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky ? Alfredo, I have been slowly reading (and digesting) your and Wolff-Michael?s article (Theorizing ? with/out mediators) that joins the current ?takes? on the later Vygotsky. ? My impression (and appreciation) of this emerging tradition is significant as ?an enlarging of the scope and ?re-working? of the Vygotsky who was known in the process of moving into the West European ?and North Atlantic form of theorizing. ? I am reading your article in relation to the notion of ?playworlds? and ?spielraum? (translated playrooms). ? A key re-working of (mediation) has to do with re/thinking triangle diagrams as static (with mediation at the apex). This generates a PREsumption of two variables at the base of the triangle assumed as (elements, essences, things) that inter/act through an ?intermediary? third (element, essence, thing). Your article indicates this is the classical or canonical version of (mediation) as the third thing/element through which the other two things/elements become changed or develop. ? Your re-working of (mediation) adds the temporal, duration, and (unit of analysis) and implies it is not the elements or parts that each individually change or develop (classic intermediary model of elements transformed by going through a third element IN a triangle with an apex mediator) But rather There are only relation of (within UNITS). When a tool, technique, sign, word, artifact) develops then the ENTIRE UNIT (not elements) develops. ? Alfredo, I personally believe your approach (currently re-working classical and Western canonical versions) deserves to have its own (place) as a subsection on the XMCA site. To become more clear on this ?later? Vygotsky. Then a conversation may generate that puts in question this re-working BUT In a spirit of ?play? in rooms. A movement back and forth, oscillating, spiralling, developing, and never reaching a determinate conclusion, once and forever. ? Putting in play triangles with mediators at the apex as static diagrams. More open, fluid, theorizing with ANDA WITHOUT ?mediators? as we play with these notions. ? I recommend others read the article ?Theorizing with/out mediators?. Reading the (/) to mean interval where we tarry awhile in a spirit of re-working theorizing with/out mediators. ? I believe we need to create a subsection on XMCA to let these notions percolate and permeate the more classical boundary markers. ? My way of saying your article is a pro-found re-working of the notions of (within) and (without) and (mediation) at the core of this re-working PRE-assumptions. ? My morning muse ? Sent from my Windows 10 phone ? From: Alfredo Jornet Gil Sent: April 8, 2017 10:20 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky ? Hi Esteban, ? yes, things have been a little quiet lately, but there have been few threads going on, perhaps most importantly the one discussing Jang's (this issue's) paper on multi-ethnic issues on Second Language. ? Other threads have seemed to resonate on recent articles/works attempting to re-work (or work further) some of Vygotsky's key concepts, in particular ZPD and Mediation (with a couple of articles having been circulated). ? Connecting to the latter, it seems that several of those efforts are making emphasis on Vygotsky's later period, suggesting that much of the prior and current uptakes have focused almost exclusively on the instrumental aspects that were more salient in his middle period, and not so much on the lines of inquiry that the psychologist was opening never had the chance to pursue. ? I attach yet another such work, this time by del R?o and ?lvarez. Much is being written about how and to what extent Vygotsky was revising his own prior work. This one tells as more about that, and does so both in English and in Spanish. ? I wonder how do xmca'ers (who likely are busy reading world news as things are getting more and more perplexing) feel and think about this tendency/prospect in cultural-historical theory literature. ? Alfredo ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Helena Worthen Sent: 09 April 2017 03:11 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Playworlds, Performance, Perezhivanie,??? Apophasis ... and TRUMP'S speech! ? Hi, Esteban - ? Things have been a little quiet recently. I suspect my co-xmca-ers in the US are either mid-semester or digging in on big projects that will have some significance, hopefully, given what we?re dealing with here. ? You may or may not be aware that our new Secretary of Education is the sister of Erik Prince, http://www.ibtimes.com/who-betsy-devos-brother-erik-princes-involvement-blackwater-chinese-money-laundering-2493834 ? Just a hint of what is happening to education, top to bottom, in the US. ? ? Helena ? ? Helena Worthen helenaworthen@gmail.com Berkeley, CA 94707 Blog about US and Viet Nam: helenaworthen.wordpress.com ? ? ? > On Apr 8, 2017, at 3:15 PM, Stephen Diaz wrote: >? > Hi Bruce, >? > Don't know if you are still the one for xmcc but I am not getting any emails from that list serve.? Can you please check on that.? I still want to continue on it if possible.? Thanks. >? > Esteban Diaz >? >? > ________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Bruce Jones > Sent: Sunday, February 5, 2017 3:23 PM > To: mike cole; Andy Blunden; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Playworlds, Performance, Perezhivanie, Apophasis ... and TRUMP'S speech! >? > On 2/5/17 2:39 PM, mike cole wrote: >> Bruce's email is not bouncing from san diego. >> Perhaps there is only one c in unsubscribe? >? > Spelling mistakes will not cause bounces.? I do the unsubscribes by hand > in order to make sure they are removed from the database. >? >? > -- > Bruce Jones > Sys Admin, LCHC > bjones@ucsd.edu > 619-823-8281 >? > -- ? ? -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: JORNET ALFREDO AND ROTH WOLFF MICHAEL APRIL 1 2017 Rethinking Without Mediators _Roth_Jornet[1913].pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 1066825 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20170409/915af9eb/attachment-0001.pdf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: F0B81786DB0142CEAAABD7FE461D473E.png Type: image/png Size: 161 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20170409/915af9eb/attachment-0001.png From lpscholar2@gmail.com Mon Apr 10 08:00:01 2017 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (lpscholar2@gmail.com) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 08:00:01 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky In-Reply-To: References: <5893695b.c32f630a.3d640.41ee@mx.google.com> <1486189210098.72503@iped.uio.no> <838a8d3c-2559-3984-64e3-e3cf8bd98266@mira.net> <8029C164-2A9F-4CAA-B0EF-7799A55E7194@gmail.com> <1491715069810.47906@iped.uio.no> <58ea273d.494b620a.8865b.ba36@mx.google.com> <58ea2ae3.9561630a.3f702.b325@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <58eb9e01.0b0d620a.51094.946d@mx.google.com> In the service of pushing (and being pulled) into ?fields? Alfredo offers an analogy. A::B to accent without mediators. A) In the physical sciences two heavenly bodies together constitute a gravitational ?field? that determines the movements of both. As a result, the bodies, the force field, and movement no longer are ?independent?. As soon as another body is added to the system, all three will be altered IN RESPONSE TO the ?new? gravitational field brought about by their material presence. When celestial bodies come close to each other, the gravitational ?field? created IN the encounter affects them all. Once they have separated, they no longer influence each other. However, their flight path has ?substantially? been affected IN and BY the ?field?; the flight path is a form of ?memory? of the encounter. B) Craftspersons or designers work with materials. IN the course of multiple encounters the developmental lines of the craftspersons/designers ?alter?. Become other. IN such cases materials do not stand ?between? craftspersons and the world, but lines of development emerge where bodily orientations, affects, and material ?configurations? of the workspace MUTUALLY configure each other, IN this ?field, none of them being distinguishable as mediator. This is my attempt to explore the notion of (mediation) and accenting (fields) and mutual configuration through the analogy Alfredo and Michael offer for consideration Sent from my Windows 10 phone From: James Ma Sent: April 9, 2017 6:35 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky Good point, I'd just like to add here: language as a system of signs creates meaning and social interaction - both Saussure and Peirce have a lot to say about this, particularly language is seen as both human constitution and human institution. James *__________________________________* *James Ma * https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa On 9 April 2017 at 13:36, wrote: > Alfredo, > I offer a quote from the ?later? Vygotsky that you cite in your article > that may prime the pump: > > Language is NOT the relation between a sound and a denoted thing. It is > the relation between the speaker and the listener, the relation between > people directed toward an object. IT IS THE INTERPSYCHIC REACTION THAT > ESTABLISHES THE UNITY OF TWO ORAGANISMS IN THE SAME ORIENTATION, Toward an > object > > The focus hear on ?establishing the UNITY? of teacher and student IN their > orientation. > The IN includes (within) > > Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > From: lpscholar2@gmail.com > Sent: April 9, 2017 5:21 AM > To: Alfredo Jornet Gil; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: RE: [Xmca-l] Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky > > Alfredo, > I have been slowly reading (and digesting) your and Wolff-Michael?s > article (Theorizing ? with/out mediators) that joins the current ?takes? on > the later Vygotsky. > > My impression (and appreciation) of this emerging tradition is significant > as an enlarging of the scope and ?re-working? of the Vygotsky who was > known in the process of moving into the West European and North Atlantic > form of theorizing. > > I am reading your article in relation to the notion of ?playworlds? and > ?spielraum? (translated playrooms). > > A key re-working of (mediation) has to do with re/thinking triangle > diagrams as static (with mediation at the apex). > This generates a PREsumption of two variables at the base of the triangle > assumed as (elements, essences, things) that inter/act through an > ?intermediary? third (element, essence, thing). > Your article indicates this is the classical or canonical version of > (mediation) as the third thing/element through which the other two > things/elements become changed or develop. > > Your re-working of (mediation) adds the temporal, duration, and (unit of > analysis) and implies it is not the elements or parts that each > individually change or develop (classic intermediary model of elements > transformed by going through a third element IN a triangle with an apex > mediator) > But rather > There are only relation of (within UNITS). > When a tool, technique, sign, word, artifact) develops then the ENTIRE > UNIT (not elements) develops. > > Alfredo, I personally believe your approach (currently re-working > classical and Western canonical versions) deserves to have its own (place) > as a subsection on the XMCA site. To become more clear on this ?later? > Vygotsky. > Then a conversation may generate that puts in question this re-working > BUT > In a spirit of ?play? in rooms. > A movement back and forth, oscillating, spiralling, developing, and never > reaching a determinate conclusion, once and forever. > > Putting in play triangles with mediators at the apex as static diagrams. > More open, fluid, theorizing with ANDA WITHOUT ?mediators? as we play with > these notions. > > I recommend others read the article ?Theorizing with/out mediators?. > Reading the (/) to mean interval where we tarry awhile in a spirit of > re-working theorizing with/out mediators. > > I believe we need to create a subsection on XMCA to let these notions > percolate and permeate the more classical boundary markers. > > My way of saying your article is a pro-found re-working of the notions of > (within) and (without) and (mediation) at the core of this re-working > PRE-assumptions. > > My morning muse > > Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > From: Alfredo Jornet Gil > Sent: April 8, 2017 10:20 PM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky > > Hi Esteban, > > yes, things have been a little quiet lately, but there have been few > threads going on, perhaps most importantly the one discussing Jang's (this > issue's) paper on multi-ethnic issues on Second Language. > > Other threads have seemed to resonate on recent articles/works attempting > to re-work (or work further) some of Vygotsky's key concepts, in particular > ZPD and Mediation (with a couple of articles having been circulated). > > Connecting to the latter, it seems that several of those efforts are > making emphasis on Vygotsky's later period, suggesting that much of the > prior and current uptakes have focused almost exclusively on the > instrumental aspects that were more salient in his middle period, and not > so much on the lines of inquiry that the psychologist was opening never had > the chance to pursue. > > I attach yet another such work, this time by del R?o and ?lvarez. Much is > being written about how and to what extent Vygotsky was revising his own > prior work. This one tells as more about that, and does so both in English > and in Spanish. > > I wonder how do xmca'ers (who likely are busy reading world news as things > are getting more and more perplexing) feel and think about this > tendency/prospect in cultural-historical theory literature. > > Alfredo > ________________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Helena Worthen > Sent: 09 April 2017 03:11 > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Playworlds, Performance, Perezhivanie, Apophasis > ... and TRUMP'S speech! > > Hi, Esteban - > > Things have been a little quiet recently. I suspect my co-xmca-ers in the > US are either mid-semester or digging in on big projects that will have > some significance, hopefully, given what we?re dealing with here. > > You may or may not be aware that our new Secretary of Education is the > sister of Erik Prince, http://www.ibtimes.com/who- > betsy-devos-brother-erik-princes-involvement-blackwater-chinese-money- > laundering-2493834 > > Just a hint of what is happening to education, top to bottom, in the US. > > > Helena > > > Helena Worthen > helenaworthen@gmail.com > Berkeley, CA 94707 > Blog about US and Viet Nam: helenaworthen.wordpress.com > > > > > On Apr 8, 2017, at 3:15 PM, Stephen Diaz wrote: > > > > Hi Bruce, > > > > Don't know if you are still the one for xmcc but I am not getting any > emails from that list serve. Can you please check on that. I still want > to continue on it if possible. Thanks. > > > > Esteban Diaz > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Bruce Jones > > Sent: Sunday, February 5, 2017 3:23 PM > > To: mike cole; Andy Blunden; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Playworlds, Performance, Perezhivanie, Apophasis > ... and TRUMP'S speech! > > > > On 2/5/17 2:39 PM, mike cole wrote: > >> Bruce's email is not bouncing from san diego. > >> Perhaps there is only one c in unsubscribe? > > > > Spelling mistakes will not cause bounces. I do the unsubscribes by hand > > in order to make sure they are removed from the database. > > > > > > -- > > Bruce Jones > > Sys Admin, LCHC > > bjones@ucsd.edu > > 619-823-8281 > > > > -- > > > > From helenaworthen@gmail.com Mon Apr 10 16:41:29 2017 From: helenaworthen@gmail.com (Helena Worthen) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 16:41:29 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky In-Reply-To: <58eac975.9d3e620a.eb34a.c238@mx.google.com> References: <5893695b.c32f630a.3d640.41ee@mx.google.com> <1486189210098.72503@iped.uio.no> <838a8d3c-2559-3984-64e3-e3cf8bd98266@mira.net> <8029C164-2A9F-4CAA-B0EF-7799A55E7194@gmail.com> <1491715069810.47906@iped.uio.no> <58ea273d.494b620a.8865b.ba36@mx.google.com> <1491760229133.43007@iped.uio.no> <58eac975.9d3e620a.eb34a.c238@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <6ED0EB7F-12DD-45C6-9490-026D00D1CC07@gmail.com> hi - In an effort to get back in the conversation, I have read the Roth-Jornet paper, Theorizing Without Mediators, and have some comments. As usual, I like to see ideas tested agains concrete examples. I like it even better when the ideas seem to have some useful, practical applications. Roth and Jornet argue that the well-worn familiar term, ?mediation,? leaves sociocultural theory open to charges of dualism, and that Vygotsky himself was abandoning the term (and perhaps the concept) in his late years I agree that the English word "mediation" has some problems. Tools and signs are said to ?mediate? but they are not themselves active; they are objects, they don?t initiate anything. They have a function, however. While a text does not actively do anything, someone does something with it. So ?mediating? looks like a verb (a gerund) but really isn?t. Nor does mediate simply locate something in the middle, or between two things. To extend Roth and Jornet?s metaphor, a river does not mediate its shores; it may lie between them, but a bridge, if there is one, would mediate. This vocabulary problem affects other words that are terms of art in sociocultural theory. ?Affordances? is one. The phrase ?activity theory? is a little awkward. When introducing someone to sociocultural theory, I always have to warn them that there is a kind of private language involved. I don?t know where it came from ? translations? But does the concept of mediation lead to dualism, as Roth and Jornet suggest? ` I have tried to collect the pairs that are referenced when we talk about ?mediation? or ?artifact mediation?? Some that are mentioned in the first couple of pages of this article are: Nature/culture Intrasubjective/intersubjective Individual/(collective or group) ? this is my addition Inner mind/outer world Developing individual/social practice So are these dualisms or dialectical partners? The idea that a tool or a sign ?mediates? between all of these does not seem problematical to me. I can think of concrete examplesThe idea that a tool or a sign ?mediates? between all of these does not seem problematical to me. I can think of concrete examples for all of them. Schools mediate between nature and culture. Writing a poem mediates between one?s inner mind and the outer world; same for intrasubjective/intersubjective. A teacher mediates between a developing individual and a social practice. An agenda mediates between an individual and a group. The document drafted by Jimmy Carter and amended sequentially by Rabin and Sadat mediated that phase of the negotiations, etc. This does not seem to lead to the quote from Mikhailov in line 46 on page 1, about ?from the perspective of the soul, there are no mediators.? I am also not convinced that if tools, technology and signs mediate every activity, ?mediation would explain nothing.? I can see that in numbers, this is true ? 4ab x 6a = 24ab is really 4b x 6 = 24b, right?- but not in communication. Nor do I really understand the quote from Spinoza on line 25 of page 2, ?being is transparent in its determination . . . in that it excludes every mediation that would produce the determination.? Being as existence? And the thalidomide baby example is striking but it does not earn its place by being clear. What is the sign or tool here? What is the activity? Overall, the jump to Spinoza confuses me. Spinoza wrote in Latin, in the 1800s; does he mean what Vygotsky means by ?mediation?? Spinoza aside, I?m willing to accept that Vygotsky, according to Mikhailov, supplanted ?mediation? with ?the intersubjective speech field.? We can still look at what is in the middle of the intersubjective speech field and see what?s going on. If ?intersubjective speech field? is a new way of talking about mediation, so be it. Now we go to the concrete case provided by Roth and Jornet, one that might seem to be an example of mediation, to see what is different if we look at it as an example of a speech field. The authors indicate that this concept will be different because it ?includes time and social relations as irreducible aspects of the unit of analysis.? I am not convinced that this is different: the famous Engestrom triangle places a tool or sign as the mediator between categories that are embodied in people (history, customs, rules etc. on the one side and an object/outcome on the other), all in dynamic whole that changes over time. So time and social relations are irreducible aspects of that unit of analysis, too. But on to the case: page 5, with images of a Quick Reference Handbook (QRH), script of an interaction between an examiner and an airline pilot. The pilot has made a mistake and the examiner is quizzing him about how it happened. The QRH shows a checklist of what was supposed to happen; it is the authority to which both refer. I think that the discussion illustrated with variations of the famous triangle is summarized in the paragraph in the middle of page 7: ?To identify the QRH as a mediator, the subjectivities of pilot and examiner must be assumed to pre-exist the relation, and the tool be placed in between. It also functions to ?mediate? between the different (subjective) ?meanings? and as a tool in the ?construction of? intersubjectivity. Alternatively, however, and in line with a unit analysis, it is possible to consider the QRH to be an aspect integral to the field in which the two participants are also constitutive parts. The QRH then is integral part of the common ground in and to the sequentially organized turn taking of examiner and pilot. Such is the approach we work towards in the sections below.? So we are looking for a unit analysis (analysis of a whole unit, not unit of analysis) rather than an analysis into elements. I am not yet convinced that in practice there is really any difference. On the other hand, the expanded script on page 10 does certainly show how the words of the conversation exist for both the pilot and the examiner, and thereby creates a shared social space. In other words, ?intersubjective speech field? makes sense ? a moment in time when the words of each person (subject) are alive in the hearing and consciousness of the other ? ?I hear you and you hear me.? And it does not leave a crack by which it could be opened to the charge of dualism. Instead it is a whole, a coherent unit of analysis. But ?intersubjective speech field?? - another term of art!! Finally, while I have had trouble with the term ?mediate? and can see that it is open to misunderstandings, I have always found that these misunderstandings melted away quickly when I was working with something very concrete. When a union steward, for example, is defending a worker who has been disciplined, the text of the contract definitely mediates the relationship between the worker and the employer. No doubt about it; take that text away, and the relationship changes abruptly. What would the ?intersubjective speech field? have been like if the QRH had not been available? Would the pilot have offered a different defense? That would be a way to have tested what mediating role it played. Helena ________ The document drafted by Jimmy Carter and amended sequentially by Rabin and Sadat mediated that phase of the negotiations, etc. This does not seem to lead to the quote from Mikhailov inmediation would explain nothing.? I can see that in numbers, this is true ? 4ab x 6a = 24ab is really 4b x 6 = 24b, right?- but not in communication. No do I really understand the quote from Spinoza on line 25 of page 2, ?being is transparent in its determination . . . in that it excludes every mediation that would produce the determination.? Being as existence? And the thalidomide baby example is striking but it does not earn its place by being clear. What is the sign or tool here? What is the activity? Overall, the jump to Spinoza confuses me. Spinoza wrote in Latin, in the 1800s; does he mean what Vygotsky means by ?mediation?? But I?m willing to accept that Vygotsky, according tofield.? We can still look at what is in the middle of the intersubjective speech field and see what?s going on. If ?intersubjective speech field? is a new way of talking about mediation, so be it. Now we go to the concrete case, one that might seem to be?includes time and social relations as irreducible aspects of the unit of analysis.? I am not convinced that this is different: the famous Engestrom triangle places a tool or sign as the mediator between categories that are embodied in people (history, customs, rules etc. on the one side and an object/outcome on the other), all in dynamic whole that changes over time. So time and social relations are irreducible aspects of that unit of analysis, too. But on to the case: page 5, with images of a reference handbook (QRH), script of an interaction between the examiner and an airline pilot. I think that the discussion illustrated with variations of the famous triangle is summarized in the paragraph in the middle of page 7: ?..that the QRH is mediating the relationship between the (examiner, examined) pilots. To identify the QRH as a mediator, the subjectivities of pilot and examiner must be assumed to pre-exist the relation, and the tool be place in between. It also functions to ?mediate? between the different (subjective) ?meanings? and as a tool in the ?construction of? intersubjectivity. Alternatively, however, and in line with a unit analysis, it is possible to consider the QRH to be an aspect integral to the field in which the two participants are also constitutive parts. The QRH then is integral part of the common ground in and to the sequentially organized turn taking of examiner and pilot. Such is the approach we work towards in the sections below.? So we are looking for a unit analysis (analysis of a whole unit, not unit of analysis) rather than an analysis into elements. I am not yet convinced that in practice there is really any difference. On the other hand, the expanded script on page 10 does certainly show how the words of the conversation exist for both the pilot and the examiner, and thereby creates a shared social space. In other words, ?intersubjective speech field? makes sense ? a moment in time when the words of each person (subject) are alive in the hearing and consciousness of the other ? ?I hear you and you hear me.? And it does not leave a crack by which it could be opened to the charge of dualism. Instead it is a whole, a coherent unit of analysis. But ?intersubjective speech field?? - what a term!! Finally, while I have always had trouble with the term ?mediate? and can see that it is open to misunderstandings, I have always found that these misunderstandings went away quickly when I was working with something very concrete. When a union steward, for example, is defending a worker who has been disciplined, the text of the contract definitely mediates the relationship between the worker and the employer. No doubt about it; take that text away, and the relationship changes abruptly. What would the ?intersubjective speech field? have been like if the QRH had not been available? That would be a way to have tested what mediating role it played. Helena Worthen helenaworthen@gmail.com Berkeley, CA 94707 Blog about US and Viet Nam: helenaworthen.wordpress.com > On Apr 9, 2017, at 4:53 PM, Larry Purss wrote: > > Alfredo, Amelia, and Pablo, > > Alfredo, > Your hope that we will cover this ground by reference to a wider literature by ?expanding ? the field, may have the unintended consequence of also ?abbreviating? the focus on ?with/out mediation, at the core of your paper. > > This notion of abbreviation and expansion and when each direction is appropriate. > This speaks to your article?s notion of ?accented?. When contents are accented by some reference [I.e. deictic, body orientation, verbal indication] then, the semantic, sense-giving *field* changes. The contents no longer have to be said because the presence of the contents in the *field* goes ?without? saying, being an aspect of the integral co-inhabited space. > > Following this line, I notice Amelia and Pablo?s article explores five usually overlooked aspects of Vygotsky?s work. The first overlooked aspect is: > > ?the understanding of the mediational system as a trans-organic, EXTENDED branch of the psychological system. > > This first aspect explored by Amelia and Pablo may or may not share a family resemblance to your and Michael?s exploration of theorizing with/out mediation? > > I hope Amelia and Pablo read through your article so that we can read each article through the perspective of the other article thus expanding our notion of ?mediation?? I am referring to the title of Amelia and Pablo?s article [Vygotsky and beyond: Horizons for the Future of Psychology]. This is a theme of ?extending? with/out premature abbreviation. May require a middle path? > > I will re-send your and Michael?s article in the hope of engaging both articles with the potential to open possible new horizons through engaging with the ?later? Vygotsky [1932-1934] and his re/thinking his life?s work and this new direction?s relevance for our current moment in time. I am referring to the title of Amelia and Pablo?s article > Also recognizing this is contested ground. > > Searching for a new con/sensus > > Sent from Mail for Windows 10 > > From: Alfredo Jornet Gil > Sent: April 9, 2017 10:50 AM > To: lpscholar2@gmail.com; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky > > Thank you Larry for sharing your reading of our article, which I think is a very sensible read. I hope that by posting Amelia and Pablo's article, we can cover the ground by reference to a wider literature as well. Obviously, ours is only one among other takes in current literature that point in the similar direction; and there are yet others quiet critical to these 'revisionist' takes. As you anticipate, getting these into dialogue would be a great xmca accomplishment. > > Alfredo > > From: lpscholar2@gmail.com > Sent: 09 April 2017 14:21 > To: Alfredo Jornet Gil; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: RE: [Xmca-l] Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky > > Alfredo, > I have been slowly reading (and digesting) your and Wolff-Michael?s article (Theorizing ? with/out mediators) that joins the current ?takes? on the later Vygotsky. > > My impression (and appreciation) of this emerging tradition is significant as an enlarging of the scope and ?re-working? of the Vygotsky who was known in the process of moving into the West European and North Atlantic form of theorizing. > > I am reading your article in relation to the notion of ?playworlds? and ?spielraum? (translated playrooms). > > A key re-working of (mediation) has to do with re/thinking triangle diagrams as static (with mediation at the apex). > This generates a PREsumption of two variables at the base of the triangle assumed as (elements, essences, things) that inter/act through an ?intermediary? third (element, essence, thing). > Your article indicates this is the classical or canonical version of (mediation) as the third thing/element through which the other two things/elements become changed or develop. > > Your re-working of (mediation) adds the temporal, duration, and (unit of analysis) and implies it is not the elements or parts that each individually change or develop (classic intermediary model of elements transformed by going through a third element IN a triangle with an apex mediator) > But rather > There are only relation of (within UNITS). > When a tool, technique, sign, word, artifact) develops then the ENTIRE UNIT (not elements) develops. > > Alfredo, I personally believe your approach (currently re-working classical and Western canonical versions) deserves to have its own (place) as a subsection on the XMCA site. To become more clear on this ?later? Vygotsky. > Then a conversation may generate that puts in question this re-working > BUT > In a spirit of ?play? in rooms. > A movement back and forth, oscillating, spiralling, developing, and never reaching a determinate conclusion, once and forever. > > Putting in play triangles with mediators at the apex as static diagrams. > More open, fluid, theorizing with ANDA WITHOUT ?mediators? as we play with these notions. > > I recommend others read the article ?Theorizing with/out mediators?. > Reading the (/) to mean interval where we tarry awhile in a spirit of re-working theorizing with/out mediators. > > I believe we need to create a subsection on XMCA to let these notions percolate and permeate the more classical boundary markers. > > My way of saying your article is a pro-found re-working of the notions of (within) and (without) and (mediation) at the core of this re-working PRE-assumptions. > > My morning muse > > Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > From: Alfredo Jornet Gil > Sent: April 8, 2017 10:20 PM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky > > Hi Esteban, > > yes, things have been a little quiet lately, but there have been few threads going on, perhaps most importantly the one discussing Jang's (this issue's) paper on multi-ethnic issues on Second Language. > > Other threads have seemed to resonate on recent articles/works attempting to re-work (or work further) some of Vygotsky's key concepts, in particular ZPD and Mediation (with a couple of articles having been circulated). > > Connecting to the latter, it seems that several of those efforts are making emphasis on Vygotsky's later period, suggesting that much of the prior and current uptakes have focused almost exclusively on the instrumental aspects that were more salient in his middle period, and not so much on the lines of inquiry that the psychologist was opening never had the chance to pursue. > > I attach yet another such work, this time by del R?o and ?lvarez. Much is being written about how and to what extent Vygotsky was revising his own prior work. This one tells as more about that, and does so both in English and in Spanish. > > I wonder how do xmca'ers (who likely are busy reading world news as things are getting more and more perplexing) feel and think about this tendency/prospect in cultural-historical theory literature. > > Alfredo > ________________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Helena Worthen > Sent: 09 April 2017 03:11 > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Playworlds, Performance, Perezhivanie, Apophasis ... and TRUMP'S speech! > > Hi, Esteban - > > Things have been a little quiet recently. I suspect my co-xmca-ers in the US are either mid-semester or digging in on big projects that will have some significance, hopefully, given what we?re dealing with here. > > You may or may not be aware that our new Secretary of Education is the sister of Erik Prince, http://www.ibtimes.com/who-betsy-devos-brother-erik-princes-involvement-blackwater-chinese-money-laundering-2493834 > > Just a hint of what is happening to education, top to bottom, in the US. > > > Helena > > > Helena Worthen > helenaworthen@gmail.com > Berkeley, CA 94707 > Blog about US and Viet Nam: helenaworthen.wordpress.com > > > >> On Apr 8, 2017, at 3:15 PM, Stephen Diaz wrote: >> >> Hi Bruce, >> >> Don't know if you are still the one for xmcc but I am not getting any emails from that list serve. Can you please check on that. I still want to continue on it if possible. Thanks. >> >> Esteban Diaz >> >> >> ________________________________ >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Bruce Jones >> Sent: Sunday, February 5, 2017 3:23 PM >> To: mike cole; Andy Blunden; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Playworlds, Performance, Perezhivanie, Apophasis ... and TRUMP'S speech! >> >> On 2/5/17 2:39 PM, mike cole wrote: >>> Bruce's email is not bouncing from san diego. >>> Perhaps there is only one c in unsubscribe? >> >> Spelling mistakes will not cause bounces. I do the unsubscribes by hand >> in order to make sure they are removed from the database. >> >> >> -- >> Bruce Jones >> Sys Admin, LCHC >> bjones@ucsd.edu >> 619-823-8281 >> >> -- > > > > From helenaworthen@gmail.com Mon Apr 10 16:46:22 2017 From: helenaworthen@gmail.com (Helena Worthen) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 16:46:22 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky In-Reply-To: <6ED0EB7F-12DD-45C6-9490-026D00D1CC07@gmail.com> References: <5893695b.c32f630a.3d640.41ee@mx.google.com> <1486189210098.72503@iped.uio.no> <838a8d3c-2559-3984-64e3-e3cf8bd98266@mira.net> <8029C164-2A9F-4CAA-B0EF-7799A55E7194@gmail.com> <1491715069810.47906@iped.uio.no> <58ea273d.494b620a.8865b.ba36@mx.google.com> <1491760229133.43007@iped.uio.no> <58eac975.9d3e620a.eb34a.c238@mx.google.com> <6ED0EB7F-12DD-45C6-9490-026D00D1CC07@gmail.com> Message-ID: Sorry, message got pasted in twice. Please ignore previous message. Helena Worthen helenaworthen@gmail.com Berkeley, CA 94707 Blog about US and Viet Nam: helenaworthen.wordpress.com > On Apr 10, 2017, at 4:41 PM, Helena Worthen wrote: > > hi - > > In an effort to get back in the conversation, I have read the Roth-Jornet paper, Theorizing Without Mediators, and have some comments. As usual, I like to see ideas tested agains concrete examples. I like it even better when the ideas seem to have some useful, practical applications. > > Roth and Jornet argue that the well-worn familiar term, ?mediation,? leaves sociocultural theory open to charges of dualism, and that Vygotsky himself was abandoning the term (and perhaps the concept) in his late years > > I agree that the English word "mediation" has some problems. Tools and signs are said to ?mediate? but they are not themselves active; they are objects, they don?t initiate anything. They have a function, however. While a text does not actively do anything, someone does something with it. So ?mediating? looks like a verb (a gerund) but really isn?t. Nor does mediate simply locate something in the middle, or between two things. To extend Roth and Jornet?s metaphor, a river does not mediate its shores; it may lie between them, but a bridge, if there is one, would mediate. > > This vocabulary problem affects other words that are terms of art in sociocultural theory. ?Affordances? is one. The phrase ?activity theory? is a little awkward. When introducing someone to sociocultural theory, I always have to warn them that there is a kind of private language involved. I don?t know where it came from ? translations? > > But does the concept of mediation lead to dualism, as Roth and Jornet suggest? ` > > I have tried to collect the pairs that are referenced when we talk about ?mediation? or ?artifact mediation?? Some that are mentioned in the first couple of pages of this article are: > > Nature/culture > Intrasubjective/intersubjective > Individual/(collective or group) ? this is my addition > Inner mind/outer world > Developing individual/social practice > > So are these dualisms or dialectical partners? > > The idea that a tool or a sign ?mediates? between all of these does not seem problematical to me. I can think of concrete examplesThe idea that a tool or a sign ?mediates? between all of these does not seem problematical to me. I can think of concrete examples for all of them. Schools mediate between nature and culture. Writing a poem mediates between one?s inner mind and the outer world; same for intrasubjective/intersubjective. A teacher mediates between a developing individual and a social practice. An agenda mediates between an individual and a group. The document drafted by Jimmy Carter and amended sequentially by Rabin and Sadat mediated that phase of the negotiations, etc. > > This does not seem to lead to the quote from Mikhailov in line 46 on page 1, about ?from the perspective of the soul, there are no mediators.? I am also not convinced that if tools, technology and signs mediate every activity, ?mediation would explain nothing.? I can see that in numbers, this is true ? 4ab x 6a = 24ab is really 4b x 6 = 24b, right?- but not in communication. Nor do I really understand the quote from Spinoza on line 25 of page 2, ?being is transparent in its determination . . . in that it excludes every mediation that would produce the determination.? Being as existence? And the thalidomide baby example is striking but it does not earn its place by being clear. What is the sign or tool here? What is the activity? > > Overall, the jump to Spinoza confuses me. Spinoza wrote in Latin, in the 1800s; does he mean what Vygotsky means by ?mediation?? > > > Spinoza aside, I?m willing to accept that Vygotsky, according to Mikhailov, supplanted ?mediation? with ?the intersubjective speech field.? We can still look at what is in the middle of the intersubjective speech field and see what?s going on. If ?intersubjective speech field? is a new way of talking about mediation, so be it. > > > Now we go to the concrete case provided by Roth and Jornet, one that might seem to be an example of mediation, to see what is different if we look at it as an example of a speech field. The authors indicate that this concept will be different because it ?includes time and social relations as irreducible aspects of the unit of analysis.? I am not convinced that this is different: the famous Engestrom triangle places a tool or sign as the mediator between categories that are embodied in people (history, customs, rules etc. on the one side and an object/outcome on the other), all in dynamic whole that changes over time. So time and social relations are irreducible aspects of that unit of analysis, too. > > > But on to the case: page 5, with images of a Quick Reference Handbook (QRH), script of an interaction between an examiner and an airline pilot. The pilot has made a mistake and the examiner is quizzing him about how it happened. The QRH shows a checklist of what was supposed to happen; it is the authority to which both refer. I think that the discussion illustrated with variations of the famous triangle is summarized in the paragraph in the middle of page 7: ?To identify the QRH as a mediator, the subjectivities of pilot and examiner must be assumed to pre-exist the relation, and the tool be placed in between. It also functions to ?mediate? between the different (subjective) ?meanings? and as a tool in the ?construction of? intersubjectivity. Alternatively, however, and in line with a unit analysis, it is possible to consider the QRH to be an aspect integral to the field in which the two participants are also constitutive parts. The QRH then is integral part of the common ground in and to the sequentially organized turn taking of examiner and pilot. Such is the approach we work towards in the sections below.? > > So we are looking for a unit analysis (analysis of a whole unit, not unit of analysis) rather than an analysis into elements. I am not yet convinced that in practice there is really any difference. > > > On the other hand, the expanded script on page 10 does certainly show how the words of the conversation exist for both the pilot and the examiner, and thereby creates a shared social space. In other words, ?intersubjective speech field? makes sense ? a moment in time when the words of each person (subject) are alive in the hearing and consciousness of the other ? ?I hear you and you hear me.? And it does not leave a crack by which it could be opened to the charge of dualism. Instead it is a whole, a coherent unit of analysis. But ?intersubjective speech field?? - another term of art!! > > > Finally, while I have had trouble with the term ?mediate? and can see that it is open to misunderstandings, I have always found that these misunderstandings melted away quickly when I was working with something very concrete. When a union steward, for example, is defending a worker who has been disciplined, the text of the contract definitely mediates the relationship between the worker and the employer. No doubt about it; take that text away, and the relationship changes abruptly. > > > What would the ?intersubjective speech field? have been like if the QRH had not been available? Would the pilot have offered a different defense? That would be a way to have tested what mediating role it played. > > Helena >> On Apr 9, 2017, at 4:53 PM, Larry Purss > wrote: >> >> Alfredo, Amelia, and Pablo, >> >> Alfredo, >> Your hope that we will cover this ground by reference to a wider literature by ?expanding ? the field, may have the unintended consequence of also ?abbreviating? the focus on ?with/out mediation, at the core of your paper. >> >> This notion of abbreviation and expansion and when each direction is appropriate. >> This speaks to your article?s notion of ?accented?. When contents are accented by some reference [I.e. deictic, body orientation, verbal indication] then, the semantic, sense-giving *field* changes. The contents no longer have to be said because the presence of the contents in the *field* goes ?without? saying, being an aspect of the integral co-inhabited space. >> >> Following this line, I notice Amelia and Pablo?s article explores five usually overlooked aspects of Vygotsky?s work. The first overlooked aspect is: >> >> ?the understanding of the mediational system as a trans-organic, EXTENDED branch of the psychological system. >> >> This first aspect explored by Amelia and Pablo may or may not share a family resemblance to your and Michael?s exploration of theorizing with/out mediation? >> >> I hope Amelia and Pablo read through your article so that we can read each article through the perspective of the other article thus expanding our notion of ?mediation?? I am referring to the title of Amelia and Pablo?s article [Vygotsky and beyond: Horizons for the Future of Psychology]. This is a theme of ?extending? with/out premature abbreviation. May require a middle path? >> >> I will re-send your and Michael?s article in the hope of engaging both articles with the potential to open possible new horizons through engaging with the ?later? Vygotsky [1932-1934] and his re/thinking his life?s work and this new direction?s relevance for our current moment in time. I am referring to the title of Amelia and Pablo?s article >> Also recognizing this is contested ground. >> >> Searching for a new con/sensus >> >> Sent from Mail for Windows 10 >> >> From: Alfredo Jornet Gil >> Sent: April 9, 2017 10:50 AM >> To: lpscholar2@gmail.com ; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky >> >> Thank you Larry for sharing your reading of our article, which I think is a very sensible read. I hope that by posting Amelia and Pablo's article, we can cover the ground by reference to a wider literature as well. Obviously, ours is only one among other takes in current literature that point in the similar direction; and there are yet others quiet critical to these 'revisionist' takes. As you anticipate, getting these into dialogue would be a great xmca accomplishment. >> >> Alfredo >> >> From: lpscholar2@gmail.com > >> Sent: 09 April 2017 14:21 >> To: Alfredo Jornet Gil; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> Subject: RE: [Xmca-l] Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky >> >> Alfredo, >> I have been slowly reading (and digesting) your and Wolff-Michael?s article (Theorizing ? with/out mediators) that joins the current ?takes? on the later Vygotsky. >> >> My impression (and appreciation) of this emerging tradition is significant as an enlarging of the scope and ?re-working? of the Vygotsky who was known in the process of moving into the West European and North Atlantic form of theorizing. >> >> I am reading your article in relation to the notion of ?playworlds? and ?spielraum? (translated playrooms). >> >> A key re-working of (mediation) has to do with re/thinking triangle diagrams as static (with mediation at the apex). >> This generates a PREsumption of two variables at the base of the triangle assumed as (elements, essences, things) that inter/act through an ?intermediary? third (element, essence, thing). >> Your article indicates this is the classical or canonical version of (mediation) as the third thing/element through which the other two things/elements become changed or develop. >> >> Your re-working of (mediation) adds the temporal, duration, and (unit of analysis) and implies it is not the elements or parts that each individually change or develop (classic intermediary model of elements transformed by going through a third element IN a triangle with an apex mediator) >> But rather >> There are only relation of (within UNITS). >> When a tool, technique, sign, word, artifact) develops then the ENTIRE UNIT (not elements) develops. >> >> Alfredo, I personally believe your approach (currently re-working classical and Western canonical versions) deserves to have its own (place) as a subsection on the XMCA site. To become more clear on this ?later? Vygotsky. >> Then a conversation may generate that puts in question this re-working >> BUT >> In a spirit of ?play? in rooms. >> A movement back and forth, oscillating, spiralling, developing, and never reaching a determinate conclusion, once and forever. >> >> Putting in play triangles with mediators at the apex as static diagrams. >> More open, fluid, theorizing with ANDA WITHOUT ?mediators? as we play with these notions. >> >> I recommend others read the article ?Theorizing with/out mediators?. >> Reading the (/) to mean interval where we tarry awhile in a spirit of re-working theorizing with/out mediators. >> >> I believe we need to create a subsection on XMCA to let these notions percolate and permeate the more classical boundary markers. >> >> My way of saying your article is a pro-found re-working of the notions of (within) and (without) and (mediation) at the core of this re-working PRE-assumptions. >> >> My morning muse >> >> Sent from my Windows 10 phone >> >> From: Alfredo Jornet Gil >> Sent: April 8, 2017 10:20 PM >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky >> >> Hi Esteban, >> >> yes, things have been a little quiet lately, but there have been few threads going on, perhaps most importantly the one discussing Jang's (this issue's) paper on multi-ethnic issues on Second Language. >> >> Other threads have seemed to resonate on recent articles/works attempting to re-work (or work further) some of Vygotsky's key concepts, in particular ZPD and Mediation (with a couple of articles having been circulated). >> >> Connecting to the latter, it seems that several of those efforts are making emphasis on Vygotsky's later period, suggesting that much of the prior and current uptakes have focused almost exclusively on the instrumental aspects that were more salient in his middle period, and not so much on the lines of inquiry that the psychologist was opening never had the chance to pursue. >> >> I attach yet another such work, this time by del R?o and ?lvarez. Much is being written about how and to what extent Vygotsky was revising his own prior work. This one tells as more about that, and does so both in English and in Spanish. >> >> I wonder how do xmca'ers (who likely are busy reading world news as things are getting more and more perplexing) feel and think about this tendency/prospect in cultural-historical theory literature. >> >> Alfredo >> ________________________________________ >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Helena Worthen > >> Sent: 09 April 2017 03:11 >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Playworlds, Performance, Perezhivanie, Apophasis ... and TRUMP'S speech! >> >> Hi, Esteban - >> >> Things have been a little quiet recently. I suspect my co-xmca-ers in the US are either mid-semester or digging in on big projects that will have some significance, hopefully, given what we?re dealing with here. >> >> You may or may not be aware that our new Secretary of Education is the sister of Erik Prince, http://www.ibtimes.com/who-betsy-devos-brother-erik-princes-involvement-blackwater-chinese-money-laundering- 2493834 >> >> Just a hint of what is happening to education, top to bottom, in the US. >> >> >> Helena >> >> >> Helena Worthen >> helenaworthen@gmail.com >> Berkeley, CA 94707 >> Blog about US and Viet Nam: helenaworthen.wordpress.com >> >> >> >>> On Apr 8, 2017, at 3:15 PM, Stephen Diaz wrote: >>> >>> Hi Bruce, >>> >>> Don't know if you are still the one for xmcc but I am not getting any emails from that list serve. Can you please check on that. I still want to continue on it if possible. Thanks. >>> >>> Esteban Diaz >>> >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Bruce Jones >>> Sent: Sunday, February 5, 2017 3:23 PM >>> To: mike cole; Andy Blunden; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Playworlds, Performance, Perezhivanie, Apophasis ... and TRUMP'S speech! >>> >>> On 2/5/17 2:39 PM, mike cole wrote: >>>> Bruce's email is not bouncing from san diego. >>>> Perhaps there is only one c in unsubscribe? >>> >>> Spelling mistakes will not cause bounces. I do the unsubscribes by hand >>> in order to make sure they are removed from the database. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Bruce Jones >>> Sys Admin, LCHC >>> bjones@ucsd.edu >>> 619-823-8281 >>> >>> -- >> >> >> > > >> > From dkellogg60@gmail.com Tue Apr 11 00:32:56 2017 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 17:32:56 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky In-Reply-To: References: <5893695b.c32f630a.3d640.41ee@mx.google.com> <1486189210098.72503@iped.uio.no> <838a8d3c-2559-3984-64e3-e3cf8bd98266@mira.net> <8029C164-2A9F-4CAA-B0EF-7799A55E7194@gmail.com> <1491715069810.47906@iped.uio.no> <58ea273d.494b620a.8865b.ba36@mx.google.com> <1491760229133.43007@iped.uio.no> <58eac975.9d3e620a.eb34a.c238@mx.google.com> <6ED0EB7F-12DD-45C6-9490-026D00D1CC07@gmail.com> Message-ID: I have the same question about del Rio and Alvarez, Helena. On p. 65, speaking of the model found in HDHMF, they say: "Although the model tries to find a way of overcoming dualism, the exterior-interior sequencing reintroduces the 'psychophysical problem' as it restores the separation between both planes, external and internal." Yet in the very same text, Vygotsky says (in Chapter Five): "But we have something else in mind when we speak of the external stage in the history of the cultural development of the child. For us to call a process ?external? means to call it ?social.? Every higher mental function was external because it was social before it became an internal, strictly mental function; it was formerly a social relation of two people. The means of acting on oneself is initially a means of acting on others or a means of action of others on the individual." I just don't see how this reintroduces the psychophysical problem, or restores the separation between both planes, external and internal. If I say something to you, and you remember what I said and how I said it and that I said it, does that create some kind of psychophysical parallelism, some kind of two world theory? I just don't get how. In general, I'm very sympathetic to the argument (systemic and semantic consciousness, not consciousness based on activity). But I am suspicious of its narrative like quality (the "two Vygotskies"), the lack of attention to pedology and defectology, which were the main practices of Vygotsky's professional life, and I don't like the ending (Epictetus and "amor fati"). Weirdly, I think that del Rio and Alvarez assume continuity between their two Vygotskies where there really is none (e.g. p. 82, where the teenage Vygotsky's ruminations on the "guilt of living" are amalgamated to Vygotsky's analysis of Tamara Dembo's experiments on artificially created anger). I think the REAL dualism is to assume that there are only two things: nature and culture. First of all, human beings are part of nature: our scientific knowledge is simply nature's self-knowledge, and our technological progress is simply our ability to turn the tables on the environment, for better or worse, the way that all animals do when they over-reproduce and destroy their environment. Whether we can get beyond that is a historically open question, which means... It means, in the second place, that there are really three processes, not two: phylogenesis, sociogenesis, and logogenesis--the ability (the potential!) to deliberately design our own consciousness, and perhaps even our own history and our evolution. Needless to say the latter is not really consistent with Epictetus and "amor fati". In each case, development can be said to be "outside-in" (viz., from nature to culture, from socio-culture to psycho-culture, and from dialogic speech to inner, reflective, narrativistic speech). But that doesn't suggest dualism to me; it just suggests change. ("Ramon & Cajal 1914" (p. 74) should be "Santiago Ramon y Cajal". Despite the aristocratic sounding name, Santiago was a rebellious working class tyke who wouldn't stay put on a school bench--he wanted to be a painter so his father apprenticed him to a barber: they compromised, and he became a world famous neuroanatomist.) David Kellogg Macquarie University On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 9:46 AM, Helena Worthen wrote: > Sorry, message got pasted in twice. Please ignore previous message. > > Helena Worthen > helenaworthen@gmail.com > Berkeley, CA 94707 > Blog about US and Viet Nam: helenaworthen.wordpress.com > > > > > On Apr 10, 2017, at 4:41 PM, Helena Worthen > wrote: > > > > hi - > > > > In an effort to get back in the conversation, I have read the > Roth-Jornet paper, Theorizing Without Mediators, and have some comments. As > usual, I like to see ideas tested agains concrete examples. I like it even > better when the ideas seem to have some useful, practical applications. > > > > Roth and Jornet argue that the well-worn familiar term, ?mediation,? > leaves sociocultural theory open to charges of dualism, and that Vygotsky > himself was abandoning the term (and perhaps the concept) in his late years > > > > I agree that the English word "mediation" has some problems. Tools and > signs are said to ?mediate? but they are not themselves active; they are > objects, they don?t initiate anything. They have a function, however. > While a text does not actively do anything, someone does something with it. > So ?mediating? looks like a verb (a gerund) but really isn?t. Nor does > mediate simply locate something in the middle, or between two things. To > extend Roth and Jornet?s metaphor, a river does not mediate its shores; it > may lie between them, but a bridge, if there is one, would mediate. > > > > This vocabulary problem affects other words that are terms of art in > sociocultural theory. ?Affordances? is one. The phrase ?activity theory? is > a little awkward. When introducing someone to sociocultural theory, I > always have to warn them that there is a kind of private language involved. > I don?t know where it came from ? translations? > > > > But does the concept of mediation lead to dualism, as Roth and Jornet > suggest? ` > > > > I have tried to collect the pairs that are referenced when we talk about > ?mediation? or ?artifact mediation?? Some that are mentioned in the first > couple of pages of this article are: > > > > Nature/culture > > Intrasubjective/intersubjective > > Individual/(collective or group) ? this is my addition > > Inner mind/outer world > > Developing individual/social practice > > > > So are these dualisms or dialectical partners? > > > > The idea that a tool or a sign ?mediates? between all of these does not > seem problematical to me. I can think of concrete examplesThe idea that a > tool or a sign ?mediates? between all of these does not seem problematical > to me. I can think of concrete examples for all of them. Schools mediate > between nature and culture. Writing a poem mediates between one?s inner > mind and the outer world; same for intrasubjective/intersubjective. A > teacher mediates between a developing individual and a social practice. An > agenda mediates between an individual and a group. The document drafted by > Jimmy Carter and amended sequentially by Rabin and Sadat mediated that > phase of the negotiations, etc. > > > > This does not seem to lead to the quote from Mikhailov in line 46 on > page 1, about ?from the perspective of the soul, there are no mediators.? I > am also not convinced that if tools, technology and signs mediate every > activity, ?mediation would explain nothing.? I can see that in numbers, > this is true ? 4ab x 6a = 24ab is really 4b x 6 = 24b, right?- but not in > communication. Nor do I really understand the quote from Spinoza on line > 25 of page 2, ?being is transparent in its determination . . . in that it > excludes every mediation that would produce the determination.? Being as > existence? And the thalidomide baby example is striking but it does not > earn its place by being clear. What is the sign or tool here? What is the > activity? > > > > Overall, the jump to Spinoza confuses me. Spinoza wrote in Latin, in > the 1800s; does he mean what Vygotsky means by ?mediation?? > > > > > > Spinoza aside, I?m willing to accept that Vygotsky, according to > Mikhailov, supplanted ?mediation? with ?the intersubjective speech field.? > We can still look at what is in the middle of the intersubjective speech > field and see what?s going on. If ?intersubjective speech field? is a new > way of talking about mediation, so be it. > > > > > > Now we go to the concrete case provided by Roth and Jornet, one that > might seem to be an example of mediation, to see what is different if we > look at it as an example of a speech field. The authors indicate that this > concept will be different because it ?includes time and social relations as > irreducible aspects of the unit of analysis.? I am not convinced that this > is different: the famous Engestrom triangle places a tool or sign as the > mediator between categories that are embodied in people (history, customs, > rules etc. on the one side and an object/outcome on the other), all in > dynamic whole that changes over time. So time and social relations are > irreducible aspects of that unit of analysis, too. > > > > > > But on to the case: page 5, with images of a Quick Reference Handbook > (QRH), script of an interaction between an examiner and an airline pilot. > The pilot has made a mistake and the examiner is quizzing him about how it > happened. The QRH shows a checklist of what was supposed to happen; it is > the authority to which both refer. I think that the discussion illustrated > with variations of the famous triangle is summarized in the paragraph in > the middle of page 7: ?To identify the QRH as a mediator, the > subjectivities of pilot and examiner must be assumed to pre-exist the > relation, and the tool be placed in between. It also functions to ?mediate? > between the different (subjective) ?meanings? and as a tool in the > ?construction of? intersubjectivity. Alternatively, however, and in line > with a unit analysis, it is possible to consider the QRH to be an aspect > integral to the field in which the two participants are also constitutive > parts. The QRH then is integral part of the common ground in and to the > sequentially organized turn taking of examiner and pilot. Such is the > approach we work towards in the sections below.? > > > > So we are looking for a unit analysis (analysis of a whole unit, not > unit of analysis) rather than an analysis into elements. I am not yet > convinced that in practice there is really any difference. > > > > > > On the other hand, the expanded script on page 10 does certainly show > how the words of the conversation exist for both the pilot and the > examiner, and thereby creates a shared social space. In other words, > ?intersubjective speech field? makes sense ? a moment in time when the > words of each person (subject) are alive in the hearing and consciousness > of the other ? ?I hear you and you hear me.? And it does not leave a crack > by which it could be opened to the charge of dualism. Instead it is a > whole, a coherent unit of analysis. But ?intersubjective speech field?? - > another term of art!! > > > > > > Finally, while I have had trouble with the term ?mediate? and can see > that it is open to misunderstandings, I have always found that these > misunderstandings melted away quickly when I was working with something > very concrete. When a union steward, for example, is defending a worker > who has been disciplined, the text of the contract definitely mediates the > relationship between the worker and the employer. No doubt about it; take > that text away, and the relationship changes abruptly. > > > > > > What would the ?intersubjective speech field? have been like if the QRH > had not been available? Would the pilot have offered a different defense? > That would be a way to have tested what mediating role it played. > > > > Helena > >> On Apr 9, 2017, at 4:53 PM, Larry Purss lpscholar2@gmail.com>> wrote: > >> > >> Alfredo, Amelia, and Pablo, > >> > >> Alfredo, > >> Your hope that we will cover this ground by reference to a wider > literature by ?expanding ? the field, may have the unintended consequence > of also ?abbreviating? the focus on ?with/out mediation, at the core of > your paper. > >> > >> This notion of abbreviation and expansion and when each direction is > appropriate. > >> This speaks to your article?s notion of ?accented?. When contents are > accented by some reference [I.e. deictic, body orientation, verbal > indication] then, the semantic, sense-giving *field* changes. The contents > no longer have to be said because the presence of the contents in the > *field* goes ?without? saying, being an aspect of the integral co-inhabited > space. > >> > >> Following this line, I notice Amelia and Pablo?s article explores five > usually overlooked aspects of Vygotsky?s work. The first overlooked aspect > is: > >> > >> ?the understanding of the mediational system as a trans-organic, > EXTENDED branch of the psychological system. > >> > >> This first aspect explored by Amelia and Pablo may or may not share a > family resemblance to your and Michael?s exploration of theorizing with/out > mediation? > >> > >> I hope Amelia and Pablo read through your article so that we can read > each article through the perspective of the other article thus expanding > our notion of ?mediation?? I am referring to the title of Amelia and > Pablo?s article [Vygotsky and beyond: Horizons for the Future of > Psychology]. This is a theme of ?extending? with/out premature > abbreviation. May require a middle path? > >> > >> I will re-send your and Michael?s article in the hope of engaging both > articles with the potential to open possible new horizons through > engaging with the ?later? Vygotsky [1932-1934] and his re/thinking his > life?s work and this new direction?s relevance for our current moment in > time. I am referring to the title of Amelia and Pablo?s article > >> Also recognizing this is contested ground. > >> > >> Searching for a new con/sensus > >> > >> Sent from Mail for Windows 10 > >> > >> From: Alfredo Jornet Gil > >> Sent: April 9, 2017 10:50 AM > >> To: lpscholar2@gmail.com ; eXtended Mind, > Culture, Activity > >> Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky > >> > >> Thank you Larry for sharing your reading of our article, which I think > is a very sensible read. I hope that by posting Amelia and Pablo's article, > we can cover the ground by reference to a wider literature as well. > Obviously, ours is only one among other takes in current literature that > point in the similar direction; and there are yet others quiet critical to > these 'revisionist' takes. As you anticipate, getting these into dialogue > would be a great xmca accomplishment. > >> > >> Alfredo > >> > >> From: lpscholar2@gmail.com < > lpscholar2@gmail.com > > >> Sent: 09 April 2017 14:21 > >> To: Alfredo Jornet Gil; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >> Subject: RE: [Xmca-l] Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky > >> > >> Alfredo, > >> I have been slowly reading (and digesting) your and Wolff-Michael?s > article (Theorizing ? with/out mediators) that joins the current ?takes? on > the later Vygotsky. > >> > >> My impression (and appreciation) of this emerging tradition is > significant as an enlarging of the scope and ?re-working? of the Vygotsky > who was known in the process of moving into the West European and North > Atlantic form of theorizing. > >> > >> I am reading your article in relation to the notion of ?playworlds? and > ?spielraum? (translated playrooms). > >> > >> A key re-working of (mediation) has to do with re/thinking triangle > diagrams as static (with mediation at the apex). > >> This generates a PREsumption of two variables at the base of the > triangle assumed as (elements, essences, things) that inter/act through an > ?intermediary? third (element, essence, thing). > >> Your article indicates this is the classical or canonical version of > (mediation) as the third thing/element through which the other two > things/elements become changed or develop. > >> > >> Your re-working of (mediation) adds the temporal, duration, and (unit > of analysis) and implies it is not the elements or parts that each > individually change or develop (classic intermediary model of elements > transformed by going through a third element IN a triangle with an apex > mediator) > >> But rather > >> There are only relation of (within UNITS). > >> When a tool, technique, sign, word, artifact) develops then the ENTIRE > UNIT (not elements) develops. > >> > >> Alfredo, I personally believe your approach (currently re-working > classical and Western canonical versions) deserves to have its own (place) > as a subsection on the XMCA site. To become more clear on this ?later? > Vygotsky. > >> Then a conversation may generate that puts in question this re-working > >> BUT > >> In a spirit of ?play? in rooms. > >> A movement back and forth, oscillating, spiralling, developing, and > never reaching a determinate conclusion, once and forever. > >> > >> Putting in play triangles with mediators at the apex as static diagrams. > >> More open, fluid, theorizing with ANDA WITHOUT ?mediators? as we play > with these notions. > >> > >> I recommend others read the article ?Theorizing with/out mediators?. > >> Reading the (/) to mean interval where we tarry awhile in a spirit of > re-working theorizing with/out mediators. > >> > >> I believe we need to create a subsection on XMCA to let these notions > percolate and permeate the more classical boundary markers. > >> > >> My way of saying your article is a pro-found re-working of the notions > of (within) and (without) and (mediation) at the core of this re-working > PRE-assumptions. > >> > >> My morning muse > >> > >> Sent from my Windows 10 phone > >> > >> From: Alfredo Jornet Gil > >> Sent: April 8, 2017 10:20 PM > >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky > >> > >> Hi Esteban, > >> > >> yes, things have been a little quiet lately, but there have been few > threads going on, perhaps most importantly the one discussing Jang's (this > issue's) paper on multi-ethnic issues on Second Language. > >> > >> Other threads have seemed to resonate on recent articles/works > attempting to re-work (or work further) some of Vygotsky's key concepts, in > particular ZPD and Mediation (with a couple of articles having been > circulated). > >> > >> Connecting to the latter, it seems that several of those efforts are > making emphasis on Vygotsky's later period, suggesting that much of the > prior and current uptakes have focused almost exclusively on the > instrumental aspects that were more salient in his middle period, and not > so much on the lines of inquiry that the psychologist was opening never had > the chance to pursue. > >> > >> I attach yet another such work, this time by del R?o and ?lvarez. Much > is being written about how and to what extent Vygotsky was revising his own > prior work. This one tells as more about that, and does so both in English > and in Spanish. > >> > >> I wonder how do xmca'ers (who likely are busy reading world news as > things are getting more and more perplexing) feel and think about this > tendency/prospect in cultural-historical theory literature. > >> > >> Alfredo > >> ________________________________________ > >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu mailman.ucsd.edu> mailman.ucsd.edu>> on behalf of Helena Worthen > > >> Sent: 09 April 2017 03:11 > >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Playworlds, Performance, Perezhivanie, > Apophasis ... and TRUMP'S speech! > >> > >> Hi, Esteban - > >> > >> Things have been a little quiet recently. I suspect my co-xmca-ers in > the US are either mid-semester or digging in on big projects that will have > some significance, hopefully, given what we?re dealing with here. > >> > >> You may or may not be aware that our new Secretary of Education is the > sister of Erik Prince, http://www.ibtimes.com/who- > betsy-devos-brother-erik-princes-involvement-blackwater-chinese-money- > laundering- princes-involvement-blackwater-chinese-money-laundering->2493834 > >> > >> Just a hint of what is happening to education, top to bottom, in the US. > >> > >> > >> Helena > >> > >> > >> Helena Worthen > >> helenaworthen@gmail.com > >> Berkeley, CA 94707 > >> Blog about US and Viet Nam: helenaworthen.wordpress.com > >> > >> > >> > >>> On Apr 8, 2017, at 3:15 PM, Stephen Diaz wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi Bruce, > >>> > >>> Don't know if you are still the one for xmcc but I am not getting any > emails from that list serve. Can you please check on that. I still want > to continue on it if possible. Thanks. > >>> > >>> Esteban Diaz > >>> > >>> > >>> ________________________________ > >>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Bruce Jones > >>> Sent: Sunday, February 5, 2017 3:23 PM > >>> To: mike cole; Andy Blunden; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Playworlds, Performance, Perezhivanie, Apophasis > ... and TRUMP'S speech! > >>> > >>> On 2/5/17 2:39 PM, mike cole wrote: > >>>> Bruce's email is not bouncing from san diego. > >>>> Perhaps there is only one c in unsubscribe? > >>> > >>> Spelling mistakes will not cause bounces. I do the unsubscribes by > hand > >>> in order to make sure they are removed from the database. > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Bruce Jones > >>> Sys Admin, LCHC > >>> bjones@ucsd.edu > >>> 619-823-8281 > >>> > >>> -- > >> > >> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > From haydizulfei@rocketmail.com Tue Apr 11 04:41:22 2017 From: haydizulfei@rocketmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?=E2=80=AAHaydi_Zulfei=E2=80=AC_=E2=80=AA?=) Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 11:41:22 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky In-Reply-To: References: <5893695b.c32f630a.3d640.41ee@mx.google.com> <1486189210098.72503@iped.uio.no> <838a8d3c-2559-3984-64e3-e3cf8bd98266@mira.net> <8029C164-2A9F-4CAA-B0EF-7799A55E7194@gmail.com> <1491715069810.47906@iped.uio.no> <58ea273d.494b620a.8865b.ba36@mx.google.com> <1491760229133.43007@iped.uio.no> <58eac975.9d3e620a.eb34a.c238@mx.google.com> <6ED0EB7F-12DD-45C6-9490-026D00D1CC07@gmail.com> Message-ID: <859123174.710703.1491910882072@mail.yahoo.com> Dear David,[the ability (the potential!) to deliberately design our own consciousness, and perhaps even our own history and our evolution.] Potentiality#actuality drags us to the deepest and lowest dim space of our existence , that is , most internal ; did you mean Nativism? Exposure only ? Is exposure the only appropriate thing that can justify 'Sociogenesis' ? Phylogenesis is not the historic development of the 'species' ? Is it not the retrospective view of the 'social' ? Was this trend/route just incremental ? And then what's the relation between this accretion and the potential ? The potential also subject to developing ? If yes , then some other potentiality underlying it ! Stratification or typology then required! If accretions accumulate and overflow, then leaps , mutations , are due . Is it us who leap? Where and what time ? The instances and spots ? linearly ? We design all these complications ? And what's your answer in relation of this to your division of six points of crises and five periods or duration of stabilities?? And last , what does Vygotsky's 'learning' and 'affordances' do if all things turn back on us ourselves though potentialized to determine . Please consider : perezhivanie with all its moments , social millieu , ecology , social situation of development , contexualism , organicism (32 page long article which remained in silence yet we don't know about such silences and also silences over Ilyenko , activity theory CH-AT , activity as essence of man (the practical essence of man currently being revitalized) or man as an ensemble of social relations and the exact definition to it , so on so forth ) I , in my turn , think? absolute and continuous confirmations should give their place to dialogues , dialectics , tolerance , versatility and nuances . Helena took a step forward . I've had the same problems for years and I speak loud I fear being ridiculed (Guttural Mutterings !! ) Stalinicism has become scarecrow for enthusiasts to flee participation. You say you don't know the Trumpian way to prosperity ; The voice stutters Nep spoilt Russia . When I become bold , I find Mike himself because he's tolerant to great extent . Now I'm ashamed I've always been in contact with him and individual partners offline . Friends ! Giants ! Let socialism be discussed ; Let's be dared , like the peasant in Belorussia , to say I like/love Stalin , this is so ! Wisdom works ! Don't we have Trump as representative to all States and Nations ? Let's have CHAT in its full version . Please don't say you hate this or that while you're weirdly within that this or that . Hew Lloyd spent a lot of time to provide a very comprehensive review of figures who were and are vital and crucial to our job here. Just Mike took it thankfully to academia for information and discussion but here received perfect silence. On second occasion , Alfredo , too , reminded us of that. Thanks him! And dear David ! You want to design consciousness deliberately and the motor you insist you have at your disposal is 'some vague potentiality' and I say activity (labour and now valorization) in its material physical corporeal aspect is inevitable to development. What took us from Nature to Nurture was labour . Marx is still relevant. I wish I could know Marx.? Excuse me ! I think the 'logogenesis' you used worked for you to exit. Roy Harris says we do many things without speech. I cannot help , however , saying I've been tutored by you . Thanks!High regards!Haydi ? From: David Kellogg To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Sent: Tuesday, 11 April 2017, 12:05:22 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky I have the same question about del Rio and Alvarez, Helena. On p. 65, speaking of the model found in HDHMF, they say: "Although the model tries to find a way of overcoming dualism, the exterior-interior sequencing reintroduces the 'psychophysical problem' as it restores the separation between both planes, external and internal." Yet in the very same text, Vygotsky says (in Chapter Five): "But we have something else in mind when we speak of the external stage in the history of the cultural development of the child. For us to call a process ?external? means to call it ?social.? Every higher mental function was external because it was social before it became an internal, strictly mental function; it was formerly a social relation of two people. The means of acting on oneself is initially a means of acting on others or a means of action of others on the individual." I just don't see how this reintroduces the psychophysical problem, or restores the separation between both planes, external and internal. If I say something to you, and you remember what I said and how I said it and that I said it, does that create some kind of psychophysical parallelism, some kind of two world theory? I just don't get how. In general, I'm very sympathetic to the argument (systemic and semantic consciousness, not consciousness based on activity). But I am suspicious of its narrative like quality (the "two Vygotskies"), the lack of attention to pedology and defectology, which were the main practices of Vygotsky's professional life, and I don't like the ending (Epictetus and "amor fati"). Weirdly, I think that del Rio and Alvarez assume continuity between their two Vygotskies where there really is none (e.g. p. 82, where the teenage Vygotsky's ruminations on the "guilt of living" are amalgamated to Vygotsky's analysis of Tamara Dembo's experiments on artificially created anger). I think the REAL dualism is to assume that there are only two things: nature and culture. First of all, human beings are part of nature: our scientific knowledge is simply nature's self-knowledge, and our technological progress is simply our ability to turn the tables on the environment, for better or worse, the way that all animals do when they over-reproduce and destroy their environment. Whether we can get beyond that is a historically open question, which means... It means, in the second place, that there are really three processes, not two: phylogenesis, sociogenesis, and logogenesis--the ability (the potential!) to deliberately design our own consciousness, and perhaps even our own history and our evolution. Needless to say the latter is not really consistent with Epictetus and "amor fati".? In each case, development can be said to be "outside-in" (viz., from nature to culture, from socio-culture to psycho-culture, and from dialogic speech to inner, reflective, narrativistic speech). But that doesn't suggest dualism to me; it just suggests change. ("Ramon & Cajal 1914" (p. 74) should be "Santiago Ramon y Cajal". Despite the aristocratic sounding name, Santiago was a rebellious working class tyke who wouldn't stay put on a school bench--he wanted to be a painter so his father apprenticed him to a barber: they compromised, and he became a world famous neuroanatomist.) David Kellogg Macquarie University On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 9:46 AM, Helena Worthen wrote: > Sorry, message got pasted in twice. Please ignore previous message. > > Helena Worthen > helenaworthen@gmail.com > Berkeley, CA 94707 > Blog about US and Viet Nam: helenaworthen.wordpress.com > > > > > On Apr 10, 2017, at 4:41 PM, Helena Worthen > wrote: > > > > hi - > > > > In an effort to get back in the conversation, I have read the > Roth-Jornet paper, Theorizing Without Mediators, and have some comments. As > usual, I like to see ideas tested agains concrete examples. I like it even > better when the ideas seem to have some useful, practical applications. > > > > Roth and Jornet argue that the well-worn familiar term, ?mediation,? > leaves sociocultural theory open to charges of dualism, and that Vygotsky > himself was abandoning the term (and perhaps the concept) in his late years > > > > I agree that the English word "mediation" has some problems. Tools and > signs are said to ?mediate? but they are not themselves active; they are > objects, they don?t initiate anything. They have a function, however. > While a text does not actively do anything, someone does something with it. > So ?mediating? looks like a verb (a gerund) but really isn?t.? Nor does > mediate simply locate something in the middle, or between two things. To > extend Roth and Jornet?s metaphor, a river does not mediate its shores; it > may lie between them, but a bridge, if there is one, would mediate. > > > >? This vocabulary problem affects other words that are terms of art in > sociocultural theory. ?Affordances? is one. The phrase ?activity theory? is > a little awkward. When introducing someone to sociocultural theory, I > always have to warn them that there is a kind of private language involved. > I don?t know where it came from ? translations? > > > > But does the concept of mediation lead to dualism, as Roth and Jornet > suggest?? ? ? ? ` > > > > I have tried to collect the pairs that are referenced when we talk about > ?mediation? or ?artifact mediation??? Some that are mentioned in the first > couple of pages of this article are: > > > > Nature/culture > > Intrasubjective/intersubjective > > Individual/(collective or group) ? this is my addition > > Inner mind/outer world > > Developing individual/social practice > > > >? So are these dualisms or dialectical partners? > > > >? The idea that a tool or a sign ?mediates? between all of these does not > seem problematical to me. I can think of concrete examplesThe idea that a > tool or a sign ?mediates? between all of these does not seem problematical > to me. I can think of concrete examples for all of them. Schools mediate > between nature and culture. Writing a poem mediates between one?s inner > mind and the outer world; same for intrasubjective/intersubjective. A > teacher mediates between a developing individual and a social practice. An > agenda mediates between an individual and a group.? The document drafted by > Jimmy Carter and amended sequentially by Rabin and Sadat mediated that > phase of the negotiations, etc. > > > >? This does not seem to lead to the quote from Mikhailov in line 46 on > page 1, about ?from the perspective of the soul, there are no mediators.? I > am also not convinced that if tools, technology and signs mediate every > activity, ?mediation would explain nothing.?? I can see that in numbers, > this is true ? 4ab x 6a = 24ab is really 4b x 6 = 24b, right?- but not in > communication.? Nor do I really understand the quote from Spinoza on line > 25 of page 2, ?being is transparent in its determination . . . in that it > excludes every mediation that would produce the determination.? Being as > existence?? And the thalidomide baby example is striking but it does not > earn its place by being clear.? What is the sign or tool here? What is the > activity? > > > >? Overall, the jump to Spinoza confuses me. Spinoza wrote in Latin, in > the 1800s; does he mean what Vygotsky means by ?mediation?? > > > > > > Spinoza aside, I?m willing to accept that Vygotsky, according to > Mikhailov, supplanted ?mediation? with ?the intersubjective speech field.? > We can still look at what is in the middle of the intersubjective speech > field and see what?s going on. If ?intersubjective speech field? is a new > way of talking about mediation, so be it. > > > > > >? Now we go to the concrete case provided by Roth and Jornet, one that > might seem to be an example of mediation, to see what is different if we > look at it as an example of a speech field. The authors indicate that this > concept will be different because it ?includes time and social relations as > irreducible aspects of the unit of analysis.? I am not convinced that this > is different: the famous Engestrom triangle places a tool or sign as the > mediator between categories that are embodied in people (history, customs, > rules etc. on the one side and an object/outcome on the other), all in > dynamic whole that changes over time.? So time and social relations are > irreducible aspects of that unit of analysis, too. > > > > > >? But on to the case: page 5, with images of a Quick Reference Handbook > (QRH), script of an interaction between an examiner and an airline pilot. > The pilot has made a mistake and the examiner is quizzing him about how it > happened. The QRH shows a checklist of what was supposed to happen; it is > the authority to which both refer. I think that the discussion illustrated > with variations of the famous triangle is summarized in the paragraph in > the middle of page 7: ?To identify the QRH as a mediator, the > subjectivities of pilot and examiner must be assumed to pre-exist the > relation, and the tool be placed in between. It also functions to ?mediate? > between the different (subjective) ?meanings? and as a tool in the > ?construction of? intersubjectivity. Alternatively, however, and in line > with a unit analysis, it is possible to consider the QRH to be an aspect > integral to the field in which the two participants are also constitutive > parts. The QRH then is integral part of the common ground in and to the > sequentially organized turn taking of examiner and pilot. Such is the > approach we work towards in the sections below.? > > > >? So we are looking for a unit analysis (analysis of a whole unit, not > unit of analysis) rather than an analysis into elements. I am not yet > convinced that in practice there is really any difference. > > > > > >? On the other hand, the expanded script on page 10 does certainly show > how the words of the conversation exist for both the pilot and the > examiner, and thereby creates a shared social space. In other words, > ?intersubjective speech field? makes sense ? a moment in time when the > words of each person (subject) are alive in the hearing and consciousness > of the other ? ?I hear you and you hear me.? And it does not leave a crack > by which it could be opened to the charge of dualism. Instead it is a > whole, a coherent unit of analysis. But ?intersubjective speech field?? - > another term of art!! > > > > > > Finally, while I have had trouble with the term ?mediate? and can see > that it is open to misunderstandings, I have always found that these > misunderstandings melted away quickly when I was working with something > very concrete.? When a union steward, for example, is defending a worker > who has been disciplined, the text of the contract definitely mediates the > relationship between the worker and the employer. No doubt about it; take > that text away, and the relationship changes abruptly. > > > > > > What would the ?intersubjective speech field? have been like if the QRH > had not been available?? Would the pilot have offered a different defense? > That would be a way to have tested what mediating role it played. > > > > Helena > >> On Apr 9, 2017, at 4:53 PM, Larry Purss lpscholar2@gmail.com>> wrote: > >> > >> Alfredo, Amelia, and Pablo, > >> > >> Alfredo, > >> Your hope that we will cover this ground by reference to a wider > literature by ?expanding ? the field, may have the unintended consequence > of also ?abbreviating? the focus on ?with/out mediation,? at the core of > your paper. > >> > >> This notion of abbreviation and expansion and when each direction is > appropriate. > >> This speaks to your article?s notion of ?accented?. When contents are > accented by some reference [I.e. deictic, body orientation, verbal > indication] then, the semantic, sense-giving *field* changes.? The contents > no longer have to be said because the presence of the contents in the > *field* goes ?without? saying, being an aspect of the integral co-inhabited > space. > >> > >> Following this line, I notice Amelia and Pablo?s article explores five > usually overlooked aspects of Vygotsky?s work. The first overlooked aspect > is: > >> > >> ?the understanding of the mediational system as a trans-organic, > EXTENDED branch of the psychological system. > >> > >> This first aspect explored by Amelia and Pablo? may or may not share a > family resemblance to your and Michael?s exploration of theorizing with/out > mediation? > >> > >> I hope Amelia and Pablo read through your article so that we can read > each article through the perspective of the other article thus expanding > our notion of ?mediation?? I am referring to the title of Amelia and > Pablo?s article [Vygotsky and beyond: Horizons for the Future of > Psychology]. This is a theme of ?extending? with/out premature > abbreviation. May require a middle path? > >> > >> I will re-send your and Michael?s article in the hope of engaging both > articles with the potential to? open possible new horizons? through > engaging with the ?later? Vygotsky [1932-1934] and his re/thinking his > life?s work and this new direction?s relevance for our current moment in > time. I am referring to the title of Amelia and Pablo?s article > >> Also recognizing this is contested ground. > >> > >> Searching for a new con/sensus > >> > >> Sent from Mail for Windows 10 > >> > >> From: Alfredo Jornet Gil > >> Sent: April 9, 2017 10:50 AM > >> To: lpscholar2@gmail.com ; eXtended Mind, > Culture, Activity > >> Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky > >> > >> Thank you Larry for sharing your reading of our article, which I think > is a very sensible read. I hope that by posting Amelia and Pablo's article, > we can cover the ground by reference to a wider literature as well. > Obviously, ours is only one among other takes in current literature that > point in the similar direction; and there are yet others quiet critical to > these 'revisionist' takes. As you anticipate, getting these into dialogue > would be a great xmca accomplishment. > >> > >> Alfredo > >> > >> From: lpscholar2@gmail.com < > lpscholar2@gmail.com > > >> Sent: 09 April 2017 14:21 > >> To: Alfredo Jornet Gil; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >> Subject: RE: [Xmca-l] Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky > >> > >> Alfredo, > >> I have been slowly reading (and digesting) your and Wolff-Michael?s > article (Theorizing ? with/out mediators) that joins the current ?takes? on > the later Vygotsky. > >> > >> My impression (and appreciation) of this emerging tradition is > significant as? an enlarging of the scope and ?re-working? of the Vygotsky > who was known in the process of moving into the West European? and North > Atlantic form of theorizing. > >> > >> I am reading your article in relation to the notion of ?playworlds? and > ?spielraum? (translated playrooms). > >> > >> A key re-working of (mediation) has to do with re/thinking triangle > diagrams as static (with mediation at the apex). > >> This generates a PREsumption of two variables at the base of the > triangle assumed as (elements, essences, things) that inter/act through an > ?intermediary? third (element, essence, thing). > >> Your article indicates this is the classical or canonical version of > (mediation) as the third thing/element through which the other two > things/elements become changed or develop. > >> > >> Your re-working of (mediation) adds the temporal, duration, and (unit > of analysis) and implies it is not the elements or parts that each > individually change or develop (classic intermediary model of elements > transformed by going through a third element IN a triangle with an apex > mediator) > >> But rather > >> There are only relation of (within UNITS). > >> When a tool, technique, sign, word, artifact) develops then the ENTIRE > UNIT (not elements) develops. > >> > >> Alfredo, I personally believe your approach (currently re-working > classical and Western canonical versions) deserves to have its own (place) > as a subsection on the XMCA site. To become more clear on this ?later? > Vygotsky. > >> Then a conversation may generate that puts in question this re-working > >> BUT > >> In a spirit of ?play? in rooms. > >> A movement back and forth, oscillating, spiralling, developing, and > never reaching a determinate conclusion, once and forever. > >> > >> Putting in play triangles with mediators at the apex as static diagrams. > >> More open, fluid, theorizing with ANDA WITHOUT ?mediators? as we play > with these notions. > >> > >> I recommend others read the article ?Theorizing with/out mediators?. > >> Reading the (/) to mean interval where we tarry awhile in a spirit of > re-working theorizing with/out mediators. > >> > >> I believe we need to create a subsection on XMCA to let these notions > percolate and permeate the more classical boundary markers. > >> > >> My way of saying your article is a pro-found re-working of the notions > of (within) and (without) and (mediation) at the core of this re-working > PRE-assumptions. > >> > >> My morning muse > >> > >> Sent from my Windows 10 phone > >> > >> From: Alfredo Jornet Gil > >> Sent: April 8, 2017 10:20 PM > >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky > >> > >> Hi Esteban, > >> > >> yes, things have been a little quiet lately, but there have been few > threads going on, perhaps most importantly the one discussing Jang's (this > issue's) paper on multi-ethnic issues on Second Language. > >> > >> Other threads have seemed to resonate on recent articles/works > attempting to re-work (or work further) some of Vygotsky's key concepts, in > particular ZPD and Mediation (with a couple of articles having been > circulated). > >> > >> Connecting to the latter, it seems that several of those efforts are > making emphasis on Vygotsky's later period, suggesting that much of the > prior and current uptakes have focused almost exclusively on the > instrumental aspects that were more salient in his middle period, and not > so much on the lines of inquiry that the psychologist was opening never had > the chance to pursue. > >> > >> I attach yet another such work, this time by del R?o and ?lvarez. Much > is being written about how and to what extent Vygotsky was revising his own > prior work. This one tells as more about that, and does so both in English > and in Spanish. > >> > >> I wonder how do xmca'ers (who likely are busy reading world news as > things are getting more and more perplexing) feel and think about this > tendency/prospect in cultural-historical theory literature. > >> > >> Alfredo > >> ________________________________________ > >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu mailman.ucsd.edu> mailman.ucsd.edu>> on behalf of Helena Worthen > > >> Sent: 09 April 2017 03:11 > >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Playworlds, Performance, Perezhivanie, > Apophasis ... and TRUMP'S speech! > >> > >> Hi, Esteban - > >> > >> Things have been a little quiet recently. I suspect my co-xmca-ers in > the US are either mid-semester or digging in on big projects that will have > some significance, hopefully, given what we?re dealing with here. > >> > >> You may or may not be aware that our new Secretary of Education is the > sister of Erik Prince, http://www.ibtimes.com/who- > betsy-devos-brother-erik-princes-involvement-blackwater-chinese-money- > laundering- princes-involvement-blackwater-chinese-money-laundering->2493834 > >> > >> Just a hint of what is happening to education, top to bottom, in the US. > >> > >> > >> Helena > >> > >> > >> Helena Worthen > >> helenaworthen@gmail.com > >> Berkeley, CA 94707 > >> Blog about US and Viet Nam: helenaworthen.wordpress.com > >> > >> > >> > >>> On Apr 8, 2017, at 3:15 PM, Stephen Diaz wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi Bruce, > >>> > >>> Don't know if you are still the one for xmcc but I am not getting any > emails from that list serve.? Can you please check on that.? I still want > to continue on it if possible.? Thanks. > >>> > >>> Esteban Diaz > >>> > >>> > >>> ________________________________ > >>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Bruce Jones > >>> Sent: Sunday, February 5, 2017 3:23 PM > >>> To: mike cole; Andy Blunden; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Playworlds, Performance, Perezhivanie, Apophasis > ... and TRUMP'S speech! > >>> > >>> On 2/5/17 2:39 PM, mike cole wrote: > >>>> Bruce's email is not bouncing from san diego. > >>>> Perhaps there is only one c in unsubscribe? > >>> > >>> Spelling mistakes will not cause bounces.? I do the unsubscribes by > hand > >>> in order to make sure they are removed from the database. > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Bruce Jones > >>> Sys Admin, LCHC > >>> bjones@ucsd.edu > >>> 619-823-8281 > >>> > >>> -- > >> > >> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > From a.j.gil@iped.uio.no Tue Apr 11 10:33:31 2017 From: a.j.gil@iped.uio.no (Alfredo Jornet Gil) Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 17:33:31 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky In-Reply-To: References: <5893695b.c32f630a.3d640.41ee@mx.google.com> <1486189210098.72503@iped.uio.no> <838a8d3c-2559-3984-64e3-e3cf8bd98266@mira.net> <8029C164-2A9F-4CAA-B0EF-7799A55E7194@gmail.com> <1491715069810.47906@iped.uio.no> <58ea273d.494b620a.8865b.ba36@mx.google.com> <1491760229133.43007@iped.uio.no> <58eac975.9d3e620a.eb34a.c238@mx.google.com> <6ED0EB7F-12DD-45C6-9490-026D00D1CC07@gmail.com>, Message-ID: <1491932010528.43337@iped.uio.no> Dear Helena, thanks for your careful reading/commenting on the Theorizing with/out mediators article. We were indeed concerned that readers may be going to take us as saying that 'tools,' artefacts, etc, no longer were relevant, or that they made no special attention. This is why, through the last two? pages, we warn the reader ?NOT ?to take us in that sense. I (we) cannot but agree that the QRH in our study, or the labor contract in your example, are integral to whatever social phenomenon we are trying to explain, as we argue in the article. But it is also important to note that the critique concerns mediation as a concept for the (social) scientific inquiry into ??human activity, and not *every* use of the term outside that program of inquiry?. As you, I also find it useful to say that a labor contract 'mediates' between employees, workers, and unions. Some may want to say that the USS Carl Vinson is 'mediating' in the US-North Korea relations. Still, that will not *explain* the social phenomenon, for contracts and aircraft carriers are just parts (however important) of much larger fields of semantic organisation. To me, the problem comes when the social inquiry is closed or concluded by saying that this or this other thing mediates this or that other thing; which is very often the case. If anything, that should be a start; and perhaps not the best start. For if you were to take the QRH out, then we may still ?find that 'language' mediated between the pilot and the examiner; or that their present relation mediates between their past relation and their future relation. What in every case we would be trying to do is ?specifying just how practices are organised so that social change can be accounted for. You mention that unit analysis vs analysis by elements does not really make a difference in practice. Our critique, however, is built on the assumption that it does indeed make a difference. You agree that the extended excerpt in p. 10 does show the event from a unit perspective. To me, becoming aware that words inherently belong to (at least) two persons, ?rather than 'mediating' between them, really makes a difference. For such a 'belief' may have deep implications for they way attributions of *responsibility* may be drawn in practice. For if I am hard-wired on the belief that I am I, and that you are you, and that we are 'using' words that mediate between us , my orientation and attitude (and my way of being responsive to and therefore responsible) towards solving any conflict will be very different than if I were aware that I am we, and you are we, and that these words are as much ours as they are not. Glad that this conversation is going on! Alfredo ________________________________ From: Helena Worthen Sent: 11 April 2017 01:46 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Cc: Alfredo Jornet Gil Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky Sorry, message got pasted in twice. Please ignore previous message. Helena Worthen helenaworthen@gmail.com Berkeley, CA 94707 Blog about US and Viet Nam: helenaworthen.wordpress.com On Apr 10, 2017, at 4:41 PM, Helena Worthen > wrote: hi - In an effort to get back in the conversation, I have read the Roth-Jornet paper, Theorizing Without Mediators, and have some comments. As usual, I like to see ideas tested agains concrete examples. I like it even better when the ideas seem to have some useful, practical applications. Roth and Jornet argue that the well-worn familiar term, ?mediation,? leaves sociocultural theory open to charges of dualism, and that Vygotsky himself was abandoning the term (and perhaps the concept) in his late years I agree that the English word "mediation" has some problems. Tools and signs are said to ?mediate? but they are not themselves active; they are objects, they don?t initiate anything. They have a function, however. While a text does not actively do anything, someone does something with it. So ?mediating? looks like a verb (a gerund) but really isn?t. Nor does mediate simply locate something in the middle, or between two things. To extend Roth and Jornet?s metaphor, a river does not mediate its shores; it may lie between them, but a bridge, if there is one, would mediate. This vocabulary problem affects other words that are terms of art in sociocultural theory. ?Affordances? is one. The phrase ?activity theory? is a little awkward. When introducing someone to sociocultural theory, I always have to warn them that there is a kind of private language involved. I don?t know where it came from ? translations? But does the concept of mediation lead to dualism, as Roth and Jornet suggest? ` I have tried to collect the pairs that are referenced when we talk about ?mediation? or ?artifact mediation?? Some that are mentioned in the first couple of pages of this article are: Nature/culture Intrasubjective/intersubjective Individual/(collective or group) ? this is my addition Inner mind/outer world Developing individual/social practice So are these dualisms or dialectical partners? The idea that a tool or a sign ?mediates? between all of these does not seem problematical to me. I can think of concrete examplesThe idea that a tool or a sign ?mediates? between all of these does not seem problematical to me. I can think of concrete examples for all of them. Schools mediate between nature and culture. Writing a poem mediates between one?s inner mind and the outer world; same for intrasubjective/intersubjective. A teacher mediates between a developing individual and a social practice. An agenda mediates between an individual and a group. The document drafted by Jimmy Carter and amended sequentially by Rabin and Sadat mediated that phase of the negotiations, etc. This does not seem to lead to the quote from Mikhailov in line 46 on page 1, about ?from the perspective of the soul, there are no mediators.? I am also not convinced that if tools, technology and signs mediate every activity, ?mediation would explain nothing.? I can see that in numbers, this is true ? 4ab x 6a = 24ab is really 4b x 6 = 24b, right?- but not in communication. Nor do I really understand the quote from Spinoza on line 25 of page 2, ?being is transparent in its determination . . . in that it excludes every mediation that would produce the determination.? Being as existence? And the thalidomide baby example is striking but it does not earn its place by being clear. What is the sign or tool here? What is the activity? Overall, the jump to Spinoza confuses me. Spinoza wrote in Latin, in the 1800s; does he mean what Vygotsky means by ?mediation?? Spinoza aside, I?m willing to accept that Vygotsky, according to Mikhailov, supplanted ?mediation? with ?the intersubjective speech field.? We can still look at what is in the middle of the intersubjective speech field and see what?s going on. If ?intersubjective speech field? is a new way of talking about mediation, so be it. Now we go to the concrete case provided by Roth and Jornet, one that might seem to be an example of mediation, to see what is different if we look at it as an example of a speech field. The authors indicate that this concept will be different because it ?includes time and social relations as irreducible aspects of the unit of analysis.? I am not convinced that this is different: the famous Engestrom triangle places a tool or sign as the mediator between categories that are embodied in people (history, customs, rules etc. on the one side and an object/outcome on the other), all in dynamic whole that changes over time. So time and social relations are irreducible aspects of that unit of analysis, too. But on to the case: page 5, with images of a Quick Reference Handbook (QRH), script of an interaction between an examiner and an airline pilot. The pilot has made a mistake and the examiner is quizzing him about how it happened. The QRH shows a checklist of what was supposed to happen; it is the authority to which both refer. I think that the discussion illustrated with variations of the famous triangle is summarized in the paragraph in the middle of page 7: ?To identify the QRH as a mediator, the subjectivities of pilot and examiner must be assumed to pre-exist the relation, and the tool be placed in between. It also functions to ?mediate? between the different (subjective) ?meanings? and as a tool in the ?construction of? intersubjectivity. Alternatively, however, and in line with a unit analysis, it is possible to consider the QRH to be an aspect integral to the field in which the two participants are also constitutive parts. The QRH then is integral part of the common ground in and to the sequentially organized turn taking of examiner and pilot. Such is the approach we work towards in the sections below.? So we are looking for a unit analysis (analysis of a whole unit, not unit of analysis) rather than an analysis into elements. I am not yet convinced that in practice there is really any difference. On the other hand, the expanded script on page 10 does certainly show how the words of the conversation exist for both the pilot and the examiner, and thereby creates a shared social space. In other words, ?intersubjective speech field? makes sense ? a moment in time when the words of each person (subject) are alive in the hearing and consciousness of the other ? ?I hear you and you hear me.? And it does not leave a crack by which it could be opened to the charge of dualism. Instead it is a whole, a coherent unit of analysis. But ?intersubjective speech field?? - another term of art!! Finally, while I have had trouble with the term ?mediate? and can see that it is open to misunderstandings, I have always found that these misunderstandings melted away quickly when I was working with something very concrete. When a union steward, for example, is defending a worker who has been disciplined, the text of the contract definitely mediates the relationship between the worker and the employer. No doubt about it; take that text away, and the relationship changes abruptly. What would the ?intersubjective speech field? have been like if the QRH had not been available? Would the pilot have offered a different defense? That would be a way to have tested what mediating role it played. Helena On Apr 9, 2017, at 4:53 PM, Larry Purss > wrote: Alfredo, Amelia, and Pablo, Alfredo, Your hope that we will cover this ground by reference to a wider literature by ?expanding ? the field, may have the unintended consequence of also ?abbreviating? the focus on ?with/out mediation, at the core of your paper. This notion of abbreviation and expansion and when each direction is appropriate. This speaks to your article?s notion of ?accented?. When contents are accented by some reference [I.e. deictic, body orientation, verbal indication] then, the semantic, sense-giving *field* changes. The contents no longer have to be said because the presence of the contents in the *field* goes ?without? saying, being an aspect of the integral co-inhabited space. Following this line, I notice Amelia and Pablo?s article explores five usually overlooked aspects of Vygotsky?s work. The first overlooked aspect is: ?the understanding of the mediational system as a trans-organic, EXTENDED branch of the psychological system. This first aspect explored by Amelia and Pablo may or may not share a family resemblance to your and Michael?s exploration of theorizing with/out mediation? I hope Amelia and Pablo read through your article so that we can read each article through the perspective of the other article thus expanding our notion of ?mediation?? I am referring to the title of Amelia and Pablo?s article [Vygotsky and beyond: Horizons for the Future of Psychology]. This is a theme of ?extending? with/out premature abbreviation. May require a middle path? I will re-send your and Michael?s article in the hope of engaging both articles with the potential to open possible new horizons through engaging with the ?later? Vygotsky [1932-1934] and his re/thinking his life?s work and this new direction?s relevance for our current moment in time. I am referring to the title of Amelia and Pablo?s article Also recognizing this is contested ground. Searching for a new con/sensus Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Alfredo Jornet Gil Sent: April 9, 2017 10:50 AM To: lpscholar2@gmail.com; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky Thank you Larry for sharing your reading of our article, which I think is a very sensible read. I hope that by posting Amelia and Pablo's article, we can cover the ground by reference to a wider literature as well. Obviously, ours is only one among other takes in current literature that point in the similar direction; and there are yet others quiet critical to these 'revisionist' takes. As you anticipate, getting these into dialogue would be a great xmca accomplishment. Alfredo From: lpscholar2@gmail.com > Sent: 09 April 2017 14:21 To: Alfredo Jornet Gil; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: RE: [Xmca-l] Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky Alfredo, I have been slowly reading (and digesting) your and Wolff-Michael?s article (Theorizing ? with/out mediators) that joins the current ?takes? on the later Vygotsky. My impression (and appreciation) of this emerging tradition is significant as an enlarging of the scope and ?re-working? of the Vygotsky who was known in the process of moving into the West European and North Atlantic form of theorizing. I am reading your article in relation to the notion of ?playworlds? and ?spielraum? (translated playrooms). A key re-working of (mediation) has to do with re/thinking triangle diagrams as static (with mediation at the apex). This generates a PREsumption of two variables at the base of the triangle assumed as (elements, essences, things) that inter/act through an ?intermediary? third (element, essence, thing). Your article indicates this is the classical or canonical version of (mediation) as the third thing/element through which the other two things/elements become changed or develop. Your re-working of (mediation) adds the temporal, duration, and (unit of analysis) and implies it is not the elements or parts that each individually change or develop (classic intermediary model of elements transformed by going through a third element IN a triangle with an apex mediator) But rather There are only relation of (within UNITS). When a tool, technique, sign, word, artifact) develops then the ENTIRE UNIT (not elements) develops. Alfredo, I personally believe your approach (currently re-working classical and Western canonical versions) deserves to have its own (place) as a subsection on the XMCA site. To become more clear on this ?later? Vygotsky. Then a conversation may generate that puts in question this re-working BUT In a spirit of ?play? in rooms. A movement back and forth, oscillating, spiralling, developing, and never reaching a determinate conclusion, once and forever. Putting in play triangles with mediators at the apex as static diagrams. More open, fluid, theorizing with ANDA WITHOUT ?mediators? as we play with these notions. I recommend others read the article ?Theorizing with/out mediators?. Reading the (/) to mean interval where we tarry awhile in a spirit of re-working theorizing with/out mediators. I believe we need to create a subsection on XMCA to let these notions percolate and permeate the more classical boundary markers. My way of saying your article is a pro-found re-working of the notions of (within) and (without) and (mediation) at the core of this re-working PRE-assumptions. My morning muse Sent from my Windows 10 phone From: Alfredo Jornet Gil Sent: April 8, 2017 10:20 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky Hi Esteban, yes, things have been a little quiet lately, but there have been few threads going on, perhaps most importantly the one discussing Jang's (this issue's) paper on multi-ethnic issues on Second Language. Other threads have seemed to resonate on recent articles/works attempting to re-work (or work further) some of Vygotsky's key concepts, in particular ZPD and Mediation (with a couple of articles having been circulated). Connecting to the latter, it seems that several of those efforts are making emphasis on Vygotsky's later period, suggesting that much of the prior and current uptakes have focused almost exclusively on the instrumental aspects that were more salient in his middle period, and not so much on the lines of inquiry that the psychologist was opening never had the chance to pursue. I attach yet another such work, this time by del R?o and ?lvarez. Much is being written about how and to what extent Vygotsky was revising his own prior work. This one tells as more about that, and does so both in English and in Spanish. I wonder how do xmca'ers (who likely are busy reading world news as things are getting more and more perplexing) feel and think about this tendency/prospect in cultural-historical theory literature. Alfredo ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Helena Worthen > Sent: 09 April 2017 03:11 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Playworlds, Performance, Perezhivanie, Apophasis ... and TRUMP'S speech! Hi, Esteban - Things have been a little quiet recently. I suspect my co-xmca-ers in the US are either mid-semester or digging in on big projects that will have some significance, hopefully, given what we?re dealing with here. You may or may not be aware that our new Secretary of Education is the sister of Erik Prince, http://www.ibtimes.com/who-betsy-devos-brother-erik-princes-involvement-blackwater-chinese-money-laundering-2493834 Just a hint of what is happening to education, top to bottom, in the US. Helena Helena Worthen helenaworthen@gmail.com Berkeley, CA 94707 Blog about US and Viet Nam: helenaworthen.wordpress.com On Apr 8, 2017, at 3:15 PM, Stephen Diaz wrote: Hi Bruce, Don't know if you are still the one for xmcc but I am not getting any emails from that list serve. Can you please check on that. I still want to continue on it if possible. Thanks. Esteban Diaz ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Bruce Jones Sent: Sunday, February 5, 2017 3:23 PM To: mike cole; Andy Blunden; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Playworlds, Performance, Perezhivanie, Apophasis ... and TRUMP'S speech! On 2/5/17 2:39 PM, mike cole wrote: Bruce's email is not bouncing from san diego. Perhaps there is only one c in unsubscribe? Spelling mistakes will not cause bounces. I do the unsubscribes by hand in order to make sure they are removed from the database. -- Bruce Jones Sys Admin, LCHC bjones@ucsd.edu 619-823-8281 -- From haydizulfei@rocketmail.com Tue Apr 11 11:24:58 2017 From: haydizulfei@rocketmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?=E2=80=AAHaydi_Zulfei=E2=80=AC_=E2=80=AA?=) Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 18:24:58 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky In-Reply-To: References: <5893695b.c32f630a.3d640.41ee@mx.google.com> <1486189210098.72503@iped.uio.no> <838a8d3c-2559-3984-64e3-e3cf8bd98266@mira.net> <8029C164-2A9F-4CAA-B0EF-7799A55E7194@gmail.com> <1491715069810.47906@iped.uio.no> <58ea273d.494b620a.8865b.ba36@mx.google.com> <1491760229133.43007@iped.uio.no> <58eac975.9d3e620a.eb34a.c238@mx.google.com> <6ED0EB7F-12DD-45C6-9490-026D00D1CC07@gmail.com> Message-ID: <932635876.1302292.1491935098398@mail.yahoo.com> Dear Helena,It's so nice to hear you.My reference to your name was because you are so frank in your remarks of wanting to be convinced , to receive examples of ideas , of preferring to figure out ideas and examples which have practical use and applications.At times one gets confused with so many interpretations in abstraction. I might be accused of this charge myself in which case I'll submit to corrections. Some notes : I now prefer to talk about tools and reserve sign for other occasions. Tools are objects , yes , but they 'act' as continuation and stretching of our limbs , hands in particular . Tools are fashioned by man and then are , figuratively speaking , located between him and the object of need but , in actuality , it so seems that while they are put in the hands and hit something , quite simultaneously the stroke shakes the brain/intellect of the hominid as we see in chimpanzees with their way of solving problems . The gap between the instrumental activities of the hominids and the instrumental activities of primitive man is apparently filled with the repeated use of the tool.A thousand times we've heard that labour with tool changed the world and man himself therefrom.That's not really the case that we naively hang ourselves from the rope of Engels' doctrine but because we hear no other useful and convincing argument. Why should , then , activity theory be awkward?? >From this beginning phase , we jump to ZPD and affordances. This is repetitious but I have to cling to it. I wonder if Wolff-Michael agrees . In his recent short note , he inclined to shy away from 'reference and meaning' . In a room , I'm sitting at the table sweating of warmth . My colleague enters and keeps the door open . Is any speech needed? There are daily too many acts that are carried out without speech/articulation. A need has been satisfied even without an obvious gesture. Does my colleague's volition to act emanate from imitating some grammar-based command which first was issued to others and now is issued from myself to myself? You say these are the beginnings and we have distanced ourselves from those days. Now we are articulate 'mammals' . Again repetitious : Vygotsky said word crowns the deed . Did he say word stops acting or is it the case that we , even now , either obviate speech and choose a direct arrival to act or ripen and enrich our thoughts with the word/s so that we reach the threshold of act and performance more rapidly and with more self-confidence . However , ultimately a decision should have been made . Then , it's again the turn for action. To see the day workers having been converted to scientists and scientists having been converted to workers is apparently very far off. Now our colleagues say Vygotsky by word meant much wider strands of talk and discourse . It demands delving into .? But does the concept of mediation lead to dualism, as Roth and Jornet suggest?? ? Ilyenko has worked out the 'ideal'. He says ideal is nothing but the reflection of the material activity onto mind. And says we don't have two kinds of activities , then ; one material , the other spiritual. One is the copy of the other. Before that , he says for 'man' the whole world is humanized . Man must have the 'ideal' of everything so that he can work and satisfy his needs through the use of these 'ideals' within the process of activity. Ideal is objectified so things get 'forms' and come into being (reification) ; again the reified , the product , at some critical crucial point , is deobjectified and idealized so that it pierces into another process of activity to deliver and satisfy the novel need . Some scholars say the problem of the 'internalization' or so-called 'involution' is dualistic because on one side we have the external and on the other we have the internal . That works for itself and this works for itself , too . Then what medium is available , other than thought transfer impossible though, to let one unite with the other ? They say with the ideal the dualism is removed because in the labour process (activity) the ideal and the material are just moments (inseparable,undissociable) within the one process. As we had the discussion of the 'molars' when we relied on Davydov who's unanimous both with Vygotsky as epistemology and formation of concepts are concerned and with Ilyenko as ontology of the ideal and the material is concerned. I need time to continue ... Best wishesHaydi? From: Helena Worthen To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Cc: Alfredo Jornet Gil Sent: Tuesday, 11 April 2017, 4:17:47 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky Sorry, message got pasted in twice. Please ignore previous message. Helena Worthen helenaworthen@gmail.com Berkeley, CA 94707 Blog about US and Viet Nam: helenaworthen.wordpress.com > On Apr 10, 2017, at 4:41 PM, Helena Worthen wrote: > > hi - > > In an effort to get back in the conversation, I have read the Roth-Jornet paper, Theorizing Without Mediators, and have some comments. As usual, I like to see ideas tested agains concrete examples. I like it even better when the ideas seem to have some useful, practical applications. > > Roth and Jornet argue that the well-worn familiar term, ?mediation,? leaves sociocultural theory open to charges of dualism, and that Vygotsky himself was abandoning the term (and perhaps the concept) in his late years > > I agree that the English word "mediation" has some problems. Tools and signs are said to ?mediate? but they are not themselves active; they are objects, they don?t initiate anything. They have a function, however.? While a text does not actively do anything, someone does something with it. So ?mediating? looks like a verb (a gerund) but really isn?t.? Nor does mediate simply locate something in the middle, or between two things. To extend Roth and Jornet?s metaphor, a river does not mediate its shores; it may lie between them, but a bridge, if there is one, would mediate. > >? This vocabulary problem affects other words that are terms of art in sociocultural theory. ?Affordances? is one. The phrase ?activity theory? is a little awkward. When introducing someone to sociocultural theory, I always have to warn them that there is a kind of private language involved. I don?t know where it came from ? translations? > > But does the concept of mediation lead to dualism, as Roth and Jornet suggest?? ? ? ? ` > > I have tried to collect the pairs that are referenced when we talk about ?mediation? or ?artifact mediation??? Some that are mentioned in the first couple of pages of this article are: > > Nature/culture > Intrasubjective/intersubjective > Individual/(collective or group) ? this is my addition > Inner mind/outer world > Developing individual/social practice > >? So are these dualisms or dialectical partners? > >? The idea that a tool or a sign ?mediates? between all of these does not seem problematical to me. I can think of concrete examplesThe idea that a tool or a sign ?mediates? between all of these does not seem problematical to me. I can think of concrete examples for all of them. Schools mediate between nature and culture. Writing a poem mediates between one?s inner mind and the outer world; same for intrasubjective/intersubjective. A teacher mediates between a developing individual and a social practice. An agenda mediates between an individual and a group.? The document drafted by Jimmy Carter and amended sequentially by Rabin and Sadat mediated that phase of the negotiations, etc. > >? This does not seem to lead to the quote from Mikhailov in line 46 on page 1, about ?from the perspective of the soul, there are no mediators.? I am also not convinced that if tools, technology and signs mediate every activity, ?mediation would explain nothing.?? I can see that in numbers, this is true ? 4ab x 6a = 24ab is really 4b x 6 = 24b, right?- but not in communication.? Nor do I really understand the quote from Spinoza on line 25 of page 2, ?being is transparent in its determination . . . in that it excludes every mediation that would produce the determination.? Being as existence?? And the thalidomide baby example is striking but it does not earn its place by being clear.? What is the sign or tool here? What is the activity? > >? Overall, the jump to Spinoza confuses me. Spinoza wrote in Latin, in the 1800s; does he mean what Vygotsky means by ?mediation?? > > > Spinoza aside, I?m willing to accept that Vygotsky, according to Mikhailov, supplanted ?mediation? with ?the intersubjective speech field.? We can still look at what is in the middle of the intersubjective speech field and see what?s going on. If ?intersubjective speech field? is a new way of talking about mediation, so be it. > > >? Now we go to the concrete case provided by Roth and Jornet, one that might seem to be an example of mediation, to see what is different if we look at it as an example of a speech field. The authors indicate that this concept will be different because it ?includes time and social relations as irreducible aspects of the unit of analysis.? I am not convinced that this is different: the famous Engestrom triangle places a tool or sign as the mediator between categories that are embodied in people (history, customs, rules etc. on the one side and an object/outcome on the other), all in dynamic whole that changes over time.? So time and social relations are irreducible aspects of that unit of analysis, too. > > >? But on to the case: page 5, with images of a Quick Reference Handbook (QRH), script of an interaction between an examiner and an airline pilot. The pilot has made a mistake and the examiner is quizzing him about how it happened. The QRH shows a checklist of what was supposed to happen; it is the authority to which both refer. I think that the discussion illustrated with variations of the famous triangle is summarized in the paragraph in the middle of page 7: ?To identify the QRH as a mediator, the subjectivities of pilot and examiner must be assumed to pre-exist the relation, and the tool be placed in between. It also functions to ?mediate? between the different (subjective) ?meanings? and as a tool in the ?construction of? intersubjectivity. Alternatively, however, and in line with a unit analysis, it is possible to consider the QRH to be an aspect integral to the field in which the two participants are also constitutive parts. The QRH then is integral part of the common ground in and to the sequentially organized turn taking of examiner and pilot. Such is the approach we work towards in the sections below.? > >? So we are looking for a unit analysis (analysis of a whole unit, not unit of analysis) rather than an analysis into elements. I am not yet convinced that in practice there is really any difference. > > >? On the other hand, the expanded script on page 10 does certainly show how the words of the conversation exist for both the pilot and the examiner, and thereby creates a shared social space. In other words, ?intersubjective speech field? makes sense ? a moment in time when the words of each person (subject) are alive in the hearing and consciousness of the other ? ?I hear you and you hear me.? And it does not leave a crack by which it could be opened to the charge of dualism. Instead it is a whole, a coherent unit of analysis. But ?intersubjective speech field?? - another term of art!! > > > Finally, while I have had trouble with the term ?mediate? and can see that it is open to misunderstandings, I have always found that these misunderstandings melted away quickly when I was working with something very concrete.? When a union steward, for example, is defending a worker who has been disciplined, the text of the contract definitely mediates the relationship between the worker and the employer. No doubt about it; take that text away, and the relationship changes abruptly. > > > What would the ?intersubjective speech field? have been like if the QRH had not been available?? Would the pilot have offered a different defense? That would be a way to have tested what mediating role it played. > > Helena >> On Apr 9, 2017, at 4:53 PM, Larry Purss > wrote: >> >> Alfredo, Amelia, and Pablo, >> >> Alfredo, >> Your hope that we will cover this ground by reference to a wider literature by ?expanding ? the field, may have the unintended consequence of also ?abbreviating? the focus on ?with/out mediation,? at the core of your paper. >> >> This notion of abbreviation and expansion and when each direction is appropriate. >> This speaks to your article?s notion of ?accented?. When contents are accented by some reference [I.e. deictic, body orientation, verbal indication] then, the semantic, sense-giving *field* changes.? The contents no longer have to be said because the presence of the contents in the *field* goes ?without? saying, being an aspect of the integral co-inhabited space. >> >> Following this line, I notice Amelia and Pablo?s article explores five usually overlooked aspects of Vygotsky?s work. The first overlooked aspect is: >> >> ?the understanding of the mediational system as a trans-organic, EXTENDED branch of the psychological system. >> >> This first aspect explored by Amelia and Pablo? may or may not share a family resemblance to your and Michael?s exploration of theorizing with/out mediation? >> >> I hope Amelia and Pablo read through your article so that we can read each article through the perspective of the other article thus expanding our notion of ?mediation?? I am referring to the title of Amelia and Pablo?s article [Vygotsky and beyond: Horizons for the Future of Psychology]. This is a theme of ?extending? with/out premature abbreviation. May require a middle path? >> >> I will re-send your and Michael?s article in the hope of engaging both articles with the potential to? open possible new horizons? through engaging with the ?later? Vygotsky [1932-1934] and his re/thinking his life?s work and this new direction?s relevance for our current moment in time. I am referring to the title of Amelia and Pablo?s article >> Also recognizing this is contested ground. >> >> Searching for a new con/sensus >> >> Sent from Mail for Windows 10 >> >> From: Alfredo Jornet Gil >> Sent: April 9, 2017 10:50 AM >> To: lpscholar2@gmail.com ; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky >> >> Thank you Larry for sharing your reading of our article, which I think is a very sensible read. I hope that by posting Amelia and Pablo's article, we can cover the ground by reference to a wider literature as well. Obviously, ours is only one among other takes in current literature that point in the similar direction; and there are yet others quiet critical to these 'revisionist' takes. As you anticipate, getting these into dialogue would be a great xmca accomplishment. >> >> Alfredo >> >> From: lpscholar2@gmail.com > >> Sent: 09 April 2017 14:21 >> To: Alfredo Jornet Gil; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> Subject: RE: [Xmca-l] Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky >>? >> Alfredo, >> I have been slowly reading (and digesting) your and Wolff-Michael?s article (Theorizing ? with/out mediators) that joins the current ?takes? on the later Vygotsky. >>? >> My impression (and appreciation) of this emerging tradition is significant as? an enlarging of the scope and ?re-working? of the Vygotsky who was known in the process of moving into the West European? and North Atlantic form of theorizing. >>? >> I am reading your article in relation to the notion of ?playworlds? and ?spielraum? (translated playrooms). >>? >> A key re-working of (mediation) has to do with re/thinking triangle diagrams as static (with mediation at the apex). >> This generates a PREsumption of two variables at the base of the triangle assumed as (elements, essences, things) that inter/act through an ?intermediary? third (element, essence, thing). >> Your article indicates this is the classical or canonical version of (mediation) as the third thing/element through which the other two things/elements become changed or develop. >>? >> Your re-working of (mediation) adds the temporal, duration, and (unit of analysis) and implies it is not the elements or parts that each individually change or develop (classic intermediary model of elements transformed by going through a third element IN a triangle with an apex mediator) >> But rather >> There are only relation of (within UNITS). >> When a tool, technique, sign, word, artifact) develops then the ENTIRE UNIT (not elements) develops. >>? >> Alfredo, I personally believe your approach (currently re-working classical and Western canonical versions) deserves to have its own (place) as a subsection on the XMCA site. To become more clear on this ?later? Vygotsky. >> Then a conversation may generate that puts in question this re-working >> BUT >> In a spirit of ?play? in rooms. >> A movement back and forth, oscillating, spiralling, developing, and never reaching a determinate conclusion, once and forever. >>? >> Putting in play triangles with mediators at the apex as static diagrams. >> More open, fluid, theorizing with ANDA WITHOUT ?mediators? as we play with these notions. >>? >> I recommend others read the article ?Theorizing with/out mediators?. >> Reading the (/) to mean interval where we tarry awhile in a spirit of re-working theorizing with/out mediators. >>? >> I believe we need to create a subsection on XMCA to let these notions percolate and permeate the more classical boundary markers. >>? >> My way of saying your article is a pro-found re-working of the notions of (within) and (without) and (mediation) at the core of this re-working PRE-assumptions. >>? >> My morning muse >>? >> Sent from my Windows 10 phone >>? >> From: Alfredo Jornet Gil >> Sent: April 8, 2017 10:20 PM >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky >>? >> Hi Esteban, >>? >> yes, things have been a little quiet lately, but there have been few threads going on, perhaps most importantly the one discussing Jang's (this issue's) paper on multi-ethnic issues on Second Language. >>? >> Other threads have seemed to resonate on recent articles/works attempting to re-work (or work further) some of Vygotsky's key concepts, in particular ZPD and Mediation (with a couple of articles having been circulated). >>? >> Connecting to the latter, it seems that several of those efforts are making emphasis on Vygotsky's later period, suggesting that much of the prior and current uptakes have focused almost exclusively on the instrumental aspects that were more salient in his middle period, and not so much on the lines of inquiry that the psychologist was opening never had the chance to pursue. >>? >> I attach yet another such work, this time by del R?o and ?lvarez. Much is being written about how and to what extent Vygotsky was revising his own prior work. This one tells as more about that, and does so both in English and in Spanish. >>? >> I wonder how do xmca'ers (who likely are busy reading world news as things are getting more and more perplexing) feel and think about this tendency/prospect in cultural-historical theory literature. >>? >> Alfredo >> ________________________________________ >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Helena Worthen > >> Sent: 09 April 2017 03:11 >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Playworlds, Performance, Perezhivanie,? ? Apophasis ... and TRUMP'S speech! >>? >> Hi, Esteban - >>? >> Things have been a little quiet recently. I suspect my co-xmca-ers in the US are either mid-semester or digging in on big projects that will have some significance, hopefully, given what we?re dealing with here. >>? >> You may or may not be aware that our new Secretary of Education is the sister of Erik Prince, http://www.ibtimes.com/who-betsy-devos-brother-erik-princes-involvement-blackwater-chinese-money-laundering- 2493834 >>? >> Just a hint of what is happening to education, top to bottom, in the US. >>? >>? >> Helena >>? >>? >> Helena Worthen >> helenaworthen@gmail.com >> Berkeley, CA 94707 >> Blog about US and Viet Nam: helenaworthen.wordpress.com >>? >>? >>? >>> On Apr 8, 2017, at 3:15 PM, Stephen Diaz wrote: >>>? >>> Hi Bruce, >>>? >>> Don't know if you are still the one for xmcc but I am not getting any emails from that list serve.? Can you please check on that.? I still want to continue on it if possible.? Thanks. >>>? >>> Esteban Diaz >>>? >>>? >>> ________________________________ >>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Bruce Jones >>> Sent: Sunday, February 5, 2017 3:23 PM >>> To: mike cole; Andy Blunden; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Playworlds, Performance, Perezhivanie, Apophasis ... and TRUMP'S speech! >>>? >>> On 2/5/17 2:39 PM, mike cole wrote: >>>> Bruce's email is not bouncing from san diego. >>>> Perhaps there is only one c in unsubscribe? >>>? >>> Spelling mistakes will not cause bounces.? I do the unsubscribes by hand >>> in order to make sure they are removed from the database. >>>? >>>? >>> -- >>> Bruce Jones >>> Sys Admin, LCHC >>> bjones@ucsd.edu >>> 619-823-8281 >>>? >>> -- >>? >>? >> > > >> > From a.j.gil@iped.uio.no Tue Apr 11 13:39:52 2017 From: a.j.gil@iped.uio.no (Alfredo Jornet Gil) Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 20:39:52 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky In-Reply-To: <58eb9e01.0b0d620a.51094.946d@mx.google.com> References: <5893695b.c32f630a.3d640.41ee@mx.google.com> <1486189210098.72503@iped.uio.no> <838a8d3c-2559-3984-64e3-e3cf8bd98266@mira.net> <8029C164-2A9F-4CAA-B0EF-7799A55E7194@gmail.com> <1491715069810.47906@iped.uio.no> <58ea273d.494b620a.8865b.ba36@mx.google.com> <58ea2ae3.9561630a.3f702.b325@mx.google.com> , <58eb9e01.0b0d620a.51094.946d@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <1491943191196.47173@iped.uio.no> Larry, your way of posing B) seems consistent to the way anthropologist T. Ingold speaks of 'Making' in his 2013 work with the same name (Routledge). A ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of lpscholar2@gmail.com Sent: 10 April 2017 17:00 To: James Ma; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky In the service of pushing (and being pulled) into ?fields? Alfredo offers an analogy. A::B to accent without mediators. A) In the physical sciences two heavenly bodies together constitute a gravitational ?field? that determines the movements of both. As a result, the bodies, the force field, and movement no longer are ?independent?. As soon as another body is added to the system, all three will be altered IN RESPONSE TO the ?new? gravitational field brought about by their material presence. When celestial bodies come close to each other, the gravitational ?field? created IN the encounter affects them all. Once they have separated, they no longer influence each other. However, their flight path has ?substantially? been affected IN and BY the ?field?; the flight path is a form of ?memory? of the encounter. B) Craftspersons or designers work with materials. IN the course of multiple encounters the developmental lines of the craftspersons/designers ?alter?. Become other. IN such cases materials do not stand ?between? craftspersons and the world, but lines of development emerge where bodily orientations, affects, and material ?configurations? of the workspace MUTUALLY configure each other, IN this ?field, none of them being distinguishable as mediator. This is my attempt to explore the notion of (mediation) and accenting (fields) and mutual configuration through the analogy Alfredo and Michael offer for consideration Sent from my Windows 10 phone From: James Ma Sent: April 9, 2017 6:35 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky Good point, I'd just like to add here: language as a system of signs creates meaning and social interaction - both Saussure and Peirce have a lot to say about this, particularly language is seen as both human constitution and human institution. James *__________________________________* *James Ma * https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa On 9 April 2017 at 13:36, wrote: > Alfredo, > I offer a quote from the ?later? Vygotsky that you cite in your article > that may prime the pump: > > Language is NOT the relation between a sound and a denoted thing. It is > the relation between the speaker and the listener, the relation between > people directed toward an object. IT IS THE INTERPSYCHIC REACTION THAT > ESTABLISHES THE UNITY OF TWO ORAGANISMS IN THE SAME ORIENTATION, Toward an > object > > The focus hear on ?establishing the UNITY? of teacher and student IN their > orientation. > The IN includes (within) > > Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > From: lpscholar2@gmail.com > Sent: April 9, 2017 5:21 AM > To: Alfredo Jornet Gil; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: RE: [Xmca-l] Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky > > Alfredo, > I have been slowly reading (and digesting) your and Wolff-Michael?s > article (Theorizing ? with/out mediators) that joins the current ?takes? on > the later Vygotsky. > > My impression (and appreciation) of this emerging tradition is significant > as an enlarging of the scope and ?re-working? of the Vygotsky who was > known in the process of moving into the West European and North Atlantic > form of theorizing. > > I am reading your article in relation to the notion of ?playworlds? and > ?spielraum? (translated playrooms). > > A key re-working of (mediation) has to do with re/thinking triangle > diagrams as static (with mediation at the apex). > This generates a PREsumption of two variables at the base of the triangle > assumed as (elements, essences, things) that inter/act through an > ?intermediary? third (element, essence, thing). > Your article indicates this is the classical or canonical version of > (mediation) as the third thing/element through which the other two > things/elements become changed or develop. > > Your re-working of (mediation) adds the temporal, duration, and (unit of > analysis) and implies it is not the elements or parts that each > individually change or develop (classic intermediary model of elements > transformed by going through a third element IN a triangle with an apex > mediator) > But rather > There are only relation of (within UNITS). > When a tool, technique, sign, word, artifact) develops then the ENTIRE > UNIT (not elements) develops. > > Alfredo, I personally believe your approach (currently re-working > classical and Western canonical versions) deserves to have its own (place) > as a subsection on the XMCA site. To become more clear on this ?later? > Vygotsky. > Then a conversation may generate that puts in question this re-working > BUT > In a spirit of ?play? in rooms. > A movement back and forth, oscillating, spiralling, developing, and never > reaching a determinate conclusion, once and forever. > > Putting in play triangles with mediators at the apex as static diagrams. > More open, fluid, theorizing with ANDA WITHOUT ?mediators? as we play with > these notions. > > I recommend others read the article ?Theorizing with/out mediators?. > Reading the (/) to mean interval where we tarry awhile in a spirit of > re-working theorizing with/out mediators. > > I believe we need to create a subsection on XMCA to let these notions > percolate and permeate the more classical boundary markers. > > My way of saying your article is a pro-found re-working of the notions of > (within) and (without) and (mediation) at the core of this re-working > PRE-assumptions. > > My morning muse > > Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > From: Alfredo Jornet Gil > Sent: April 8, 2017 10:20 PM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky > > Hi Esteban, > > yes, things have been a little quiet lately, but there have been few > threads going on, perhaps most importantly the one discussing Jang's (this > issue's) paper on multi-ethnic issues on Second Language. > > Other threads have seemed to resonate on recent articles/works attempting > to re-work (or work further) some of Vygotsky's key concepts, in particular > ZPD and Mediation (with a couple of articles having been circulated). > > Connecting to the latter, it seems that several of those efforts are > making emphasis on Vygotsky's later period, suggesting that much of the > prior and current uptakes have focused almost exclusively on the > instrumental aspects that were more salient in his middle period, and not > so much on the lines of inquiry that the psychologist was opening never had > the chance to pursue. > > I attach yet another such work, this time by del R?o and ?lvarez. Much is > being written about how and to what extent Vygotsky was revising his own > prior work. This one tells as more about that, and does so both in English > and in Spanish. > > I wonder how do xmca'ers (who likely are busy reading world news as things > are getting more and more perplexing) feel and think about this > tendency/prospect in cultural-historical theory literature. > > Alfredo > ________________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Helena Worthen > Sent: 09 April 2017 03:11 > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Playworlds, Performance, Perezhivanie, Apophasis > ... and TRUMP'S speech! > > Hi, Esteban - > > Things have been a little quiet recently. I suspect my co-xmca-ers in the > US are either mid-semester or digging in on big projects that will have > some significance, hopefully, given what we?re dealing with here. > > You may or may not be aware that our new Secretary of Education is the > sister of Erik Prince, http://www.ibtimes.com/who- > betsy-devos-brother-erik-princes-involvement-blackwater-chinese-money- > laundering-2493834 > > Just a hint of what is happening to education, top to bottom, in the US. > > > Helena > > > Helena Worthen > helenaworthen@gmail.com > Berkeley, CA 94707 > Blog about US and Viet Nam: helenaworthen.wordpress.com > > > > > On Apr 8, 2017, at 3:15 PM, Stephen Diaz wrote: > > > > Hi Bruce, > > > > Don't know if you are still the one for xmcc but I am not getting any > emails from that list serve. Can you please check on that. I still want > to continue on it if possible. Thanks. > > > > Esteban Diaz > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Bruce Jones > > Sent: Sunday, February 5, 2017 3:23 PM > > To: mike cole; Andy Blunden; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Playworlds, Performance, Perezhivanie, Apophasis > ... and TRUMP'S speech! > > > > On 2/5/17 2:39 PM, mike cole wrote: > >> Bruce's email is not bouncing from san diego. > >> Perhaps there is only one c in unsubscribe? > > > > Spelling mistakes will not cause bounces. I do the unsubscribes by hand > > in order to make sure they are removed from the database. > > > > > > -- > > Bruce Jones > > Sys Admin, LCHC > > bjones@ucsd.edu > > 619-823-8281 > > > > -- > > > > From a.j.gil@iped.uio.no Tue Apr 11 13:53:02 2017 From: a.j.gil@iped.uio.no (Alfredo Jornet Gil) Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 20:53:02 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky In-Reply-To: <932635876.1302292.1491935098398@mail.yahoo.com> References: <5893695b.c32f630a.3d640.41ee@mx.google.com> <1486189210098.72503@iped.uio.no> <838a8d3c-2559-3984-64e3-e3cf8bd98266@mira.net> <8029C164-2A9F-4CAA-B0EF-7799A55E7194@gmail.com> <1491715069810.47906@iped.uio.no> <58ea273d.494b620a.8865b.ba36@mx.google.com> <1491760229133.43007@iped.uio.no> <58eac975.9d3e620a.eb34a.c238@mx.google.com> <6ED0EB7F-12DD-45C6-9490-026D00D1CC07@gmail.com> , <932635876.1302292.1491935098398@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1491943982381.4936@iped.uio.no> I'd like to address Haydi's question 'does mediation leads to dualism'. Of course, the answer depends of what we mean when we say mediation. A source that we did not include in our article, but which seems to be relevant, was advanced by A. N. Leontyev. In his 1979 work, he is discussing the problem of 'the postulate of immediacy (or directness)', of which the S - R (stimulus-response) formula is a direct expression. We all are familiar to the critiques and problematics around this formula, which Vygotsky masterly described. Interestingly, Leontyev critiques approaches of the following form: 'the rise of man and human society leads to the following: connections between the organism and the environment that were formerly direct and natural become mediated by culture developing on the base of material productivity. Thus culture appears, for individuals, in the form of meaning imparted by speech signs-symbols' That view, which Leontyev attributes to L. White (1949), seems to me very very close to the way in which the notion of 'mediation' is mobilised in much of the current literature from a CHAT perspectve. But this view, Leontyev argues, is also problematic, for, he argues, 'no complicating of the original formula coming from this postulate ... can eliminate those methodological difficulties that it produces in psychology'. Leontyev then proposes to overcome the postulate through 'the introduction ... of the category of object activity'. Whether he succeeds or not is another story. But what seems important to me is the way he poses the contrast between the basic (problematic) postulate of immediacy and its alternative (let's call it mediation): First, he speaks of substituting the binomial formulas with a trinomial one, which involves including 'a mediating link'. This sounds very much as the canonical approach to mediation as S- tool/sign - R. It is unclear to me, however, how White's model, which he critiques, was not already of this type (perhaps others in the list can help here). But nevertheless, what seems most interesting is the analogy he makes next: 'From the point of view of the problem of determining the psyche, this alternative may be formulated thus: We will take either the position that consciousness is determined by the surrounding objects and phenomena, or the position that consciousness is determined by the social existence of people, which, in the determination of Marx and Engels, is nothing more than the real process of their life'. But if the latter is true, if, as Marx and Engels argue, 'as individuals express their life, so they are. What they are, therefore, coincides with their production', then 'mediation', as approached by Leont'ev, is not very far from Spinoza's quotation that we brought to bear in our article and which Helena was picking up on. So, as the non-dualist alternative to the 'postulate of immediacy', mediation is not problematic to me. But then, we have to agree that mediation runs all the way, from the most simple to the most complex living form (as Leontiev also seems to argue in his 1981 work when he describes the genesis of sensation). And for each form, we will still have to specify its genesis, dynamics, and development; and this, I am assuming, without recourse to the form 'this thing mediates this other thing or process'. Alfredo ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of ?Haydi Zulfei? ?? Sent: 11 April 2017 20:24 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky Dear Helena,It's so nice to hear you.My reference to your name was because you are so frank in your remarks of wanting to be convinced , to receive examples of ideas , of preferring to figure out ideas and examples which have practical use and applications.At times one gets confused with so many interpretations in abstraction. I might be accused of this charge myself in which case I'll submit to corrections. Some notes : I now prefer to talk about tools and reserve sign for other occasions. Tools are objects , yes , but they 'act' as continuation and stretching of our limbs , hands in particular . Tools are fashioned by man and then are , figuratively speaking , located between him and the object of need but , in actuality , it so seems that while they are put in the hands and hit something , quite simultaneously the stroke shakes the brain/intellect of the hominid as we see in chimpanzees with their way of solving problems . The gap between the instrumental activities of the hominids and the instrumental activities of primitive man is apparently filled with the repeated use of the tool.A thousand times we've heard that labour with tool changed the world and man himself therefrom.That's not really the case that we naively hang ourselves from the rope of Engels' doctrine but because we hear no other useful and convincing argument. Why should , then , activity theory be awkward? >From this beginning phase , we jump to ZPD and affordances. This is repetitious but I have to cling to it. I wonder if Wolff-Michael agrees . In his recent short note , he inclined to shy away from 'reference and meaning' . In a room , I'm sitting at the table sweating of warmth . My colleague enters and keeps the door open . Is any speech needed? There are daily too many acts that are carried out without speech/articulation. A need has been satisfied even without an obvious gesture. Does my colleague's volition to act emanate from imitating some grammar-based command which first was issued to others and now is issued from myself to myself? You say these are the beginnings and we have distanced ourselves from those days. Now we are articulate 'mammals' . Again repetitious : Vygotsky said word crowns the deed . Did he say word stops acting or is it the case that we , even now , either obviate speech and choose a direct arrival to act or ripen and enrich our thoughts with the word/s so that we reach the threshold of act and performance more rapidly and with more self-confidence . However , ultimately a decision should have been made . Then , it's again the turn for action. To see the day workers having been converted to scientists and scientists having been converted to workers is apparently very far off. Now our colleagues say Vygotsky by word meant much wider strands of talk and discourse . It demands delving into . But does the concept of mediation lead to dualism, as Roth and Jornet suggest? Ilyenko has worked out the 'ideal'. He says ideal is nothing but the reflection of the material activity onto mind. And says we don't have two kinds of activities , then ; one material , the other spiritual. One is the copy of the other. Before that , he says for 'man' the whole world is humanized . Man must have the 'ideal' of everything so that he can work and satisfy his needs through the use of these 'ideals' within the process of activity. Ideal is objectified so things get 'forms' and come into being (reification) ; again the reified , the product , at some critical crucial point , is deobjectified and idealized so that it pierces into another process of activity to deliver and satisfy the novel need . Some scholars say the problem of the 'internalization' or so-called 'involution' is dualistic because on one side we have the external and on the other we have the internal . That works for itself and this works for itself , too . Then what medium is available , other than thought transfer impossible though, to let one unite with the other ? They say with the ideal the dualism is removed because in the labour process (activity) the ideal and the material are just moments (inseparable,undissociable) within the one process. As we had the discussion of the 'molars' when we relied on Davydov who's unanimous both with Vygotsky as epistemology and formation of concepts are concerned and with Ilyenko as ontology of the ideal and the material is concerned. I need time to continue ... Best wishesHaydi From: Helena Worthen To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Cc: Alfredo Jornet Gil Sent: Tuesday, 11 April 2017, 4:17:47 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky Sorry, message got pasted in twice. Please ignore previous message. Helena Worthen helenaworthen@gmail.com Berkeley, CA 94707 Blog about US and Viet Nam: helenaworthen.wordpress.com > On Apr 10, 2017, at 4:41 PM, Helena Worthen wrote: > > hi - > > In an effort to get back in the conversation, I have read the Roth-Jornet paper, Theorizing Without Mediators, and have some comments. As usual, I like to see ideas tested agains concrete examples. I like it even better when the ideas seem to have some useful, practical applications. > > Roth and Jornet argue that the well-worn familiar term, ?mediation,? leaves sociocultural theory open to charges of dualism, and that Vygotsky himself was abandoning the term (and perhaps the concept) in his late years > > I agree that the English word "mediation" has some problems. Tools and signs are said to ?mediate? but they are not themselves active; they are objects, they don?t initiate anything. They have a function, however. While a text does not actively do anything, someone does something with it. So ?mediating? looks like a verb (a gerund) but really isn?t. Nor does mediate simply locate something in the middle, or between two things. To extend Roth and Jornet?s metaphor, a river does not mediate its shores; it may lie between them, but a bridge, if there is one, would mediate. > >? This vocabulary problem affects other words that are terms of art in sociocultural theory. ?Affordances? is one. The phrase ?activity theory? is a little awkward. When introducing someone to sociocultural theory, I always have to warn them that there is a kind of private language involved. I don?t know where it came from ? translations? > > But does the concept of mediation lead to dualism, as Roth and Jornet suggest? ` > > I have tried to collect the pairs that are referenced when we talk about ?mediation? or ?artifact mediation?? Some that are mentioned in the first couple of pages of this article are: > > Nature/culture > Intrasubjective/intersubjective > Individual/(collective or group) ? this is my addition > Inner mind/outer world > Developing individual/social practice > >? So are these dualisms or dialectical partners? > >? The idea that a tool or a sign ?mediates? between all of these does not seem problematical to me. I can think of concrete examplesThe idea that a tool or a sign ?mediates? between all of these does not seem problematical to me. I can think of concrete examples for all of them. Schools mediate between nature and culture. Writing a poem mediates between one?s inner mind and the outer world; same for intrasubjective/intersubjective. A teacher mediates between a developing individual and a social practice. An agenda mediates between an individual and a group. The document drafted by Jimmy Carter and amended sequentially by Rabin and Sadat mediated that phase of the negotiations, etc. > >? This does not seem to lead to the quote from Mikhailov in line 46 on page 1, about ?from the perspective of the soul, there are no mediators.? I am also not convinced that if tools, technology and signs mediate every activity, ?mediation would explain nothing.? I can see that in numbers, this is true ? 4ab x 6a = 24ab is really 4b x 6 = 24b, right?- but not in communication. Nor do I really understand the quote from Spinoza on line 25 of page 2, ?being is transparent in its determination . . . in that it excludes every mediation that would produce the determination.? Being as existence? And the thalidomide baby example is striking but it does not earn its place by being clear. What is the sign or tool here? What is the activity? > >? Overall, the jump to Spinoza confuses me. Spinoza wrote in Latin, in the 1800s; does he mean what Vygotsky means by ?mediation?? > > > Spinoza aside, I?m willing to accept that Vygotsky, according to Mikhailov, supplanted ?mediation? with ?the intersubjective speech field.? We can still look at what is in the middle of the intersubjective speech field and see what?s going on. If ?intersubjective speech field? is a new way of talking about mediation, so be it. > > >? Now we go to the concrete case provided by Roth and Jornet, one that might seem to be an example of mediation, to see what is different if we look at it as an example of a speech field. The authors indicate that this concept will be different because it ?includes time and social relations as irreducible aspects of the unit of analysis.? I am not convinced that this is different: the famous Engestrom triangle places a tool or sign as the mediator between categories that are embodied in people (history, customs, rules etc. on the one side and an object/outcome on the other), all in dynamic whole that changes over time. So time and social relations are irreducible aspects of that unit of analysis, too. > > >? But on to the case: page 5, with images of a Quick Reference Handbook (QRH), script of an interaction between an examiner and an airline pilot. The pilot has made a mistake and the examiner is quizzing him about how it happened. The QRH shows a checklist of what was supposed to happen; it is the authority to which both refer. I think that the discussion illustrated with variations of the famous triangle is summarized in the paragraph in the middle of page 7: ?To identify the QRH as a mediator, the subjectivities of pilot and examiner must be assumed to pre-exist the relation, and the tool be placed in between. It also functions to ?mediate? between the different (subjective) ?meanings? and as a tool in the ?construction of? intersubjectivity. Alternatively, however, and in line with a unit analysis, it is possible to consider the QRH to be an aspect integral to the field in which the two participants are also constitutive parts. The QRH then is integral part of the common ground in and to the sequentially organized turn taking of examiner and pilot. Such is the approach we work towards in the sections below.? > >? So we are looking for a unit analysis (analysis of a whole unit, not unit of analysis) rather than an analysis into elements. I am not yet convinced that in practice there is really any difference. > > >? On the other hand, the expanded script on page 10 does certainly show how the words of the conversation exist for both the pilot and the examiner, and thereby creates a shared social space. In other words, ?intersubjective speech field? makes sense ? a moment in time when the words of each person (subject) are alive in the hearing and consciousness of the other ? ?I hear you and you hear me.? And it does not leave a crack by which it could be opened to the charge of dualism. Instead it is a whole, a coherent unit of analysis. But ?intersubjective speech field?? - another term of art!! > > > Finally, while I have had trouble with the term ?mediate? and can see that it is open to misunderstandings, I have always found that these misunderstandings melted away quickly when I was working with something very concrete. When a union steward, for example, is defending a worker who has been disciplined, the text of the contract definitely mediates the relationship between the worker and the employer. No doubt about it; take that text away, and the relationship changes abruptly. > > > What would the ?intersubjective speech field? have been like if the QRH had not been available? Would the pilot have offered a different defense? That would be a way to have tested what mediating role it played. > > Helena >> On Apr 9, 2017, at 4:53 PM, Larry Purss > wrote: >> >> Alfredo, Amelia, and Pablo, >> >> Alfredo, >> Your hope that we will cover this ground by reference to a wider literature by ?expanding ? the field, may have the unintended consequence of also ?abbreviating? the focus on ?with/out mediation, at the core of your paper. >> >> This notion of abbreviation and expansion and when each direction is appropriate. >> This speaks to your article?s notion of ?accented?. When contents are accented by some reference [I.e. deictic, body orientation, verbal indication] then, the semantic, sense-giving *field* changes. The contents no longer have to be said because the presence of the contents in the *field* goes ?without? saying, being an aspect of the integral co-inhabited space. >> >> Following this line, I notice Amelia and Pablo?s article explores five usually overlooked aspects of Vygotsky?s work. The first overlooked aspect is: >> >> ?the understanding of the mediational system as a trans-organic, EXTENDED branch of the psychological system. >> >> This first aspect explored by Amelia and Pablo may or may not share a family resemblance to your and Michael?s exploration of theorizing with/out mediation? >> >> I hope Amelia and Pablo read through your article so that we can read each article through the perspective of the other article thus expanding our notion of ?mediation?? I am referring to the title of Amelia and Pablo?s article [Vygotsky and beyond: Horizons for the Future of Psychology]. This is a theme of ?extending? with/out premature abbreviation. May require a middle path? >> >> I will re-send your and Michael?s article in the hope of engaging both articles with the potential to open possible new horizons through engaging with the ?later? Vygotsky [1932-1934] and his re/thinking his life?s work and this new direction?s relevance for our current moment in time. I am referring to the title of Amelia and Pablo?s article >> Also recognizing this is contested ground. >> >> Searching for a new con/sensus >> >> Sent from Mail for Windows 10 >> >> From: Alfredo Jornet Gil >> Sent: April 9, 2017 10:50 AM >> To: lpscholar2@gmail.com ; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky >> >> Thank you Larry for sharing your reading of our article, which I think is a very sensible read. I hope that by posting Amelia and Pablo's article, we can cover the ground by reference to a wider literature as well. Obviously, ours is only one among other takes in current literature that point in the similar direction; and there are yet others quiet critical to these 'revisionist' takes. As you anticipate, getting these into dialogue would be a great xmca accomplishment. >> >> Alfredo >> >> From: lpscholar2@gmail.com > >> Sent: 09 April 2017 14:21 >> To: Alfredo Jornet Gil; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> Subject: RE: [Xmca-l] Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky >>? >> Alfredo, >> I have been slowly reading (and digesting) your and Wolff-Michael?s article (Theorizing ? with/out mediators) that joins the current ?takes? on the later Vygotsky. >>? >> My impression (and appreciation) of this emerging tradition is significant as an enlarging of the scope and ?re-working? of the Vygotsky who was known in the process of moving into the West European and North Atlantic form of theorizing. >>? >> I am reading your article in relation to the notion of ?playworlds? and ?spielraum? (translated playrooms). >>? >> A key re-working of (mediation) has to do with re/thinking triangle diagrams as static (with mediation at the apex). >> This generates a PREsumption of two variables at the base of the triangle assumed as (elements, essences, things) that inter/act through an ?intermediary? third (element, essence, thing). >> Your article indicates this is the classical or canonical version of (mediation) as the third thing/element through which the other two things/elements become changed or develop. >>? >> Your re-working of (mediation) adds the temporal, duration, and (unit of analysis) and implies it is not the elements or parts that each individually change or develop (classic intermediary model of elements transformed by going through a third element IN a triangle with an apex mediator) >> But rather >> There are only relation of (within UNITS). >> When a tool, technique, sign, word, artifact) develops then the ENTIRE UNIT (not elements) develops. >>? >> Alfredo, I personally believe your approach (currently re-working classical and Western canonical versions) deserves to have its own (place) as a subsection on the XMCA site. To become more clear on this ?later? Vygotsky. >> Then a conversation may generate that puts in question this re-working >> BUT >> In a spirit of ?play? in rooms. >> A movement back and forth, oscillating, spiralling, developing, and never reaching a determinate conclusion, once and forever. >>? >> Putting in play triangles with mediators at the apex as static diagrams. >> More open, fluid, theorizing with ANDA WITHOUT ?mediators? as we play with these notions. >>? >> I recommend others read the article ?Theorizing with/out mediators?. >> Reading the (/) to mean interval where we tarry awhile in a spirit of re-working theorizing with/out mediators. >>? >> I believe we need to create a subsection on XMCA to let these notions percolate and permeate the more classical boundary markers. >>? >> My way of saying your article is a pro-found re-working of the notions of (within) and (without) and (mediation) at the core of this re-working PRE-assumptions. >>? >> My morning muse >>? >> Sent from my Windows 10 phone >>? >> From: Alfredo Jornet Gil >> Sent: April 8, 2017 10:20 PM >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky >>? >> Hi Esteban, >>? >> yes, things have been a little quiet lately, but there have been few threads going on, perhaps most importantly the one discussing Jang's (this issue's) paper on multi-ethnic issues on Second Language. >>? >> Other threads have seemed to resonate on recent articles/works attempting to re-work (or work further) some of Vygotsky's key concepts, in particular ZPD and Mediation (with a couple of articles having been circulated). >>? >> Connecting to the latter, it seems that several of those efforts are making emphasis on Vygotsky's later period, suggesting that much of the prior and current uptakes have focused almost exclusively on the instrumental aspects that were more salient in his middle period, and not so much on the lines of inquiry that the psychologist was opening never had the chance to pursue. >>? >> I attach yet another such work, this time by del R?o and ?lvarez. Much is being written about how and to what extent Vygotsky was revising his own prior work. This one tells as more about that, and does so both in English and in Spanish. >>? >> I wonder how do xmca'ers (who likely are busy reading world news as things are getting more and more perplexing) feel and think about this tendency/prospect in cultural-historical theory literature. >>? >> Alfredo >> ________________________________________ >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Helena Worthen > >> Sent: 09 April 2017 03:11 >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Playworlds, Performance, Perezhivanie, Apophasis ... and TRUMP'S speech! >>? >> Hi, Esteban - >>? >> Things have been a little quiet recently. I suspect my co-xmca-ers in the US are either mid-semester or digging in on big projects that will have some significance, hopefully, given what we?re dealing with here. >>? >> You may or may not be aware that our new Secretary of Education is the sister of Erik Prince, http://www.ibtimes.com/who-betsy-devos-brother-erik-princes-involvement-blackwater-chinese-money-laundering- 2493834 >>? >> Just a hint of what is happening to education, top to bottom, in the US. >>? >>? >> Helena >>? >>? >> Helena Worthen >> helenaworthen@gmail.com >> Berkeley, CA 94707 >> Blog about US and Viet Nam: helenaworthen.wordpress.com >>? >>? >>? >>> On Apr 8, 2017, at 3:15 PM, Stephen Diaz wrote: >>>? >>> Hi Bruce, >>>? >>> Don't know if you are still the one for xmcc but I am not getting any emails from that list serve. Can you please check on that. I still want to continue on it if possible. Thanks. >>>? >>> Esteban Diaz >>>? >>>? >>> ________________________________ >>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Bruce Jones >>> Sent: Sunday, February 5, 2017 3:23 PM >>> To: mike cole; Andy Blunden; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Playworlds, Performance, Perezhivanie, Apophasis ... and TRUMP'S speech! >>>? >>> On 2/5/17 2:39 PM, mike cole wrote: >>>> Bruce's email is not bouncing from san diego. >>>> Perhaps there is only one c in unsubscribe? >>>? >>> Spelling mistakes will not cause bounces. I do the unsubscribes by hand >>> in order to make sure they are removed from the database. >>>? >>>? >>> -- >>> Bruce Jones >>> Sys Admin, LCHC >>> bjones@ucsd.edu >>> 619-823-8281 >>>? >>> -- >>? >>? >> > > >> > From wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com Tue Apr 11 15:19:45 2017 From: wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com (Wolff-Michael Roth) Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 15:19:45 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky In-Reply-To: <1491943982381.4936@iped.uio.no> References: <5893695b.c32f630a.3d640.41ee@mx.google.com> <1486189210098.72503@iped.uio.no> <838a8d3c-2559-3984-64e3-e3cf8bd98266@mira.net> <8029C164-2A9F-4CAA-B0EF-7799A55E7194@gmail.com> <1491715069810.47906@iped.uio.no> <58ea273d.494b620a.8865b.ba36@mx.google.com> <1491760229133.43007@iped.uio.no> <58eac975.9d3e620a.eb34a.c238@mx.google.com> <6ED0EB7F-12DD-45C6-9490-026D00D1CC07@gmail.com> <932635876.1302292.1491935098398@mail.yahoo.com> <1491943982381.4936@iped.uio.no> Message-ID: Hi, I think mediationists need to show how mediation arises from non-mediation. To do so, you cannot take recourse to mediation. In my view, the Spinozist-Marxian take that does not require mediation is in a better position. Just as commodity and the word IS the relation between two people, so the third term in the S?sign/tool?mind or S1?sign/tool?S2 . . . or which ever Vygotskian form you want to use IS the relation between the other two terms. No mediation but the constitution of a relation. And it is common to both terms, therefore, which also are part of the relation. There is ONE relation, and it is the unit. That is why Helena is not on the right track if she says *practically * it doesn't matter to do elemental analysis or unit analysis. :-) Michael -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor Applied Cognitive Science MacLaurin Building A567 University of Victoria Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics * On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 1:53 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > I'd like to address Haydi's question 'does mediation leads to dualism'. > Of course, the answer depends of what we mean when we say mediation. > > A source that we did not include in our article, but which seems to be > relevant, was advanced by A. N. Leontyev. In his 1979 work, he is > discussing the problem of 'the postulate of immediacy (or directness)', of > which the S - R (stimulus-response) formula is a direct expression. We all > are familiar to the critiques and problematics around this formula, which > Vygotsky masterly described. > > Interestingly, Leontyev critiques approaches of the following form: > > 'the rise of man and human society leads to the following: connections > between the organism and the environment that were formerly direct and > natural become mediated by culture developing on the base of material > productivity. Thus culture appears, for individuals, in the form of meaning > imparted by speech signs-symbols' > > That view, which Leontyev attributes to L. White (1949), seems to me very > very close to the way in which the notion of 'mediation' is mobilised in > much of the current literature from a CHAT perspectve. But this view, > Leontyev argues, is also problematic, for, he argues, 'no complicating of > the original formula coming from this postulate ... can eliminate those > methodological difficulties that it produces in psychology'. Leontyev then > proposes to overcome the postulate through 'the introduction ... of the > category of object activity'. > > Whether he succeeds or not is another story. But what seems important to > me is the way he poses the contrast between the basic (problematic) > postulate of immediacy and its alternative (let's call it mediation): > First, he speaks of substituting the binomial formulas with a trinomial > one, which involves including 'a mediating link'. This sounds very much as > the canonical approach to mediation as S- tool/sign - R. It is unclear to > me, however, how White's model, which he critiques, was not already of this > type (perhaps others in the list can help here). But nevertheless, what > seems most interesting is the analogy he makes next: > > 'From the point of view of the problem of determining the psyche, this > alternative may be formulated thus: We will take either the position that > consciousness is determined by the surrounding objects and phenomena, or > the position that consciousness is determined by the social existence of > people, which, in the determination of Marx and Engels, is nothing more > than the real process of their life'. > > But if the latter is true, if, as Marx and Engels argue, 'as individuals > express their life, so they are. What they are, therefore, coincides with > their production', then 'mediation', as approached by Leont'ev, is not very > far from Spinoza's quotation that we brought to bear in our article and > which Helena was picking up on. > > So, as the non-dualist alternative to the 'postulate of immediacy', > mediation is not problematic to me. But then, we have to agree that > mediation runs all the way, from the most simple to the most complex living > form (as Leontiev also seems to argue in his 1981 work when he describes > the genesis of sensation). And for each form, we will still have to specify > its genesis, dynamics, and development; and this, I am assuming, without > recourse to the form 'this thing mediates this other thing or process'. > > Alfredo > ________________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of ?Haydi Zulfei? ?? > Sent: 11 April 2017 20:24 > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky > > Dear Helena,It's so nice to hear you.My reference to your name was because > you are so frank in your remarks of wanting to be convinced , to receive > examples of ideas , of preferring to figure out ideas and examples which > have practical use and applications.At times one gets confused with so many > interpretations in abstraction. I might be accused of this charge myself in > which case I'll submit to corrections. > Some notes : > I now prefer to talk about tools and reserve sign for other occasions. > Tools are objects , yes , but they 'act' as continuation and stretching of > our limbs , hands in particular . Tools are fashioned by man and then are , > figuratively speaking , located between him and the object of need but , in > actuality , it so seems that while they are put in the hands and hit > something , quite simultaneously the stroke shakes the brain/intellect of > the hominid as we see in chimpanzees with their way of solving problems . > The gap between the instrumental activities of the hominids and the > instrumental activities of primitive man is apparently filled with the > repeated use of the tool.A thousand times we've heard that labour with tool > changed the world and man himself therefrom.That's not really the case that > we naively hang ourselves from the rope of Engels' doctrine but because we > hear no other useful and convincing argument. Why should , then , activity > theory be awkward? > >From this beginning phase , we jump to ZPD and affordances. This is > repetitious but I have to cling to it. I wonder if Wolff-Michael agrees . > In his recent short note , he inclined to shy away from 'reference and > meaning' . In a room , I'm sitting at the table sweating of warmth . My > colleague enters and keeps the door open . Is any speech needed? There are > daily too many acts that are carried out without speech/articulation. A > need has been satisfied even without an obvious gesture. Does my > colleague's volition to act emanate from imitating some grammar-based > command which first was issued to others and now is issued from myself to > myself? You say these are the beginnings and we have distanced ourselves > from those days. Now we are articulate 'mammals' . Again repetitious : > Vygotsky said word crowns the deed . Did he say word stops acting or is it > the case that we , even now , either obviate speech and choose a direct > arrival to act or ripen and enrich our thoughts with the word/s so that we > reach the threshold of act and performance more rapidly and with more > self-confidence . However , ultimately a decision should have been made . > Then , it's again the turn for action. To see the day workers having been > converted to scientists and scientists having been converted to workers is > apparently very far off. Now our colleagues say Vygotsky by word meant much > wider strands of talk and discourse . It demands delving into . > > But does the concept of mediation lead to dualism, as Roth and Jornet > suggest? > > Ilyenko has worked out the 'ideal'. He says ideal is nothing but the > reflection of the material activity onto mind. And says we don't have two > kinds of activities , then ; one material , the other spiritual. One is the > copy of the other. Before that , he says for 'man' the whole world is > humanized . Man must have the 'ideal' of everything so that he can work and > satisfy his needs through the use of these 'ideals' within the process of > activity. Ideal is objectified so things get 'forms' and come into being > (reification) ; again the reified , the product , at some critical crucial > point , is deobjectified and idealized so that it pierces into another > process of activity to deliver and satisfy the novel need . Some scholars > say the problem of the 'internalization' or so-called 'involution' is > dualistic because on one side we have the external and on the other we have > the internal . That works for itself and this works for itself , too . Then > what medium is available , other than thought transfer impossible though, > to let one unite with the other ? They say with the ideal the dualism is > removed because in the labour process (activity) the ideal and the material > are just moments (inseparable,undissociable) within the one process. As we > had the discussion of the 'molars' when we relied on Davydov who's > unanimous both with Vygotsky as epistemology and formation of concepts are > concerned and with Ilyenko as ontology of the ideal and the material is > concerned. > > I need time to continue ... > Best wishesHaydi > From: Helena Worthen > To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Cc: Alfredo Jornet Gil > Sent: Tuesday, 11 April 2017, 4:17:47 > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky > > Sorry, message got pasted in twice. Please ignore previous message. > > Helena Worthen > helenaworthen@gmail.com > Berkeley, CA 94707 > Blog about US and Viet Nam: helenaworthen.wordpress.com > > > > > On Apr 10, 2017, at 4:41 PM, Helena Worthen > wrote: > > > > hi - > > > > In an effort to get back in the conversation, I have read the > Roth-Jornet paper, Theorizing Without Mediators, and have some comments. As > usual, I like to see ideas tested agains concrete examples. I like it even > better when the ideas seem to have some useful, practical applications. > > > > Roth and Jornet argue that the well-worn familiar term, ?mediation,? > leaves sociocultural theory open to charges of dualism, and that Vygotsky > himself was abandoning the term (and perhaps the concept) in his late years > > > > I agree that the English word "mediation" has some problems. Tools and > signs are said to ?mediate? but they are not themselves active; they are > objects, they don?t initiate anything. They have a function, however. > While a text does not actively do anything, someone does something with it. > So ?mediating? looks like a verb (a gerund) but really isn?t. Nor does > mediate simply locate something in the middle, or between two things. To > extend Roth and Jornet?s metaphor, a river does not mediate its shores; it > may lie between them, but a bridge, if there is one, would mediate. > > > > This vocabulary problem affects other words that are terms of art in > sociocultural theory. ?Affordances? is one. The phrase ?activity theory? is > a little awkward. When introducing someone to sociocultural theory, I > always have to warn them that there is a kind of private language involved. > I don?t know where it came from ? translations? > > > > But does the concept of mediation lead to dualism, as Roth and Jornet > suggest? ` > > > > I have tried to collect the pairs that are referenced when we talk about > ?mediation? or ?artifact mediation?? Some that are mentioned in the first > couple of pages of this article are: > > > > Nature/culture > > Intrasubjective/intersubjective > > Individual/(collective or group) ? this is my addition > > Inner mind/outer world > > Developing individual/social practice > > > > So are these dualisms or dialectical partners? > > > > The idea that a tool or a sign ?mediates? between all of these does not > seem problematical to me. I can think of concrete examplesThe idea that a > tool or a sign ?mediates? between all of these does not seem problematical > to me. I can think of concrete examples for all of them. Schools mediate > between nature and culture. Writing a poem mediates between one?s inner > mind and the outer world; same for intrasubjective/intersubjective. A > teacher mediates between a developing individual and a social practice. An > agenda mediates between an individual and a group. The document drafted by > Jimmy Carter and amended sequentially by Rabin and Sadat mediated that > phase of the negotiations, etc. > > > > This does not seem to lead to the quote from Mikhailov in line 46 on > page 1, about ?from the perspective of the soul, there are no mediators.? I > am also not convinced that if tools, technology and signs mediate every > activity, ?mediation would explain nothing.? I can see that in numbers, > this is true ? 4ab x 6a = 24ab is really 4b x 6 = 24b, right?- but not in > communication. Nor do I really understand the quote from Spinoza on line > 25 of page 2, ?being is transparent in its determination . . . in that it > excludes every mediation that would produce the determination.? Being as > existence? And the thalidomide baby example is striking but it does not > earn its place by being clear. What is the sign or tool here? What is the > activity? > > > > Overall, the jump to Spinoza confuses me. Spinoza wrote in Latin, in > the 1800s; does he mean what Vygotsky means by ?mediation?? > > > > > > Spinoza aside, I?m willing to accept that Vygotsky, according to > Mikhailov, supplanted ?mediation? with ?the intersubjective speech field.? > We can still look at what is in the middle of the intersubjective speech > field and see what?s going on. If ?intersubjective speech field? is a new > way of talking about mediation, so be it. > > > > > > Now we go to the concrete case provided by Roth and Jornet, one that > might seem to be an example of mediation, to see what is different if we > look at it as an example of a speech field. The authors indicate that this > concept will be different because it ?includes time and social relations as > irreducible aspects of the unit of analysis.? I am not convinced that this > is different: the famous Engestrom triangle places a tool or sign as the > mediator between categories that are embodied in people (history, customs, > rules etc. on the one side and an object/outcome on the other), all in > dynamic whole that changes over time. So time and social relations are > irreducible aspects of that unit of analysis, too. > > > > > > But on to the case: page 5, with images of a Quick Reference Handbook > (QRH), script of an interaction between an examiner and an airline pilot. > The pilot has made a mistake and the examiner is quizzing him about how it > happened. The QRH shows a checklist of what was supposed to happen; it is > the authority to which both refer. I think that the discussion illustrated > with variations of the famous triangle is summarized in the paragraph in > the middle of page 7: ?To identify the QRH as a mediator, the > subjectivities of pilot and examiner must be assumed to pre-exist the > relation, and the tool be placed in between. It also functions to ?mediate? > between the different (subjective) ?meanings? and as a tool in the > ?construction of? intersubjectivity. Alternatively, however, and in line > with a unit analysis, it is possible to consider the QRH to be an aspect > integral to the field in which the two participants are also constitutive > parts. The QRH then is integral part of the common ground in and to the > sequentially organized turn taking of examiner and pilot. Such is the > approach we work towards in the sections below.? > > > > So we are looking for a unit analysis (analysis of a whole unit, not > unit of analysis) rather than an analysis into elements. I am not yet > convinced that in practice there is really any difference. > > > > > > On the other hand, the expanded script on page 10 does certainly show > how the words of the conversation exist for both the pilot and the > examiner, and thereby creates a shared social space. In other words, > ?intersubjective speech field? makes sense ? a moment in time when the > words of each person (subject) are alive in the hearing and consciousness > of the other ? ?I hear you and you hear me.? And it does not leave a crack > by which it could be opened to the charge of dualism. Instead it is a > whole, a coherent unit of analysis. But ?intersubjective speech field?? - > another term of art!! > > > > > > Finally, while I have had trouble with the term ?mediate? and can see > that it is open to misunderstandings, I have always found that these > misunderstandings melted away quickly when I was working with something > very concrete. When a union steward, for example, is defending a worker > who has been disciplined, the text of the contract definitely mediates the > relationship between the worker and the employer. No doubt about it; take > that text away, and the relationship changes abruptly. > > > > > > What would the ?intersubjective speech field? have been like if the QRH > had not been available? Would the pilot have offered a different defense? > That would be a way to have tested what mediating role it played. > > > > Helena > >> On Apr 9, 2017, at 4:53 PM, Larry Purss lpscholar2@gmail.com>> wrote: > >> > >> Alfredo, Amelia, and Pablo, > >> > >> Alfredo, > >> Your hope that we will cover this ground by reference to a wider > literature by ?expanding ? the field, may have the unintended consequence > of also ?abbreviating? the focus on ?with/out mediation, at the core of > your paper. > >> > >> This notion of abbreviation and expansion and when each direction is > appropriate. > >> This speaks to your article?s notion of ?accented?. When contents are > accented by some reference [I.e. deictic, body orientation, verbal > indication] then, the semantic, sense-giving *field* changes. The contents > no longer have to be said because the presence of the contents in the > *field* goes ?without? saying, being an aspect of the integral co-inhabited > space. > >> > >> Following this line, I notice Amelia and Pablo?s article explores five > usually overlooked aspects of Vygotsky?s work. The first overlooked aspect > is: > >> > >> ?the understanding of the mediational system as a trans-organic, > EXTENDED branch of the psychological system. > >> > >> This first aspect explored by Amelia and Pablo may or may not share a > family resemblance to your and Michael?s exploration of theorizing with/out > mediation? > >> > >> I hope Amelia and Pablo read through your article so that we can read > each article through the perspective of the other article thus expanding > our notion of ?mediation?? I am referring to the title of Amelia and > Pablo?s article [Vygotsky and beyond: Horizons for the Future of > Psychology]. This is a theme of ?extending? with/out premature > abbreviation. May require a middle path? > >> > >> I will re-send your and Michael?s article in the hope of engaging both > articles with the potential to open possible new horizons through > engaging with the ?later? Vygotsky [1932-1934] and his re/thinking his > life?s work and this new direction?s relevance for our current moment in > time. I am referring to the title of Amelia and Pablo?s article > >> Also recognizing this is contested ground. > >> > >> Searching for a new con/sensus > >> > >> Sent from Mail for Windows 10 > >> > >> From: Alfredo Jornet Gil > >> Sent: April 9, 2017 10:50 AM > >> To: lpscholar2@gmail.com ; eXtended Mind, > Culture, Activity > >> Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky > >> > >> Thank you Larry for sharing your reading of our article, which I think > is a very sensible read. I hope that by posting Amelia and Pablo's article, > we can cover the ground by reference to a wider literature as well. > Obviously, ours is only one among other takes in current literature that > point in the similar direction; and there are yet others quiet critical to > these 'revisionist' takes. As you anticipate, getting these into dialogue > would be a great xmca accomplishment. > >> > >> Alfredo > >> > >> From: lpscholar2@gmail.com < > lpscholar2@gmail.com > > >> Sent: 09 April 2017 14:21 > >> To: Alfredo Jornet Gil; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >> Subject: RE: [Xmca-l] Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky > >> > >> Alfredo, > >> I have been slowly reading (and digesting) your and Wolff-Michael?s > article (Theorizing ? with/out mediators) that joins the current ?takes? on > the later Vygotsky. > >> > >> My impression (and appreciation) of this emerging tradition is > significant as an enlarging of the scope and ?re-working? of the Vygotsky > who was known in the process of moving into the West European and North > Atlantic form of theorizing. > >> > >> I am reading your article in relation to the notion of ?playworlds? and > ?spielraum? (translated playrooms). > >> > >> A key re-working of (mediation) has to do with re/thinking triangle > diagrams as static (with mediation at the apex). > >> This generates a PREsumption of two variables at the base of the > triangle assumed as (elements, essences, things) that inter/act through an > ?intermediary? third (element, essence, thing). > >> Your article indicates this is the classical or canonical version of > (mediation) as the third thing/element through which the other two > things/elements become changed or develop. > >> > >> Your re-working of (mediation) adds the temporal, duration, and (unit > of analysis) and implies it is not the elements or parts that each > individually change or develop (classic intermediary model of elements > transformed by going through a third element IN a triangle with an apex > mediator) > >> But rather > >> There are only relation of (within UNITS). > >> When a tool, technique, sign, word, artifact) develops then the ENTIRE > UNIT (not elements) develops. > >> > >> Alfredo, I personally believe your approach (currently re-working > classical and Western canonical versions) deserves to have its own (place) > as a subsection on the XMCA site. To become more clear on this ?later? > Vygotsky. > >> Then a conversation may generate that puts in question this re-working > >> BUT > >> In a spirit of ?play? in rooms. > >> A movement back and forth, oscillating, spiralling, developing, and > never reaching a determinate conclusion, once and forever. > >> > >> Putting in play triangles with mediators at the apex as static diagrams. > >> More open, fluid, theorizing with ANDA WITHOUT ?mediators? as we play > with these notions. > >> > >> I recommend others read the article ?Theorizing with/out mediators?. > >> Reading the (/) to mean interval where we tarry awhile in a spirit of > re-working theorizing with/out mediators. > >> > >> I believe we need to create a subsection on XMCA to let these notions > percolate and permeate the more classical boundary markers. > >> > >> My way of saying your article is a pro-found re-working of the notions > of (within) and (without) and (mediation) at the core of this re-working > PRE-assumptions. > >> > >> My morning muse > >> > >> Sent from my Windows 10 phone > >> > >> From: Alfredo Jornet Gil > >> Sent: April 8, 2017 10:20 PM > >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky > >> > >> Hi Esteban, > >> > >> yes, things have been a little quiet lately, but there have been few > threads going on, perhaps most importantly the one discussing Jang's (this > issue's) paper on multi-ethnic issues on Second Language. > >> > >> Other threads have seemed to resonate on recent articles/works > attempting to re-work (or work further) some of Vygotsky's key concepts, in > particular ZPD and Mediation (with a couple of articles having been > circulated). > >> > >> Connecting to the latter, it seems that several of those efforts are > making emphasis on Vygotsky's later period, suggesting that much of the > prior and current uptakes have focused almost exclusively on the > instrumental aspects that were more salient in his middle period, and not > so much on the lines of inquiry that the psychologist was opening never had > the chance to pursue. > >> > >> I attach yet another such work, this time by del R?o and ?lvarez. Much > is being written about how and to what extent Vygotsky was revising his own > prior work. This one tells as more about that, and does so both in English > and in Spanish. > >> > >> I wonder how do xmca'ers (who likely are busy reading world news as > things are getting more and more perplexing) feel and think about this > tendency/prospect in cultural-historical theory literature. > >> > >> Alfredo > >> ________________________________________ > >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu mailman.ucsd.edu> mailman.ucsd.edu>> on behalf of Helena Worthen > > >> Sent: 09 April 2017 03:11 > >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Playworlds, Performance, Perezhivanie, > Apophasis ... and TRUMP'S speech! > >> > >> Hi, Esteban - > >> > >> Things have been a little quiet recently. I suspect my co-xmca-ers in > the US are either mid-semester or digging in on big projects that will have > some significance, hopefully, given what we?re dealing with here. > >> > >> You may or may not be aware that our new Secretary of Education is the > sister of Erik Prince, http://www.ibtimes.com/who- > betsy-devos-brother-erik-princes-involvement-blackwater-chinese-money- > laundering- princes-involvement-blackwater-chinese-money-laundering->2493834 > >> > >> Just a hint of what is happening to education, top to bottom, in the US. > >> > >> > >> Helena > >> > >> > >> Helena Worthen > >> helenaworthen@gmail.com > >> Berkeley, CA 94707 > >> Blog about US and Viet Nam: helenaworthen.wordpress.com > >> > >> > >> > >>> On Apr 8, 2017, at 3:15 PM, Stephen Diaz wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi Bruce, > >>> > >>> Don't know if you are still the one for xmcc but I am not getting any > emails from that list serve. Can you please check on that. I still want > to continue on it if possible. Thanks. > >>> > >>> Esteban Diaz > >>> > >>> > >>> ________________________________ > >>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Bruce Jones > >>> Sent: Sunday, February 5, 2017 3:23 PM > >>> To: mike cole; Andy Blunden; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Playworlds, Performance, Perezhivanie, Apophasis > ... and TRUMP'S speech! > >>> > >>> On 2/5/17 2:39 PM, mike cole wrote: > >>>> Bruce's email is not bouncing from san diego. > >>>> Perhaps there is only one c in unsubscribe? > >>> > >>> Spelling mistakes will not cause bounces. I do the unsubscribes by > hand > >>> in order to make sure they are removed from the database. > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Bruce Jones > >>> Sys Admin, LCHC > >>> bjones@ucsd.edu > >>> 619-823-8281 > >>> > >>> -- > >> > >> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > From dkellogg60@gmail.com Tue Apr 11 15:36:41 2017 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 08:36:41 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky In-Reply-To: References: <5893695b.c32f630a.3d640.41ee@mx.google.com> <1486189210098.72503@iped.uio.no> <838a8d3c-2559-3984-64e3-e3cf8bd98266@mira.net> <8029C164-2A9F-4CAA-B0EF-7799A55E7194@gmail.com> <1491715069810.47906@iped.uio.no> <58ea273d.494b620a.8865b.ba36@mx.google.com> <1491760229133.43007@iped.uio.no> <58eac975.9d3e620a.eb34a.c238@mx.google.com> <6ED0EB7F-12DD-45C6-9490-026D00D1CC07@gmail.com> <932635876.1302292.1491935098398@mail.yahoo.com> <1491943982381.4936@iped.uio.no> Message-ID: Lukacs argues that mediation leads to dualism (in History and Class Consciousness). But I don't see how. Hegel was a Spinozan too--he said that you couldn't really do philosophy without being a Spinozan. This is from Hegel?s shorter ?Logic?, section 209 (pp. 272-273 in my Oxford edition). ?Reason is as cunning as it is powerful. Cunning may be said to lie in the intermediative action which, while it permits the objects to follow their own bent and act upon one another till they waste away, and does not itself directly interfere in the process, is nevertheless only working out its own aims. With this explanation, Divine Providence may be said to stand to the world and its process in the capacity of absolute cunning. God lets men do as they please with their particular passions and interests; but the result is the accomplishment of - not their plans, but his, and these differ decidedly from the ends primarily sought by those whom he employs.? Marx takes away God, and abstract ?Reason,? and instead uses mediation to indicate man and tool use. This is from Capital, 1995 OUP edition, p. 116: ?An instrument of labour is a thing, or a complex of things, which the labourer interposes between himself and the subject of his labour, and which serves as the conductor of his activity. He makes use of the mechanical, physical, and chemical properties of some substances in order to make other substances subservient to his aims.? Suppose I use water to wear down a stone, or a stone to cut wood, or a sound to share an idea. How exactly does this create dualism? Isn't it possible that the "dualism" it creates in some minds (e.g. Lukacs) was already there to begin with, and owes nothing to the concept of mediation per se? David Kellogg Macquarie University On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 8:19 AM, Wolff-Michael Roth < wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > I think mediationists need to show how mediation arises from non-mediation. > To do so, you cannot take recourse to mediation. In my view, the > Spinozist-Marxian take that does not require mediation is in a better > position. Just as commodity and the word IS the relation between two > people, so the third term in the S?sign/tool?mind or S1?sign/tool?S2 . . . > or which ever Vygotskian form you want to use IS the relation between the > other two terms. No mediation but the constitution of a relation. And it is > common to both terms, therefore, which also are part of the relation. There > is ONE relation, and it is the unit. That is why Helena is not on the right > track if she says *practically * it doesn't matter to do elemental analysis > or unit analysis. :-) > Michael > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > -------------------- > Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor > Applied Cognitive Science > MacLaurin Building A567 > University of Victoria > Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 > http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth > > New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the- > mathematics-of-mathematics/>* > > On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 1:53 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil > wrote: > > > I'd like to address Haydi's question 'does mediation leads to dualism'. > > Of course, the answer depends of what we mean when we say mediation. > > > > A source that we did not include in our article, but which seems to be > > relevant, was advanced by A. N. Leontyev. In his 1979 work, he is > > discussing the problem of 'the postulate of immediacy (or directness)', > of > > which the S - R (stimulus-response) formula is a direct expression. We > all > > are familiar to the critiques and problematics around this formula, which > > Vygotsky masterly described. > > > > Interestingly, Leontyev critiques approaches of the following form: > > > > 'the rise of man and human society leads to the following: connections > > between the organism and the environment that were formerly direct and > > natural become mediated by culture developing on the base of material > > productivity. Thus culture appears, for individuals, in the form of > meaning > > imparted by speech signs-symbols' > > > > That view, which Leontyev attributes to L. White (1949), seems to me very > > very close to the way in which the notion of 'mediation' is mobilised in > > much of the current literature from a CHAT perspectve. But this view, > > Leontyev argues, is also problematic, for, he argues, 'no complicating of > > the original formula coming from this postulate ... can eliminate those > > methodological difficulties that it produces in psychology'. Leontyev > then > > proposes to overcome the postulate through 'the introduction ... of the > > category of object activity'. > > > > Whether he succeeds or not is another story. But what seems important to > > me is the way he poses the contrast between the basic (problematic) > > postulate of immediacy and its alternative (let's call it mediation): > > First, he speaks of substituting the binomial formulas with a trinomial > > one, which involves including 'a mediating link'. This sounds very much > as > > the canonical approach to mediation as S- tool/sign - R. It is unclear to > > me, however, how White's model, which he critiques, was not already of > this > > type (perhaps others in the list can help here). But nevertheless, what > > seems most interesting is the analogy he makes next: > > > > 'From the point of view of the problem of determining the psyche, this > > alternative may be formulated thus: We will take either the position that > > consciousness is determined by the surrounding objects and phenomena, or > > the position that consciousness is determined by the social existence of > > people, which, in the determination of Marx and Engels, is nothing more > > than the real process of their life'. > > > > But if the latter is true, if, as Marx and Engels argue, 'as individuals > > express their life, so they are. What they are, therefore, coincides with > > their production', then 'mediation', as approached by Leont'ev, is not > very > > far from Spinoza's quotation that we brought to bear in our article and > > which Helena was picking up on. > > > > So, as the non-dualist alternative to the 'postulate of immediacy', > > mediation is not problematic to me. But then, we have to agree that > > mediation runs all the way, from the most simple to the most complex > living > > form (as Leontiev also seems to argue in his 1981 work when he describes > > the genesis of sensation). And for each form, we will still have to > specify > > its genesis, dynamics, and development; and this, I am assuming, without > > recourse to the form 'this thing mediates this other thing or process'. > > > > Alfredo > > ________________________________________ > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > on behalf of ?Haydi Zulfei? ?? > > Sent: 11 April 2017 20:24 > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky > > > > Dear Helena,It's so nice to hear you.My reference to your name was > because > > you are so frank in your remarks of wanting to be convinced , to receive > > examples of ideas , of preferring to figure out ideas and examples which > > have practical use and applications.At times one gets confused with so > many > > interpretations in abstraction. I might be accused of this charge myself > in > > which case I'll submit to corrections. > > Some notes : > > I now prefer to talk about tools and reserve sign for other occasions. > > Tools are objects , yes , but they 'act' as continuation and stretching > of > > our limbs , hands in particular . Tools are fashioned by man and then > are , > > figuratively speaking , located between him and the object of need but , > in > > actuality , it so seems that while they are put in the hands and hit > > something , quite simultaneously the stroke shakes the brain/intellect of > > the hominid as we see in chimpanzees with their way of solving problems . > > The gap between the instrumental activities of the hominids and the > > instrumental activities of primitive man is apparently filled with the > > repeated use of the tool.A thousand times we've heard that labour with > tool > > changed the world and man himself therefrom.That's not really the case > that > > we naively hang ourselves from the rope of Engels' doctrine but because > we > > hear no other useful and convincing argument. Why should , then , > activity > > theory be awkward? > > >From this beginning phase , we jump to ZPD and affordances. This is > > repetitious but I have to cling to it. I wonder if Wolff-Michael agrees . > > In his recent short note , he inclined to shy away from 'reference and > > meaning' . In a room , I'm sitting at the table sweating of warmth . My > > colleague enters and keeps the door open . Is any speech needed? There > are > > daily too many acts that are carried out without speech/articulation. A > > need has been satisfied even without an obvious gesture. Does my > > colleague's volition to act emanate from imitating some grammar-based > > command which first was issued to others and now is issued from myself to > > myself? You say these are the beginnings and we have distanced ourselves > > from those days. Now we are articulate 'mammals' . Again repetitious : > > Vygotsky said word crowns the deed . Did he say word stops acting or is > it > > the case that we , even now , either obviate speech and choose a direct > > arrival to act or ripen and enrich our thoughts with the word/s so that > we > > reach the threshold of act and performance more rapidly and with more > > self-confidence . However , ultimately a decision should have been made . > > Then , it's again the turn for action. To see the day workers having been > > converted to scientists and scientists having been converted to workers > is > > apparently very far off. Now our colleagues say Vygotsky by word meant > much > > wider strands of talk and discourse . It demands delving into . > > > > But does the concept of mediation lead to dualism, as Roth and Jornet > > suggest? > > > > Ilyenko has worked out the 'ideal'. He says ideal is nothing but the > > reflection of the material activity onto mind. And says we don't have two > > kinds of activities , then ; one material , the other spiritual. One is > the > > copy of the other. Before that , he says for 'man' the whole world is > > humanized . Man must have the 'ideal' of everything so that he can work > and > > satisfy his needs through the use of these 'ideals' within the process of > > activity. Ideal is objectified so things get 'forms' and come into being > > (reification) ; again the reified , the product , at some critical > crucial > > point , is deobjectified and idealized so that it pierces into another > > process of activity to deliver and satisfy the novel need . Some scholars > > say the problem of the 'internalization' or so-called 'involution' is > > dualistic because on one side we have the external and on the other we > have > > the internal . That works for itself and this works for itself , too . > Then > > what medium is available , other than thought transfer impossible though, > > to let one unite with the other ? They say with the ideal the dualism is > > removed because in the labour process (activity) the ideal and the > material > > are just moments (inseparable,undissociable) within the one process. As > we > > had the discussion of the 'molars' when we relied on Davydov who's > > unanimous both with Vygotsky as epistemology and formation of concepts > are > > concerned and with Ilyenko as ontology of the ideal and the material is > > concerned. > > > > I need time to continue ... > > Best wishesHaydi > > From: Helena Worthen > > To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > > Cc: Alfredo Jornet Gil > > Sent: Tuesday, 11 April 2017, 4:17:47 > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky > > > > Sorry, message got pasted in twice. Please ignore previous message. > > > > Helena Worthen > > helenaworthen@gmail.com > > Berkeley, CA 94707 > > Blog about US and Viet Nam: helenaworthen.wordpress.com > > > > > > > > > On Apr 10, 2017, at 4:41 PM, Helena Worthen > > wrote: > > > > > > hi - > > > > > > In an effort to get back in the conversation, I have read the > > Roth-Jornet paper, Theorizing Without Mediators, and have some comments. > As > > usual, I like to see ideas tested agains concrete examples. I like it > even > > better when the ideas seem to have some useful, practical applications. > > > > > > Roth and Jornet argue that the well-worn familiar term, ?mediation,? > > leaves sociocultural theory open to charges of dualism, and that Vygotsky > > himself was abandoning the term (and perhaps the concept) in his late > years > > > > > > I agree that the English word "mediation" has some problems. Tools and > > signs are said to ?mediate? but they are not themselves active; they are > > objects, they don?t initiate anything. They have a function, however. > > While a text does not actively do anything, someone does something with > it. > > So ?mediating? looks like a verb (a gerund) but really isn?t. Nor does > > mediate simply locate something in the middle, or between two things. To > > extend Roth and Jornet?s metaphor, a river does not mediate its shores; > it > > may lie between them, but a bridge, if there is one, would mediate. > > > > > > This vocabulary problem affects other words that are terms of art in > > sociocultural theory. ?Affordances? is one. The phrase ?activity theory? > is > > a little awkward. When introducing someone to sociocultural theory, I > > always have to warn them that there is a kind of private language > involved. > > I don?t know where it came from ? translations? > > > > > > But does the concept of mediation lead to dualism, as Roth and Jornet > > suggest? ` > > > > > > I have tried to collect the pairs that are referenced when we talk > about > > ?mediation? or ?artifact mediation?? Some that are mentioned in the > first > > couple of pages of this article are: > > > > > > Nature/culture > > > Intrasubjective/intersubjective > > > Individual/(collective or group) ? this is my addition > > > Inner mind/outer world > > > Developing individual/social practice > > > > > > So are these dualisms or dialectical partners? > > > > > > The idea that a tool or a sign ?mediates? between all of these does > not > > seem problematical to me. I can think of concrete examplesThe idea that a > > tool or a sign ?mediates? between all of these does not seem > problematical > > to me. I can think of concrete examples for all of them. Schools mediate > > between nature and culture. Writing a poem mediates between one?s inner > > mind and the outer world; same for intrasubjective/intersubjective. A > > teacher mediates between a developing individual and a social practice. > An > > agenda mediates between an individual and a group. The document drafted > by > > Jimmy Carter and amended sequentially by Rabin and Sadat mediated that > > phase of the negotiations, etc. > > > > > > This does not seem to lead to the quote from Mikhailov in line 46 on > > page 1, about ?from the perspective of the soul, there are no > mediators.? I > > am also not convinced that if tools, technology and signs mediate every > > activity, ?mediation would explain nothing.? I can see that in numbers, > > this is true ? 4ab x 6a = 24ab is really 4b x 6 = 24b, right?- but not in > > communication. Nor do I really understand the quote from Spinoza on line > > 25 of page 2, ?being is transparent in its determination . . . in that it > > excludes every mediation that would produce the determination.? Being as > > existence? And the thalidomide baby example is striking but it does not > > earn its place by being clear. What is the sign or tool here? What is > the > > activity? > > > > > > Overall, the jump to Spinoza confuses me. Spinoza wrote in Latin, in > > the 1800s; does he mean what Vygotsky means by ?mediation?? > > > > > > > > > Spinoza aside, I?m willing to accept that Vygotsky, according to > > Mikhailov, supplanted ?mediation? with ?the intersubjective speech > field.? > > We can still look at what is in the middle of the intersubjective speech > > field and see what?s going on. If ?intersubjective speech field? is a new > > way of talking about mediation, so be it. > > > > > > > > > Now we go to the concrete case provided by Roth and Jornet, one that > > might seem to be an example of mediation, to see what is different if we > > look at it as an example of a speech field. The authors indicate that > this > > concept will be different because it ?includes time and social relations > as > > irreducible aspects of the unit of analysis.? I am not convinced that > this > > is different: the famous Engestrom triangle places a tool or sign as the > > mediator between categories that are embodied in people (history, > customs, > > rules etc. on the one side and an object/outcome on the other), all in > > dynamic whole that changes over time. So time and social relations are > > irreducible aspects of that unit of analysis, too. > > > > > > > > > But on to the case: page 5, with images of a Quick Reference Handbook > > (QRH), script of an interaction between an examiner and an airline pilot. > > The pilot has made a mistake and the examiner is quizzing him about how > it > > happened. The QRH shows a checklist of what was supposed to happen; it is > > the authority to which both refer. I think that the discussion > illustrated > > with variations of the famous triangle is summarized in the paragraph in > > the middle of page 7: ?To identify the QRH as a mediator, the > > subjectivities of pilot and examiner must be assumed to pre-exist the > > relation, and the tool be placed in between. It also functions to > ?mediate? > > between the different (subjective) ?meanings? and as a tool in the > > ?construction of? intersubjectivity. Alternatively, however, and in line > > with a unit analysis, it is possible to consider the QRH to be an aspect > > integral to the field in which the two participants are also constitutive > > parts. The QRH then is integral part of the common ground in and to the > > sequentially organized turn taking of examiner and pilot. Such is the > > approach we work towards in the sections below.? > > > > > > So we are looking for a unit analysis (analysis of a whole unit, not > > unit of analysis) rather than an analysis into elements. I am not yet > > convinced that in practice there is really any difference. > > > > > > > > > On the other hand, the expanded script on page 10 does certainly show > > how the words of the conversation exist for both the pilot and the > > examiner, and thereby creates a shared social space. In other words, > > ?intersubjective speech field? makes sense ? a moment in time when the > > words of each person (subject) are alive in the hearing and consciousness > > of the other ? ?I hear you and you hear me.? And it does not leave a > crack > > by which it could be opened to the charge of dualism. Instead it is a > > whole, a coherent unit of analysis. But ?intersubjective speech field?? - > > another term of art!! > > > > > > > > > Finally, while I have had trouble with the term ?mediate? and can see > > that it is open to misunderstandings, I have always found that these > > misunderstandings melted away quickly when I was working with something > > very concrete. When a union steward, for example, is defending a worker > > who has been disciplined, the text of the contract definitely mediates > the > > relationship between the worker and the employer. No doubt about it; take > > that text away, and the relationship changes abruptly. > > > > > > > > > What would the ?intersubjective speech field? have been like if the QRH > > had not been available? Would the pilot have offered a different > defense? > > That would be a way to have tested what mediating role it played. > > > > > > Helena > > >> On Apr 9, 2017, at 4:53 PM, Larry Purss > lpscholar2@gmail.com>> wrote: > > >> > > >> Alfredo, Amelia, and Pablo, > > >> > > >> Alfredo, > > >> Your hope that we will cover this ground by reference to a wider > > literature by ?expanding ? the field, may have the unintended consequence > > of also ?abbreviating? the focus on ?with/out mediation, at the core of > > your paper. > > >> > > >> This notion of abbreviation and expansion and when each direction is > > appropriate. > > >> This speaks to your article?s notion of ?accented?. When contents are > > accented by some reference [I.e. deictic, body orientation, verbal > > indication] then, the semantic, sense-giving *field* changes. The > contents > > no longer have to be said because the presence of the contents in the > > *field* goes ?without? saying, being an aspect of the integral > co-inhabited > > space. > > >> > > >> Following this line, I notice Amelia and Pablo?s article explores five > > usually overlooked aspects of Vygotsky?s work. The first overlooked > aspect > > is: > > >> > > >> ?the understanding of the mediational system as a trans-organic, > > EXTENDED branch of the psychological system. > > >> > > >> This first aspect explored by Amelia and Pablo may or may not share a > > family resemblance to your and Michael?s exploration of theorizing > with/out > > mediation? > > >> > > >> I hope Amelia and Pablo read through your article so that we can read > > each article through the perspective of the other article thus expanding > > our notion of ?mediation?? I am referring to the title of Amelia and > > Pablo?s article [Vygotsky and beyond: Horizons for the Future of > > Psychology]. This is a theme of ?extending? with/out premature > > abbreviation. May require a middle path? > > >> > > >> I will re-send your and Michael?s article in the hope of engaging both > > articles with the potential to open possible new horizons through > > engaging with the ?later? Vygotsky [1932-1934] and his re/thinking his > > life?s work and this new direction?s relevance for our current moment in > > time. I am referring to the title of Amelia and Pablo?s article > > >> Also recognizing this is contested ground. > > >> > > >> Searching for a new con/sensus > > >> > > >> Sent from Mail for Windows 10 > > >> > > >> From: Alfredo Jornet Gil > > >> Sent: April 9, 2017 10:50 AM > > >> To: lpscholar2@gmail.com ; eXtended > Mind, > > Culture, Activity > > >> Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky > > >> > > >> Thank you Larry for sharing your reading of our article, which I think > > is a very sensible read. I hope that by posting Amelia and Pablo's > article, > > we can cover the ground by reference to a wider literature as well. > > Obviously, ours is only one among other takes in current literature that > > point in the similar direction; and there are yet others quiet critical > to > > these 'revisionist' takes. As you anticipate, getting these into dialogue > > would be a great xmca accomplishment. > > >> > > >> Alfredo > > >> > > >> From: lpscholar2@gmail.com < > > lpscholar2@gmail.com > > > >> Sent: 09 April 2017 14:21 > > >> To: Alfredo Jornet Gil; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > >> Subject: RE: [Xmca-l] Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky > > >> > > >> Alfredo, > > >> I have been slowly reading (and digesting) your and Wolff-Michael?s > > article (Theorizing ? with/out mediators) that joins the current ?takes? > on > > the later Vygotsky. > > >> > > >> My impression (and appreciation) of this emerging tradition is > > significant as an enlarging of the scope and ?re-working? of the > Vygotsky > > who was known in the process of moving into the West European and North > > Atlantic form of theorizing. > > >> > > >> I am reading your article in relation to the notion of ?playworlds? > and > > ?spielraum? (translated playrooms). > > >> > > >> A key re-working of (mediation) has to do with re/thinking triangle > > diagrams as static (with mediation at the apex). > > >> This generates a PREsumption of two variables at the base of the > > triangle assumed as (elements, essences, things) that inter/act through > an > > ?intermediary? third (element, essence, thing). > > >> Your article indicates this is the classical or canonical version of > > (mediation) as the third thing/element through which the other two > > things/elements become changed or develop. > > >> > > >> Your re-working of (mediation) adds the temporal, duration, and (unit > > of analysis) and implies it is not the elements or parts that each > > individually change or develop (classic intermediary model of elements > > transformed by going through a third element IN a triangle with an apex > > mediator) > > >> But rather > > >> There are only relation of (within UNITS). > > >> When a tool, technique, sign, word, artifact) develops then the ENTIRE > > UNIT (not elements) develops. > > >> > > >> Alfredo, I personally believe your approach (currently re-working > > classical and Western canonical versions) deserves to have its own > (place) > > as a subsection on the XMCA site. To become more clear on this ?later? > > Vygotsky. > > >> Then a conversation may generate that puts in question this re-working > > >> BUT > > >> In a spirit of ?play? in rooms. > > >> A movement back and forth, oscillating, spiralling, developing, and > > never reaching a determinate conclusion, once and forever. > > >> > > >> Putting in play triangles with mediators at the apex as static > diagrams. > > >> More open, fluid, theorizing with ANDA WITHOUT ?mediators? as we play > > with these notions. > > >> > > >> I recommend others read the article ?Theorizing with/out mediators?. > > >> Reading the (/) to mean interval where we tarry awhile in a spirit of > > re-working theorizing with/out mediators. > > >> > > >> I believe we need to create a subsection on XMCA to let these notions > > percolate and permeate the more classical boundary markers. > > >> > > >> My way of saying your article is a pro-found re-working of the notions > > of (within) and (without) and (mediation) at the core of this re-working > > PRE-assumptions. > > >> > > >> My morning muse > > >> > > >> Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > >> > > >> From: Alfredo Jornet Gil > > >> Sent: April 8, 2017 10:20 PM > > >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky > > >> > > >> Hi Esteban, > > >> > > >> yes, things have been a little quiet lately, but there have been few > > threads going on, perhaps most importantly the one discussing Jang's > (this > > issue's) paper on multi-ethnic issues on Second Language. > > >> > > >> Other threads have seemed to resonate on recent articles/works > > attempting to re-work (or work further) some of Vygotsky's key concepts, > in > > particular ZPD and Mediation (with a couple of articles having been > > circulated). > > >> > > >> Connecting to the latter, it seems that several of those efforts are > > making emphasis on Vygotsky's later period, suggesting that much of the > > prior and current uptakes have focused almost exclusively on the > > instrumental aspects that were more salient in his middle period, and not > > so much on the lines of inquiry that the psychologist was opening never > had > > the chance to pursue. > > >> > > >> I attach yet another such work, this time by del R?o and ?lvarez. Much > > is being written about how and to what extent Vygotsky was revising his > own > > prior work. This one tells as more about that, and does so both in > English > > and in Spanish. > > >> > > >> I wonder how do xmca'ers (who likely are busy reading world news as > > things are getting more and more perplexing) feel and think about this > > tendency/prospect in cultural-historical theory literature. > > >> > > >> Alfredo > > >> ________________________________________ > > >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > mailman.ucsd.edu> xmca-l-bounces@ > > mailman.ucsd.edu>> on behalf of Helena Worthen > > > > >> Sent: 09 April 2017 03:11 > > >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Playworlds, Performance, Perezhivanie, > > Apophasis ... and TRUMP'S speech! > > >> > > >> Hi, Esteban - > > >> > > >> Things have been a little quiet recently. I suspect my co-xmca-ers in > > the US are either mid-semester or digging in on big projects that will > have > > some significance, hopefully, given what we?re dealing with here. > > >> > > >> You may or may not be aware that our new Secretary of Education is the > > sister of Erik Prince, http://www.ibtimes.com/who- > > betsy-devos-brother-erik-princes-involvement-blackwater-chinese-money- > > laundering- > princes-involvement-blackwater-chinese-money-laundering->2493834 > > >> > > >> Just a hint of what is happening to education, top to bottom, in the > US. > > >> > > >> > > >> Helena > > >> > > >> > > >> Helena Worthen > > >> helenaworthen@gmail.com > > >> Berkeley, CA 94707 > > >> Blog about US and Viet Nam: helenaworthen.wordpress.com > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >>> On Apr 8, 2017, at 3:15 PM, Stephen Diaz wrote: > > >>> > > >>> Hi Bruce, > > >>> > > >>> Don't know if you are still the one for xmcc but I am not getting any > > emails from that list serve. Can you please check on that. I still want > > to continue on it if possible. Thanks. > > >>> > > >>> Esteban Diaz > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> ________________________________ > > >>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu edu> > > on behalf of Bruce Jones > > >>> Sent: Sunday, February 5, 2017 3:23 PM > > >>> To: mike cole; Andy Blunden; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Playworlds, Performance, Perezhivanie, > Apophasis > > ... and TRUMP'S speech! > > >>> > > >>> On 2/5/17 2:39 PM, mike cole wrote: > > >>>> Bruce's email is not bouncing from san diego. > > >>>> Perhaps there is only one c in unsubscribe? > > >>> > > >>> Spelling mistakes will not cause bounces. I do the unsubscribes by > > hand > > >>> in order to make sure they are removed from the database. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> -- > > >>> Bruce Jones > > >>> Sys Admin, LCHC > > >>> bjones@ucsd.edu > > >>> 619-823-8281 > > >>> > > >>> -- > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > From clay.spinuzzi@utexas.edu Wed Apr 12 09:37:59 2017 From: clay.spinuzzi@utexas.edu (Clay Spinuzzi) Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 11:37:59 -0500 Subject: [Xmca-l] Writing date of Leontiev - The Present Tasks of Soviet Psychology ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, all. I'm hoping someone will be able to help me nail down the original writing date of this essay: Leontiev, A.N. (1961). The present tasks of Soviet psychology. In Winn (Ed.), Soviet Psychology: A Symposium. New York: Philosophical Library. (The Internet Archive also has a plain text copy: https://archive.org/stream/sovietpsychology00unse/sovietpsychology00unse_djvu.txt ) The editor doesn't document where he got the text, but my best guess is that it was written in the late 1940s, shortly after Lysenko's August 1948 address. If anyone can nail down the date more specifically, you will have my undying gratitude and I will buy you a drink at ISCAR. Thx CS From lpscholar2@gmail.com Wed Apr 12 09:55:02 2017 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (lpscholar2@gmail.com) Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 09:55:02 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky In-Reply-To: References: <5893695b.c32f630a.3d640.41ee@mx.google.com> <1486189210098.72503@iped.uio.no> <838a8d3c-2559-3984-64e3-e3cf8bd98266@mira.net> <8029C164-2A9F-4CAA-B0EF-7799A55E7194@gmail.com> <1491715069810.47906@iped.uio.no> <58ea273d.494b620a.8865b.ba36@mx.google.com> <1491760229133.43007@iped.uio.no> <58eac975.9d3e620a.eb34a.c238@mx.google.com> <6ED0EB7F-12DD-45C6-9490-026D00D1CC07@gmail.com> <932635876.1302292.1491935098398@mail.yahoo.com> <1491943982381.4936@iped.uio.no> Message-ID: <58ee5bf7.055f630a.ad898.51c7@mx.google.com> Michael, The key here IS THE RELATION that is constituted and this relation creates commonality. No need for mediation. Only ONE relation which is constituted and various aspects. A category mistake to label some aspects (dependent) variables and other aspects (independent) variables. Helena?s two cases involving texts when introduced into the one relation transform this one relation -UNIT ? but these texts do not mediate elements that have an existence (I.e. Subject & object; subject 1 & subject 2;) that have independent qualia that then are bridges to form a new relation. I hope I have been faithful to this direction or line of inquiry. I will now add a quote from page 69 (from the Pablo and Amelia article) by Vygotsky in 1930 after the turn. It is not the functions that change, as we had believed (AND THAT WAS OUR MISTAKE) but their structure (...). We ?call? psychological SYSTEM to the emergency of these ?flexible? relations (linking) the functions together. I hope this furthers lines of entanglement which may be ONE relation?? As Alfredo says this line honours ?we? consciousness Sent from my Windows 10 phone From: Wolff-Michael Roth Sent: April 11, 2017 3:22 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky Hi, I think mediationists need to show how mediation arises from non-mediation. To do so, you cannot take recourse to mediation. In my view, the Spinozist-Marxian take that does not require mediation is in a better position. Just as commodity and the word IS the relation between two people, so the third term in the S?sign/tool?mind or S1?sign/tool?S2 . . . or which ever Vygotskian form you want to use IS the relation between the other two terms. No mediation but the constitution of a relation. And it is common to both terms, therefore, which also are part of the relation. There is ONE relation, and it is the unit. That is why Helena is not on the right track if she says *practically * it doesn't matter to do elemental analysis or unit analysis. :-) Michael -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor Applied Cognitive Science MacLaurin Building A567 University of Victoria Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics * On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 1:53 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > I'd like to address Haydi's question 'does mediation leads to dualism'. > Of course, the answer depends of what we mean when we say mediation. > > A source that we did not include in our article, but which seems to be > relevant, was advanced by A. N. Leontyev. In his 1979 work, he is > discussing the problem of 'the postulate of immediacy (or directness)', of > which the S - R (stimulus-response) formula is a direct expression. We all > are familiar to the critiques and problematics around this formula, which > Vygotsky masterly described. > > Interestingly, Leontyev critiques approaches of the following form: > > 'the rise of man and human society leads to the following: connections > between the organism and the environment that were formerly direct and > natural become mediated by culture developing on the base of material > productivity. Thus culture appears, for individuals, in the form of meaning > imparted by speech signs-symbols' > > That view, which Leontyev attributes to L. White (1949), seems to me very > very close to the way in which the notion of 'mediation' is mobilised in > much of the current literature from a CHAT perspectve. But this view, > Leontyev argues, is also problematic, for, he argues, 'no complicating of > the original formula coming from this postulate ... can eliminate those > methodological difficulties that it produces in psychology'. Leontyev then > proposes to overcome the postulate through 'the introduction ... of the > category of object activity'. > > Whether he succeeds or not is another story. But what seems important to > me is the way he poses the contrast between the basic (problematic) > postulate of immediacy and its alternative (let's call it mediation): > First, he speaks of substituting the binomial formulas with a trinomial > one, which involves including 'a mediating link'. This sounds very much as > the canonical approach to mediation as S- tool/sign - R. It is unclear to > me, however, how White's model, which he critiques, was not already of this > type (perhaps others in the list can help here). But nevertheless, what > seems most interesting is the analogy he makes next: > > 'From the point of view of the problem of determining the psyche, this > alternative may be formulated thus: We will take either the position that > consciousness is determined by the surrounding objects and phenomena, or > the position that consciousness is determined by the social existence of > people, which, in the determination of Marx and Engels, is nothing more > than the real process of their life'. > > But if the latter is true, if, as Marx and Engels argue, 'as individuals > express their life, so they are. What they are, therefore, coincides with > their production', then 'mediation', as approached by Leont'ev, is not very > far from Spinoza's quotation that we brought to bear in our article and > which Helena was picking up on. > > So, as the non-dualist alternative to the 'postulate of immediacy', > mediation is not problematic to me. But then, we have to agree that > mediation runs all the way, from the most simple to the most complex living > form (as Leontiev also seems to argue in his 1981 work when he describes > the genesis of sensation). And for each form, we will still have to specify > its genesis, dynamics, and development; and this, I am assuming, without > recourse to the form 'this thing mediates this other thing or process'. > > Alfredo > ________________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of ?Haydi Zulfei? ?? > Sent: 11 April 2017 20:24 > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky > > Dear Helena,It's so nice to hear you.My reference to your name was because > you are so frank in your remarks of wanting to be convinced , to receive > examples of ideas , of preferring to figure out ideas and examples which > have practical use and applications.At times one gets confused with so many > interpretations in abstraction. I might be accused of this charge myself in > which case I'll submit to corrections. > Some notes : > I now prefer to talk about tools and reserve sign for other occasions. > Tools are objects , yes , but they 'act' as continuation and stretching of > our limbs , hands in particular . Tools are fashioned by man and then are , > figuratively speaking , located between him and the object of need but , in > actuality , it so seems that while they are put in the hands and hit > something , quite simultaneously the stroke shakes the brain/intellect of > the hominid as we see in chimpanzees with their way of solving problems . > The gap between the instrumental activities of the hominids and the > instrumental activities of primitive man is apparently filled with the > repeated use of the tool.A thousand times we've heard that labour with tool > changed the world and man himself therefrom.That's not really the case that > we naively hang ourselves from the rope of Engels' doctrine but because we > hear no other useful and convincing argument. Why should , then , activity > theory be awkward? > >From this beginning phase , we jump to ZPD and affordances. This is > repetitious but I have to cling to it. I wonder if Wolff-Michael agrees . > In his recent short note , he inclined to shy away from 'reference and > meaning' . In a room , I'm sitting at the table sweating of warmth . My > colleague enters and keeps the door open . Is any speech needed? There are > daily too many acts that are carried out without speech/articulation. A > need has been satisfied even without an obvious gesture. Does my > colleague's volition to act emanate from imitating some grammar-based > command which first was issued to others and now is issued from myself to > myself? You say these are the beginnings and we have distanced ourselves > from those days. Now we are articulate 'mammals' . Again repetitious : > Vygotsky said word crowns the deed . Did he say word stops acting or is it > the case that we , even now , either obviate speech and choose a direct > arrival to act or ripen and enrich our thoughts with the word/s so that we > reach the threshold of act and performance more rapidly and with more > self-confidence . However , ultimately a decision should have been made . > Then , it's again the turn for action. To see the day workers having been > converted to scientists and scientists having been converted to workers is > apparently very far off. Now our colleagues say Vygotsky by word meant much > wider strands of talk and discourse . It demands delving into . > > But does the concept of mediation lead to dualism, as Roth and Jornet > suggest? > > Ilyenko has worked out the 'ideal'. He says ideal is nothing but the > reflection of the material activity onto mind. And says we don't have two > kinds of activities , then ; one material , the other spiritual. One is the > copy of the other. Before that , he says for 'man' the whole world is > humanized . Man must have the 'ideal' of everything so that he can work and > satisfy his needs through the use of these 'ideals' within the process of > activity. Ideal is objectified so things get 'forms' and come into being > (reification) ; again the reified , the product , at some critical crucial > point , is deobjectified and idealized so that it pierces into another > process of activity to deliver and satisfy the novel need . Some scholars > say the problem of the 'internalization' or so-called 'involution' is > dualistic because on one side we have the external and on the other we have > the internal . That works for itself and this works for itself , too . Then > what medium is available , other than thought transfer impossible though, > to let one unite with the other ? They say with the ideal the dualism is > removed because in the labour process (activity) the ideal and the material > are just moments (inseparable,undissociable) within the one process. As we > had the discussion of the 'molars' when we relied on Davydov who's > unanimous both with Vygotsky as epistemology and formation of concepts are > concerned and with Ilyenko as ontology of the ideal and the material is > concerned. > > I need time to continue ... > Best wishesHaydi > From: Helena Worthen > To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Cc: Alfredo Jornet Gil > Sent: Tuesday, 11 April 2017, 4:17:47 > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky > > Sorry, message got pasted in twice. Please ignore previous message. > > Helena Worthen > helenaworthen@gmail.com > Berkeley, CA 94707 > Blog about US and Viet Nam: helenaworthen.wordpress.com > > > > > On Apr 10, 2017, at 4:41 PM, Helena Worthen > wrote: > > > > hi - > > > > In an effort to get back in the conversation, I have read the > Roth-Jornet paper, Theorizing Without Mediators, and have some comments. As > usual, I like to see ideas tested agains concrete examples. I like it even > better when the ideas seem to have some useful, practical applications. > > > > Roth and Jornet argue that the well-worn familiar term, ?mediation,? > leaves sociocultural theory open to charges of dualism, and that Vygotsky > himself was abandoning the term (and perhaps the concept) in his late years > > > > I agree that the English word "mediation" has some problems. Tools and > signs are said to ?mediate? but they are not themselves active; they are > objects, they don?t initiate anything. They have a function, however. > While a text does not actively do anything, someone does something with it. > So ?mediating? looks like a verb (a gerund) but really isn?t. Nor does > mediate simply locate something in the middle, or between two things. To > extend Roth and Jornet?s metaphor, a river does not mediate its shores; it > may lie between them, but a bridge, if there is one, would mediate. > > > > This vocabulary problem affects other words that are terms of art in > sociocultural theory. ?Affordances? is one. The phrase ?activity theory? is > a little awkward. When introducing someone to sociocultural theory, I > always have to warn them that there is a kind of private language involved. > I don?t know where it came from ? translations? > > > > But does the concept of mediation lead to dualism, as Roth and Jornet > suggest? ` > > > > I have tried to collect the pairs that are referenced when we talk about > ?mediation? or ?artifact mediation?? Some that are mentioned in the first > couple of pages of this article are: > > > > Nature/culture > > Intrasubjective/intersubjective > > Individual/(collective or group) ? this is my addition > > Inner mind/outer world > > Developing individual/social practice > > > > So are these dualisms or dialectical partners? > > > > The idea that a tool or a sign ?mediates? between all of these does not > seem problematical to me. I can think of concrete examplesThe idea that a > tool or a sign ?mediates? between all of these does not seem problematical > to me. I can think of concrete examples for all of them. Schools mediate > between nature and culture. Writing a poem mediates between one?s inner > mind and the outer world; same for intrasubjective/intersubjective. A > teacher mediates between a developing individual and a social practice. An > agenda mediates between an individual and a group. The document drafted by > Jimmy Carter and amended sequentially by Rabin and Sadat mediated that > phase of the negotiations, etc. > > > > This does not seem to lead to the quote from Mikhailov in line 46 on > page 1, about ?from the perspective of the soul, there are no mediators.? I > am also not convinced that if tools, technology and signs mediate every > activity, ?mediation would explain nothing.? I can see that in numbers, > this is true ? 4ab x 6a = 24ab is really 4b x 6 = 24b, right?- but not in > communication. Nor do I really understand the quote from Spinoza on line > 25 of page 2, ?being is transparent in its determination . . . in that it > excludes every mediation that would produce the determination.? Being as > existence? And the thalidomide baby example is striking but it does not > earn its place by being clear. What is the sign or tool here? What is the > activity? > > > > Overall, the jump to Spinoza confuses me. Spinoza wrote in Latin, in > the 1800s; does he mean what Vygotsky means by ?mediation?? > > > > > > Spinoza aside, I?m willing to accept that Vygotsky, according to > Mikhailov, supplanted ?mediation? with ?the intersubjective speech field.? > We can still look at what is in the middle of the intersubjective speech > field and see what?s going on. If ?intersubjective speech field? is a new > way of talking about mediation, so be it. > > > > > > Now we go to the concrete case provided by Roth and Jornet, one that > might seem to be an example of mediation, to see what is different if we > look at it as an example of a speech field. The authors indicate that this > concept will be different because it ?includes time and social relations as > irreducible aspects of the unit of analysis.? I am not convinced that this > is different: the famous Engestrom triangle places a tool or sign as the > mediator between categories that are embodied in people (history, customs, > rules etc. on the one side and an object/outcome on the other), all in > dynamic whole that changes over time. So time and social relations are > irreducible aspects of that unit of analysis, too. > > > > > > But on to the case: page 5, with images of a Quick Reference Handbook > (QRH), script of an interaction between an examiner and an airline pilot. > The pilot has made a mistake and the examiner is quizzing him about how it > happened. The QRH shows a checklist of what was supposed to happen; it is > the authority to which both refer. I think that the discussion illustrated > with variations of the famous triangle is summarized in the paragraph in > the middle of page 7: ?To identify the QRH as a mediator, the > subjectivities of pilot and examiner must be assumed to pre-exist the > relation, and the tool be placed in between. It also functions to ?mediate? > between the different (subjective) ?meanings? and as a tool in the > ?construction of? intersubjectivity. Alternatively, however, and in line > with a unit analysis, it is possible to consider the QRH to be an aspect > integral to the field in which the two participants are also constitutive > parts. The QRH then is integral part of the common ground in and to the > sequentially organized turn taking of examiner and pilot. Such is the > approach we work towards in the sections below.? > > > > So we are looking for a unit analysis (analysis of a whole unit, not > unit of analysis) rather than an analysis into elements. I am not yet > convinced that in practice there is really any difference. > > > > > > On the other hand, the expanded script on page 10 does certainly show > how the words of the conversation exist for both the pilot and the > examiner, and thereby creates a shared social space. In other words, > ?intersubjective speech field? makes sense ? a moment in time when the > words of each person (subject) are alive in the hearing and consciousness > of the other ? ?I hear you and you hear me.? And it does not leave a crack > by which it could be opened to the charge of dualism. Instead it is a > whole, a coherent unit of analysis. But ?intersubjective speech field?? - > another term of art!! > > > > > > Finally, while I have had trouble with the term ?mediate? and can see > that it is open to misunderstandings, I have always found that these > misunderstandings melted away quickly when I was working with something > very concrete. When a union steward, for example, is defending a worker > who has been disciplined, the text of the contract definitely mediates the > relationship between the worker and the employer. No doubt about it; take > that text away, and the relationship changes abruptly. > > > > > > What would the ?intersubjective speech field? have been like if the QRH > had not been available? Would the pilot have offered a different defense? > That would be a way to have tested what mediating role it played. > > > > Helena > >> On Apr 9, 2017, at 4:53 PM, Larry Purss lpscholar2@gmail.com>> wrote: > >> > >> Alfredo, Amelia, and Pablo, > >> > >> Alfredo, > >> Your hope that we will cover this ground by reference to a wider > literature by ?expanding ? the field, may have the unintended consequence > of also ?abbreviating? the focus on ?with/out mediation, at the core of > your paper. > >> > >> This notion of abbreviation and expansion and when each direction is > appropriate. > >> This speaks to your article?s notion of ?accented?. When contents are > accented by some reference [I.e. deictic, body orientation, verbal > indication] then, the semantic, sense-giving *field* changes. The contents > no longer have to be said because the presence of the contents in the > *field* goes ?without? saying, being an aspect of the integral co-inhabited > space. > >> > >> Following this line, I notice Amelia and Pablo?s article explores five > usually overlooked aspects of Vygotsky?s work. The first overlooked aspect > is: > >> > >> ?the understanding of the mediational system as a trans-organic, > EXTENDED branch of the psychological system. > >> > >> This first aspect explored by Amelia and Pablo may or may not share a > family resemblance to your and Michael?s exploration of theorizing with/out > mediation? > >> > >> I hope Amelia and Pablo read through your article so that we can read > each article through the perspective of the other article thus expanding > our notion of ?mediation?? I am referring to the title of Amelia and > Pablo?s article [Vygotsky and beyond: Horizons for the Future of > Psychology]. This is a theme of ?extending? with/out premature > abbreviation. May require a middle path? > >> > >> I will re-send your and Michael?s article in the hope of engaging both > articles with the potential to open possible new horizons through > engaging with the ?later? Vygotsky [1932-1934] and his re/thinking his > life?s work and this new direction?s relevance for our current moment in > time. I am referring to the title of Amelia and Pablo?s article > >> Also recognizing this is contested ground. > >> > >> Searching for a new con/sensus > >> > >> Sent from Mail for Windows 10 > >> > >> From: Alfredo Jornet Gil > >> Sent: April 9, 2017 10:50 AM > >> To: lpscholar2@gmail.com ; eXtended Mind, > Culture, Activity > >> Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky > >> > >> Thank you Larry for sharing your reading of our article, which I think > is a very sensible read. I hope that by posting Amelia and Pablo's article, > we can cover the ground by reference to a wider literature as well. > Obviously, ours is only one among other takes in current literature that > point in the similar direction; and there are yet others quiet critical to > these 'revisionist' takes. As you anticipate, getting these into dialogue > would be a great xmca accomplishment. > >> > >> Alfredo > >> > >> From: lpscholar2@gmail.com < > lpscholar2@gmail.com > > >> Sent: 09 April 2017 14:21 > >> To: Alfredo Jornet Gil; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >> Subject: RE: [Xmca-l] Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky > >> > >> Alfredo, > >> I have been slowly reading (and digesting) your and Wolff-Michael?s > article (Theorizing ? with/out mediators) that joins the current ?takes? on > the later Vygotsky. > >> > >> My impression (and appreciation) of this emerging tradition is > significant as an enlarging of the scope and ?re-working? of the Vygotsky > who was known in the process of moving into the West European and North > Atlantic form of theorizing. > >> > >> I am reading your article in relation to the notion of ?playworlds? and > ?spielraum? (translated playrooms). > >> > >> A key re-working of (mediation) has to do with re/thinking triangle > diagrams as static (with mediation at the apex). > >> This generates a PREsumption of two variables at the base of the > triangle assumed as (elements, essences, things) that inter/act through an > ?intermediary? third (element, essence, thing). > >> Your article indicates this is the classical or canonical version of > (mediation) as the third thing/element through which the other two > things/elements become changed or develop. > >> > >> Your re-working of (mediation) adds the temporal, duration, and (unit > of analysis) and implies it is not the elements or parts that each > individually change or develop (classic intermediary model of elements > transformed by going through a third element IN a triangle with an apex > mediator) > >> But rather > >> There are only relation of (within UNITS). > >> When a tool, technique, sign, word, artifact) develops then the ENTIRE > UNIT (not elements) develops. > >> > >> Alfredo, I personally believe your approach (currently re-working > classical and Western canonical versions) deserves to have its own (place) > as a subsection on the XMCA site. To become more clear on this ?later? > Vygotsky. > >> Then a conversation may generate that puts in question this re-working > >> BUT > >> In a spirit of ?play? in rooms. > >> A movement back and forth, oscillating, spiralling, developing, and > never reaching a determinate conclusion, once and forever. > >> > >> Putting in play triangles with mediators at the apex as static diagrams. > >> More open, fluid, theorizing with ANDA WITHOUT ?mediators? as we play > with these notions. > >> > >> I recommend others read the article ?Theorizing with/out mediators?. > >> Reading the (/) to mean interval where we tarry awhile in a spirit of > re-working theorizing with/out mediators. > >> > >> I believe we need to create a subsection on XMCA to let these notions > percolate and permeate the more classical boundary markers. > >> > >> My way of saying your article is a pro-found re-working of the notions > of (within) and (without) and (mediation) at the core of this re-working > PRE-assumptions. > >> > >> My morning muse > >> > >> Sent from my Windows 10 phone > >> > >> From: Alfredo Jornet Gil > >> Sent: April 8, 2017 10:20 PM > >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky > >> > >> Hi Esteban, > >> > >> yes, things have been a little quiet lately, but there have been few > threads going on, perhaps most importantly the one discussing Jang's (this > issue's) paper on multi-ethnic issues on Second Language. > >> > >> Other threads have seemed to resonate on recent articles/works > attempting to re-work (or work further) some of Vygotsky's key concepts, in > particular ZPD and Mediation (with a couple of articles having been > circulated). > >> > >> Connecting to the latter, it seems that several of those efforts are > making emphasis on Vygotsky's later period, suggesting that much of the > prior and current uptakes have focused almost exclusively on the > instrumental aspects that were more salient in his middle period, and not > so much on the lines of inquiry that the psychologist was opening never had > the chance to pursue. > >> > >> I attach yet another such work, this time by del R?o and ?lvarez. Much > is being written about how and to what extent Vygotsky was revising his own > prior work. This one tells as more about that, and does so both in English > and in Spanish. > >> > >> I wonder how do xmca'ers (who likely are busy reading world news as > things are getting more and more perplexing) feel and think about this > tendency/prospect in cultural-historical theory literature. > >> > >> Alfredo > >> ________________________________________ > >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu mailman.ucsd.edu> mailman.ucsd.edu>> on behalf of Helena Worthen > > >> Sent: 09 April 2017 03:11 > >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Playworlds, Performance, Perezhivanie, > Apophasis ... and TRUMP'S speech! > >> > >> Hi, Esteban - > >> > >> Things have been a little quiet recently. I suspect my co-xmca-ers in > the US are either mid-semester or digging in on big projects that will have > some significance, hopefully, given what we?re dealing with here. > >> > >> You may or may not be aware that our new Secretary of Education is the > sister of Erik Prince, http://www.ibtimes.com/who- > betsy-devos-brother-erik-princes-involvement-blackwater-chinese-money- > laundering- princes-involvement-blackwater-chinese-money-laundering->2493834 > >> > >> Just a hint of what is happening to education, top to bottom, in the US. > >> > >> > >> Helena > >> > >> > >> Helena Worthen > >> helenaworthen@gmail.com > >> Berkeley, CA 94707 > >> Blog about US and Viet Nam: helenaworthen.wordpress.com > >> > >> > >> > >>> On Apr 8, 2017, at 3:15 PM, Stephen Diaz wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi Bruce, > >>> > >>> Don't know if you are still the one for xmcc but I am not getting any > emails from that list serve. Can you please check on that. I still want > to continue on it if possible. Thanks. > >>> > >>> Esteban Diaz > >>> > >>> > >>> ________________________________ > >>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Bruce Jones > >>> Sent: Sunday, February 5, 2017 3:23 PM > >>> To: mike cole; Andy Blunden; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Playworlds, Performance, Perezhivanie, Apophasis > ... and TRUMP'S speech! > >>> > >>> On 2/5/17 2:39 PM, mike cole wrote: > >>>> Bruce's email is not bouncing from san diego. > >>>> Perhaps there is only one c in unsubscribe? > >>> > >>> Spelling mistakes will not cause bounces. I do the unsubscribes by > hand > >>> in order to make sure they are removed from the database. > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Bruce Jones > >>> Sys Admin, LCHC > >>> bjones@ucsd.edu > >>> 619-823-8281 > >>> > >>> -- > >> > >> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > From ewall@umich.edu Wed Apr 12 10:17:59 2017 From: ewall@umich.edu (Edward Wall) Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 12:17:59 -0500 Subject: [Xmca-l] Fwd: [Rstlist] RST versus issue trees? References: <6.2.0.14.2.20170412123807.04946608@mail.hughes.net> Message-ID: David You have, perhaps, thought about this far more than I. Any comments. Ed > Begin forwarded messagexc > > From: David Wojick > Subject: [Rstlist] RST versus issue trees? > Date: April 12, 2017 at 11:46:09 AM CDT > To: rstlist@listserv.linguistlist.org > > > My interest in the RST list is that I have developed a method that does something like RST, but is different, so I want to discuss it with the RST group. It is called the issue tree. > See https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/07/10/the-issue-tree-structure-of-expressed-thought/ > > My impression is that RST (about which I know little) is based on a relatively small constructed taxonomy of relations between "spans" of text. See http://www.sfu.ca/rst/01intro/intro.html for a listing of these relations. > > Issue tree theory has no such taxonomy. It is based on the following fundamental observation: > > With certain important exceptions, every sentence in a text (except the first) is answering a specific question posed to a specific prior sentence. > > Thus the set of relations between sentences is the set of all possible questions. The tree structure occurs because more than one question can be asked of a given sentence and this frequently occurs. The questions are often quite simple, such as how?, why?, such as?, what evidence?, etc. > > For example consider this string of sentences: We have to go. The cops are coming. Use the back door. > > The second sentence is answering the question why? of the first, while the third sentence is answering the question how? of the first. This is a simple issue tree. > > Note that these are reasoning relations, not rhetorical relations. > > When there are many sentences, as in a journal article, the issue tree can be difficult to grasp just by reading the string of sentences. Here the issue tree diagram becomes useful. One can see the reasoning. One can also measure it in various useful ways. > > Also the RST analysis looks to be applicable only to individual documents, while any set of documents on a given topic will have a unique combined issue tree structure. Moreover, the issue tree can be scaled to show just the reasoning relations between documents rather than sentences. Let's say we have 400 recent journal articles on a given topic, which is a fairly typical number. An issue tree diagram of a few thousand nodes could show the collective reasoning that ties this corpus together. The state of the reasoning, as it were. The technology is pretty powerful. > > I welcome your thoughts. > > David > > David Wojick, Ph.D. > https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/author/dwojick/ > > _______________________________________________ > Rstlist mailing list > Rstlist@listserv.linguistlist.org > http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/rstlist From dkellogg60@gmail.com Wed Apr 12 14:48:11 2017 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 07:48:11 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: [Rstlist] RST versus issue trees? In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.0.14.2.20170412123807.04946608@mail.hughes.net> Message-ID: Ed: What happens to an "issue tree" when a branch breaks, either because the wind is too strong or the branch is too long? Here are some non-metaphorical examples of what I mean, taken directly from the links you provided: "There are some well known indicators that expressed thought has a branching structure. The outline, for example, and the nesting of blog comments are both tree structures. There are also various so-called ?mind mapping? techniques. My discovery is that this structure is precise, well defined and universal.Actually it is not quite this simple because sometimes a statement will refer to a body of prior statements rather that a single one, but that is an advanced topic. The real question is, how is this useful to know?" There are some not very well known indicators that the author is being a sloppy thinker here. For example, an outline is actually a list. It can be nested, but it isn't always. And nesting isn't always an example of branching structure (it's usually an example of embedding, which is something quite different). "Mind-mapping" can include branching and nesting, but the original idea was that it was supposed to include everything, whether connected or not, and then you clear away things that are not connected. Our author doesn't clear away any of this. To his credit, though, he does hesitate a little over the sheer audacity of "My discovery...". But then he provides us with the classic business-school fake-out: I know the answer, but it's too advanced for you; it's for my high-paying customers. Here's a question you Art of the Deal 101 types really WILL care about: how can I USE this? Since we are not business school types, but academics, we might consider this as his answer: "For some time I have been working on a basic model of scientific progress (or, since ?progress? is a value-loaded term, a model of how science progresses)." Now, you can see that the material in parentheses is indeed an answer to a question which the imaginary interlocutor might have about the first clause, to wit: "What the hell do you mean, progress? You call this progress?" We shall leave aside, for the moment, the na?ve assumption that words like "model", "scientific", "working", and even "for some time" are not value loaded in precisely the same way. You can certainly see that his idea that turning a noun into a verb makes it less value-loaded is risible. I think RST is a much more serious approach, Ed. The problem that David Wojick is TRYING to address with his sloppy thinking is a key one: it's Vygotsky's genetic law ""How does communication lead to co-generalization?"), the problem Bernstein raised ("How does the outside become the inside?" which is actually a NON-dualist question), and an essential problem of speech development in children ("How does dialogue become narrative, in artistic thinking, and how do verbalized perceptions give rise to hierarchies of invisible concepts"?). So for example: a) BEAST: "I'm ugly." BELLA: "Yes, you are. But you are gentle." b) BEAST: "I'm ugly, but I'm gentle. c) BEAST: "Despite my ugliness (for all ill-proportioned countenance), I am capable of tenderness." Now, you can see that something has turned into something else (a turn has become a clause, and a clause has become a nominalization). You can see this is related to the formation of concepts that can be taxonomized, classified, and made volitionally accessible. But you can also see that describing exactly how it happens requires a grammatical model, and not just a set of Trump U. truisms. That's why Christian Matthiessen combined the original RST (which he collaborated on with Bill Mann) with systemic functional grammar. What's really happening here is grammatical metaphor. Just as a "tree" is a LEXICAL metaphor for branching in dialogue, a nominalization becomes a GRAMMATICAL metaphor for a clause. This grammatical metaphor is what Vygotsky really means when he says that "word meaning develops". David Kellogg Macquarie University On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 3:17 AM, Edward Wall wrote: > David > > You have, perhaps, thought about this far more than I. Any comments. > > Ed > > > > Begin forwarded messagexc > > > > From: David Wojick > > Subject: [Rstlist] RST versus issue trees? > > Date: April 12, 2017 at 11:46:09 AM CDT > > To: rstlist@listserv.linguistlist.org > > > > > > My interest in the RST list is that I have developed a method that does > something like RST, but is different, so I want to discuss it with the RST > group. It is called the issue tree. > > See https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/07/10/the- > issue-tree-structure-of-expressed-thought/ > > > > My impression is that RST (about which I know little) is based on a > relatively small constructed taxonomy of relations between "spans" of text. > See http://www.sfu.ca/rst/01intro/intro.html for a listing of these > relations. > > > > Issue tree theory has no such taxonomy. It is based on the following > fundamental observation: > > > > With certain important exceptions, every sentence in a text (except the > first) is answering a specific question posed to a specific prior sentence. > > > > Thus the set of relations between sentences is the set of all possible > questions. The tree structure occurs because more than one question can be > asked of a given sentence and this frequently occurs. The questions are > often quite simple, such as how?, why?, such as?, what evidence?, etc. > > > > For example consider this string of sentences: We have to go. The cops > are coming. Use the back door. > > > > The second sentence is answering the question why? of the first, while > the third sentence is answering the question how? of the first. This is a > simple issue tree. > > > > Note that these are reasoning relations, not rhetorical relations. > > > > When there are many sentences, as in a journal article, the issue tree > can be difficult to grasp just by reading the string of sentences. Here the > issue tree diagram becomes useful. One can see the reasoning. One can also > measure it in various useful ways. > > > > Also the RST analysis looks to be applicable only to individual > documents, while any set of documents on a given topic will have a unique > combined issue tree structure. Moreover, the issue tree can be scaled to > show just the reasoning relations between documents rather than sentences. > Let's say we have 400 recent journal articles on a given topic, which is a > fairly typical number. An issue tree diagram of a few thousand nodes could > show the collective reasoning that ties this corpus together. The state of > the reasoning, as it were. The technology is pretty powerful. > > > > I welcome your thoughts. > > > > David > > > > David Wojick, Ph.D. > > https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/author/dwojick/ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Rstlist mailing list > > Rstlist@listserv.linguistlist.org > > http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/rstlist > > From smago@uga.edu Wed Apr 12 16:07:00 2017 From: smago@uga.edu (Peter Smagorinsky) Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 23:07:00 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] FW: New from IAP: Making of the Future The Trajectory Equifinality Approach in Cultural Psychology In-Reply-To: <65851bd2aa6dda5ea73ad4caf009a743@infoagepub.net> References: <65851bd2aa6dda5ea73ad4caf009a743@infoagepub.net> Message-ID: Of possible interest to our community: From: Information Age Publishing [mailto:marketing@infoagepub.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2017 4:31 PM To: Peter Smagorinsky Subject: New from IAP: Making of the Future The Trajectory Equifinality Approach in Cultural Psychology [News update from Information Age Publishing] [http://www.infoagepub.com/assets/images/covers/p57601e3fa4422.gif] Published 2016 ORDER ONLINE AT WWW.INFOAGEPUB.COM Paperback 9781681235462 $45.99 Hardcover 9781681235479 $85.99 eBook 9781681235486 Making of The Future The Trajectory Equifinality Approach in Cultural Psychology Edited by: Tatsuya Sato, Ritsumeikan University Naohisa Mori, Sapporo Gakuin University Jaan Valsiner, Niels Bohr Professor of Cultural Psychology, Aalborg University A volume in Advances in Cultural Psychology: Constructing Human Development Making of the Future is the first English?language coverage of the new methodological perspective in cultural psychology?TEA (Trajectory Equifinality Approach) that was established in 2004 as a collaboration of Japanese and American cultural psychologists. In the decade that follows it has become a guiding approach for cultural psychology all over the World. Its central feature is the reliance on irreversible time as the basis for understanding of cultural phenomena and the consideration of real and imaginary options in human life course as relevant for the construction of personal futures. The book is expected to be of interest in researchers and practitioners in education, developmental and social psychology, developmental sociology and history. It has extensions for research methodology in the focus on different sampling strategies. CONTENTS: Introduction: From TEM to TEA: The Making of a New Approach, Tatsuya Sato. PART I: THEORETICAL ROOTS AND HISTORY OF THE CONCEPT. Imagining the Past and Remembering the Future: How the Unreal Defines the Real, Tania Zittoun and Jaan Valsiner. The Trajectory Equifinality Model (TEM) As a General Tool for Understanding Human Life Course Within Irreversible Time, Tatsuya Sato and Hitomi Tanimura. Mapping Trajectories of Becoming a Psychologist, Katrin Kullasepp. PART II: THE DYNAMICS OF HUMAN LIVES. How Can the Diversity of Human Lives Be Expressed Using TEM? Depicting the Experiences and Choices of Infertile Women Unable to Conceive After Infertility Treatment, Yuko Yasuda. Exploring the Transgenerational Transmission of Trauma in a Cultural Life Course Perspective, Nina Dalgaard and Pernille Hviid. Meaning Construction and Its Transformation in Narratives About Music With a Personal Meaning: Music Therapy in Group Counseling for Juvenile Delinquents, Kakuko Matsumoto. PART III: TEM AND DIALOGICAL SELF. TEM and Dialogical Self Theory: How to Understand a Marriage Problem? Hubert Hermans. Composition work and TEM: Studying the Self in Irreversible Time, Agnieszka Konopka and Wim van Beers. A Dialogical Self: Trajectory Equifinality Model for Higher Education Persistence/Abandoning of Study, Mauricio Cort?s. PART IV: LIFE, TEA, AND RESEARCH. Contribution of TEM to Lifespan Development Psychology From Life Story, Masakuni Tagaki. From the As If to the As Is: The Emergence of a Research Project, Eugenia Gouvedari. TEM Model and Brazilian Research on Developmental Transitions, Ana Cec?lia Bastos. Extending the Trajectory Equifinality Model?s Conceptual and Methodological Toolkit to Account for Continuous Development, Eric Jensen and Brady Wagoner. Information Age Publishing | P.O. Box 79049 | Charlotte, NC 28271-7047 T: 704.752.9125 | F: 704.752.9113 | E: info@infoagepub.com ------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail was sent to smago@uga.edu because you are subscribed to at least one of our mailing lists. If at any time you would like to remove yourself from our mailing list, please feel free to do so by visiting: http://infoagepub.net/lm/public/unsubscribe.php?g=139&addr=smago@uga.edu From lpscholar2@gmail.com Thu Apr 13 08:59:58 2017 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (Larry Purss) Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 08:59:58 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: FW: New from IAP: Making of the Future The TrajectoryEquifinality Approach in Cultural Psychology In-Reply-To: References: <65851bd2aa6dda5ea73ad4caf009a743@infoagepub.net> Message-ID: <58efa096.8c66620a.84c5b.395d@mx.google.com> Peter, Thanks for this reference. I was intrigued because the book is a mutual exploration from Valsiner and Japanese scholars. So I downloaded an article by one of the 3 authors. [Tatsuya Sato] The first 10 pages of this article summarize a quick historical overview of the trajectory that quantitative research has taken. Some may be interested in this historical narrative. Interesting contrast exploring notions of ?point, vector, trajectory? Caution: many new conceptual terms that left me confused. But the question presented is relevant. The article does show how your posting can then lead to the trajectory I took, and this leading to my sharing this article. The general theme of *direction* is front and center in the article. Larry Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Peter Smagorinsky Sent: April 12, 2017 4:08 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] FW: New from IAP: Making of the Future The TrajectoryEquifinality Approach in Cultural Psychology Of possible interest to our community: From: Information Age Publishing [mailto:marketing@infoagepub.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2017 4:31 PM To: Peter Smagorinsky Subject: New from IAP: Making of the Future The Trajectory Equifinality Approach in Cultural Psychology [News update from Information Age Publishing] [http://www.infoagepub.com/assets/images/covers/p57601e3fa4422.gif] Published 2016Peterthanks for this ORDER ONLINE AT WWW.INFOAGEPUB.COM Paperback 9781681235462 $45.99 Hardcover 9781681235479 $85.99 eBook 9781681235486 Making of The Future The Trajectory Equifinality Approach in Cultural Psychology Edited by: Tatsuya Sato, Ritsumeikan University Naohisa Mori, Sapporo Gakuin University Jaan Valsiner, Niels Bohr Professor of Cultural Psychology, Aalborg University A volume in Advances in Cultural Psychology: Constructing Human Development Making of the Future is the first English?language coverage of the new methodological perspective in cultural psychology?TEA (Trajectory Equifinality Approach) that was established in 2004 as a collaboration of Japanese and American cultural psychologists. In the decade that follows it has become a guiding approach for cultural psychology all over the World. Its central feature is the reliance on irreversible time as the basis for understanding of cultural phenomena and the consideration of real and imaginary options in human life course as relevant for the construction of personal futures. The book is expected to be of interest in researchers and practitioners in education, developmental and social psychology, developmental sociology and history. It has extensions for research methodology in the focus on different sampling strategies. CONTENTS: Introduction: From TEM to TEA: The Making of a New Approach, Tatsuya Sato. PART I: THEORETICAL ROOTS AND HISTORY OF THE CONCEPT. Imagining the Past and Remembering the Future: How the Unreal Defines the Real, Tania Zittoun and Jaan Valsiner. The Trajectory Equifinality Model (TEM) As a General Tool for Understanding Human Life Course Within Irreversible Time, Tatsuya Sato and Hitomi Tanimura. Mapping Trajectories of Becoming a Psychologist, Katrin Kullasepp. PART II: THE DYNAMICS OF HUMAN LIVES. How Can the Diversity of Human Lives Be Expressed Using TEM? Depicting the Experiences and Choices of Infertile Women Unable to Conceive After Infertility Treatment, Yuko Yasuda. Exploring the Transgenerational Transmission of Trauma in a Cultural Life Course Perspective, Nina Dalgaard and Pernille Hviid. Meaning Construction and Its Transformation in Narratives About Music With a Personal Meaning: Music Therapy in Group Counseling for Juvenile Delinquents, Kakuko Matsumoto. PART III: TEM AND DIALOGICAL SELF. TEM and Dialogical Self Theory: How to Understand a Marriage Problem? Hubert Hermans. Composition work and TEM: Studying the Self in Irreversible Time, Agnieszka Konopka and Wim van Beers. A Dialogical Self: Trajectory Equifinality Model for Higher Education Persistence/Abandoning of Study, Mauricio Cort?s. PART IV: LIFE, TEA, AND RESEARCH. Contribution of TEM to Lifespan Development Psychology From Life Story, Masakuni Tagaki. From the As If to the As Is: The Emergence of a Research Project, Eugenia Gouvedari. TEM Model and Brazilian Research on Developmental Transitions, Ana Cec?lia Bastos. Extending the Trajectory Equifinality Model?s Conceptual and Methodological Toolkit to Account for Continuous Development, Eric Jensen and Brady Wagoner. Information Age Publishing | P.O. Box 79049 | Charlotte, NC 28271-7047 T: 704.752.9125 | F: 704.752.9113 | E: info@infoagepub.com ------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail was sent to smago@uga.edu because you are subscribed to at least one of our mailing lists. If at any time you would like to remove yourself from our mailing list, please feel free to do so by visiting: http://infoagepub.net/lm/public/unsubscribe.php?g=139&addr=smago@uga.edu -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: SATO TATSUYA APRIL 13 2017 Trajectory Equifinality Model.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 409255 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20170413/e8330990/attachment.pdf From dkellogg60@gmail.com Thu Apr 13 15:09:57 2017 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 08:09:57 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Writing date of Leontiev - The Present Tasks of Soviet Psychology ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Clay: We discussed this text on xmca back in 2011, e.g. http://lchc.ucsd.edu/mca/Mail/xmcamail.2011_12.dir/msg00047.html Here's what Mike said at the time: "From the book itself, it is difficult to date the articles or to link them to a particular occasion. The book was published in 1961 and came from East Germany. From the introductory material by Hans Hiebsch, an East German > psychologist, it appears to have followed the "Victory of Lysenko in August 1948." It appeared in "Soviet Pedagogy" in Number 1, 1949. I do not have a copy. I think I have a copy of it back in my library in Korea, in a pamphlet put out by psychiatrists sympathetic to the Communist Party--sometime in the mid-fifties, at the height of the McCarthy witch-hunt. But I'm in Australia right now! David Kellogg Macquarie University On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 2:37 AM, Clay Spinuzzi wrote: > Hi, all. I'm hoping someone will be able to help me nail down the original > writing date of this essay: > > Leontiev, A.N. (1961). The present tasks of Soviet psychology. In Winn > (Ed.), Soviet Psychology: A Symposium. New York: Philosophical Library. > > (The Internet Archive also has a plain text copy: > https://archive.org/stream/sovietpsychology00unse/ > sovietpsychology00unse_djvu.txt > ) > > The editor doesn't document where he got the text, but my best guess is > that it was written in the late 1940s, shortly after Lysenko's August 1948 > address. > > If anyone can nail down the date more specifically, you will have my > undying gratitude and I will buy you a drink at ISCAR. Thx CS > From mcole@ucsd.edu Thu Apr 13 15:45:25 2017 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 15:45:25 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Writing date of Leontiev - The Present Tasks of Soviet Psychology ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks for the reminder, David. I have searched for my scans but cannot find. i presumably could get the book on interlibrary loan again, Clay, if you do not have access. mike On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 3:09 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > Clay: > > We discussed this text on xmca back in 2011, e.g. > > http://lchc.ucsd.edu/mca/Mail/xmcamail.2011_12.dir/msg00047.html > > Here's what Mike said at the time: > > "From the book itself, it is difficult to date the articles or to link them > to a particular occasion. The book was published in 1961 and came from > East Germany. From the introductory material by Hans Hiebsch, an East > German > > psychologist, it appears to have followed the "Victory of Lysenko in > August 1948." It appeared in "Soviet Pedagogy" in Number 1, 1949. I do not > have a copy. > > I think I have a copy of it back in my library in Korea, in a pamphlet put > out by psychiatrists sympathetic to the Communist Party--sometime in the > mid-fifties, at the height of the McCarthy witch-hunt. But I'm in Australia > right now! > > David Kellogg > Macquarie University > > > On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 2:37 AM, Clay Spinuzzi > wrote: > > > Hi, all. I'm hoping someone will be able to help me nail down the > original > > writing date of this essay: > > > > Leontiev, A.N. (1961). The present tasks of Soviet psychology. In Winn > > (Ed.), Soviet Psychology: A Symposium. New York: Philosophical Library. > > > > (The Internet Archive also has a plain text copy: > > https://archive.org/stream/sovietpsychology00unse/ > > sovietpsychology00unse_djvu.txt > > ) > > > > The editor doesn't document where he got the text, but my best guess is > > that it was written in the late 1940s, shortly after Lysenko's August > 1948 > > address. > > > > If anyone can nail down the date more specifically, you will have my > > undying gratitude and I will buy you a drink at ISCAR. Thx CS > > > From dkellogg60@gmail.com Thu Apr 13 15:55:07 2017 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 08:55:07 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Writing date of Leontiev - The Present Tasks of Soviet Psychology ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No need, Mike. It's right here: https://archive.org/details/sovietpsychology00unse David Kellogg Macquarie University On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 8:45 AM, mike cole wrote: > Thanks for the reminder, David. I have searched for my scans but cannot > find. i presumably could get the book on interlibrary loan again, Clay, if > you do not have access. > > mike > > On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 3:09 PM, David Kellogg > wrote: > > > Clay: > > > > We discussed this text on xmca back in 2011, e.g. > > > > http://lchc.ucsd.edu/mca/Mail/xmcamail.2011_12.dir/msg00047.html > > > > Here's what Mike said at the time: > > > > "From the book itself, it is difficult to date the articles or to link > them > > to a particular occasion. The book was published in 1961 and came from > > East Germany. From the introductory material by Hans Hiebsch, an East > > German > > > psychologist, it appears to have followed the "Victory of Lysenko in > > August 1948." It appeared in "Soviet Pedagogy" in Number 1, 1949. I do > not > > have a copy. > > > > I think I have a copy of it back in my library in Korea, in a pamphlet > put > > out by psychiatrists sympathetic to the Communist Party--sometime in the > > mid-fifties, at the height of the McCarthy witch-hunt. But I'm in > Australia > > right now! > > > > David Kellogg > > Macquarie University > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 2:37 AM, Clay Spinuzzi > > > wrote: > > > > > Hi, all. I'm hoping someone will be able to help me nail down the > > original > > > writing date of this essay: > > > > > > Leontiev, A.N. (1961). The present tasks of Soviet psychology. In Winn > > > (Ed.), Soviet Psychology: A Symposium. New York: Philosophical Library. > > > > > > (The Internet Archive also has a plain text copy: > > > https://archive.org/stream/sovietpsychology00unse/ > > > sovietpsychology00unse_djvu.txt > > > ) > > > > > > The editor doesn't document where he got the text, but my best guess is > > > that it was written in the late 1940s, shortly after Lysenko's August > > 1948 > > > address. > > > > > > If anyone can nail down the date more specifically, you will have my > > > undying gratitude and I will buy you a drink at ISCAR. Thx CS > > > > > > From mcole@ucsd.edu Thu Apr 13 16:02:47 2017 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 16:02:47 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Writing date of Leontiev - The Present Tasks of Soviet Psychology ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks David. I misread your note it seems. I did read that original MCA mail where I tracked down the book earlier. The comments about Anna Stetsenko were interesting in light of her later writings. mike On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 3:55 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > No need, Mike. It's right here: > > https://archive.org/details/sovietpsychology00unse > > David Kellogg > Macquarie University > > On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 8:45 AM, mike cole wrote: > > > Thanks for the reminder, David. I have searched for my scans but cannot > > find. i presumably could get the book on interlibrary loan again, Clay, > if > > you do not have access. > > > > mike > > > > On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 3:09 PM, David Kellogg > > wrote: > > > > > Clay: > > > > > > We discussed this text on xmca back in 2011, e.g. > > > > > > http://lchc.ucsd.edu/mca/Mail/xmcamail.2011_12.dir/msg00047.html > > > > > > Here's what Mike said at the time: > > > > > > "From the book itself, it is difficult to date the articles or to link > > them > > > to a particular occasion. The book was published in 1961 and came from > > > East Germany. From the introductory material by Hans Hiebsch, an East > > > German > > > > psychologist, it appears to have followed the "Victory of Lysenko in > > > August 1948." It appeared in "Soviet Pedagogy" in Number 1, 1949. I do > > not > > > have a copy. > > > > > > I think I have a copy of it back in my library in Korea, in a pamphlet > > put > > > out by psychiatrists sympathetic to the Communist Party--sometime in > the > > > mid-fifties, at the height of the McCarthy witch-hunt. But I'm in > > Australia > > > right now! > > > > > > David Kellogg > > > Macquarie University > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 2:37 AM, Clay Spinuzzi < > clay.spinuzzi@utexas.edu > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi, all. I'm hoping someone will be able to help me nail down the > > > original > > > > writing date of this essay: > > > > > > > > Leontiev, A.N. (1961). The present tasks of Soviet psychology. In > Winn > > > > (Ed.), Soviet Psychology: A Symposium. New York: Philosophical > Library. > > > > > > > > (The Internet Archive also has a plain text copy: > > > > https://archive.org/stream/sovietpsychology00unse/ > > > > sovietpsychology00unse_djvu.txt > > > > ) > > > > > > > > The editor doesn't document where he got the text, but my best guess > is > > > > that it was written in the late 1940s, shortly after Lysenko's August > > > 1948 > > > > address. > > > > > > > > If anyone can nail down the date more specifically, you will have my > > > > undying gratitude and I will buy you a drink at ISCAR. Thx CS > > > > > > > > > > From haydizulfei@rocketmail.com Thu Apr 13 23:49:57 2017 From: haydizulfei@rocketmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?=E2=80=AAHaydi_Zulfei=E2=80=AC_=E2=80=AA?=) Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 06:49:57 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Xmca-l] Fw: Fw: Writing date of Leontiev - The Present Tasks of Soviet Psychology ? In-Reply-To: References: <1940186326.1496590.1492068887842@mail.yahoo.com> <657678864.1994337.1492093839639@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1207787636.136622.1492152597968@mail.yahoo.com> Dear all,Dmitry Leontiev's answer.BestHaydi ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Clay Spinuzzi To: Dmitry Leontiev Cc: haydizulfei@rocketmail.com Sent: Thursday, 13 April 2017, 22:20:12 Subject: Re: Fw: [Xmca-l] Writing date of Leontiev - The Present Tasks of Soviet Psychology ? Thank you very much for your efforts! On Apr 13, 2017 12:36 PM, "Dmitry Leontiev" wrote: Dear Colleagues, It is quite likely that the publication you are mentioning is a translation of one paper published in 1949. However I failed to find its original text so far, I hope to solve this puzzle in a few days. Best, Dmitry 2017-04-13 17:30 GMT+03:00 : HiRespectfully! If this might relate to you , may you be so kind as to provide a short message and explanation .Thanks a lot !BestHaydi ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Clay Spinuzzi To: haydizulfei@rocketmail.com Sent: Thursday, 13 April 2017, 16:26:20 Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Writing date of Leontiev - The Present Tasks of Soviet Psychology ? Thank you! This is a great idea. I'll try it. CS On Apr 13, 2017 2:34 AM, wrote: Hi Clay,Your blog is a rich one . Thanks you provided the opportunity for us to be able to get familiar with the two versions (plain and rich) of the pamphlet. Your exegesis is too long for even a couple of reads ; however , it's very nice to read and understand it . I hope someone can help you and us to access the exact date of writing this article. Did you contact Leontiev's grandson D.Leontiev of the Moscow State University for that? It might work! Very best wishes Haydi From: Clay Spinuzzi To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu Sent: Wednesday, 12 April 2017, 21:10:28 Subject: [Xmca-l] Writing date of Leontiev - The Present Tasks of Soviet Psychology ? Hi, all. I'm hoping someone will be able to help me nail down the original writing date of this essay: Leontiev, A.N. (1961). The present tasks of Soviet psychology. In Winn (Ed.), Soviet Psychology: A Symposium. New York: Philosophical Library. (The Internet Archive also has a plain text copy: https://archive.org/stream/ sovietpsychology00unse/ sovietpsychology00unse_djvu. txt ) The editor doesn't document where he got the text, but my best guess is that it was written in the late 1940s, shortly after Lysenko's August 1948 address. If anyone can nail down the date more specifically, you will have my undying gratitude and I will buy you a drink at ISCAR. Thx CS From lpscholar2@gmail.com Fri Apr 14 07:03:52 2017 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (lpscholar2@gmail.com) Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 07:03:52 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky In-Reply-To: <58ee5bf7.055f630a.ad898.51c7@mx.google.com> References: <5893695b.c32f630a.3d640.41ee@mx.google.com> <1486189210098.72503@iped.uio.no> <838a8d3c-2559-3984-64e3-e3cf8bd98266@mira.net> <8029C164-2A9F-4CAA-B0EF-7799A55E7194@gmail.com> <1491715069810.47906@iped.uio.no> <58ea273d.494b620a.8865b.ba36@mx.google.com> <1491760229133.43007@iped.uio.no> <58eac975.9d3e620a.eb34a.c238@mx.google.com> <6ED0EB7F-12DD-45C6-9490-026D00D1CC07@gmail.com> <932635876.1302292.1491935098398@mail.yahoo.com> <1491943982381.4936@iped.uio.no> <58ee5bf7.055f630a.ad898.51c7@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <58f0d6da.8444620a.d1b55.8ab0@mx.google.com> Attempting to keep the (later Vygotsky) thread on course. Taking up Pablo and Amelia on page 72 and their exploration of 2 brains: The intracortical brain & the extracortical brain. The two brains ?inter/act? via the cultural-historical environment. This way of presenting the case leads to this question: Is this a mediational relational triangle or ONE unit/relation? A) intracortical brain B) cultural historical environment C) Extracortical brain With B mediating the 2 brains Or is the alternative trajectory (without mediation) a more valid response Both Michael andAlfredo?s paper and Pablo and Amelia?s paper are accenting the (later) Vygotsky, but trying to keep the focus upon A) With B) Without Mediation. PS I want to thank Helena for her thoughtful and thought provoking engagement with Alfredo and Michael?s paper that left us all with the question: Do these alternative lines make any practical difference? Sent from my Windows 10 phone From: lpscholar2@gmail.com Sent: April 12, 2017 9:55 AM To: Wolff-Michael Roth; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: RE: [Xmca-l] Re: Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky Michael, The key here IS THE RELATION that is constituted and this relation ?creates commonality. No need for mediation. Only ONE relation which is constituted and various aspects. A category mistake to label some aspects (dependent) variables and other aspects (independent) variables. Helena?s two cases involving texts when introduced into the one relation transform this ?one relation -UNIT ? but these texts do not mediate elements that have an existence (I.e. Subject & object; subject 1 & subject 2;) that have independent qualia that then are bridges to form a new relation. I hope I have been faithful to this direction or line of inquiry. I will now add a quote from page 69 (from the Pablo and Amelia article) by Vygotsky in 1930 after the turn. It is not the functions that change, as we had believed (AND THAT WAS OUR MISTAKE) but their structure (...).? We ?call? psychological SYSTEM to the emergency of these ?flexible? relations (linking) the functions together. I hope this furthers lines of entanglement which may be ONE relation?? As Alfredo says this line honours ?we? consciousness Sent from my Windows 10 phone From: Wolff-Michael Roth Sent: April 11, 2017 3:22 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky Hi, I think mediationists need to show how mediation arises from non-mediation. To do so, you cannot take recourse to mediation. In my view, the Spinozist-Marxian take that does not require mediation is in a better position. Just as commodity and the word IS the relation between two people, so the third term in the S?sign/tool?mind or S1?sign/tool?S2 . . . or which ever Vygotskian form you want to use IS the relation between the other two terms. No mediation but the constitution of a relation. And it is common to both terms, therefore, which also are part of the relation. There is ONE relation, and it is the unit. That is why Helena is not on the right track if she says *practically * it doesn't matter to do elemental analysis or unit analysis. :-) Michael -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor Applied Cognitive Science MacLaurin Building A567 University of Victoria Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics * On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 1:53 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > I'd like to address Haydi's question? 'does mediation leads to dualism'. > Of course, the answer depends of what we mean when we say mediation. > > A source that we did not include in our article, but which seems to be > relevant, was advanced by A. N. Leontyev. In his 1979 work, he is > discussing the problem of 'the postulate of immediacy (or directness)', of > which the S - R (stimulus-response) formula is a direct expression. We all > are familiar to the critiques and problematics around this formula, which > Vygotsky masterly described. > > Interestingly, Leontyev critiques approaches of the following form: > > 'the rise of man and human society leads to the following: connections > between the organism and the environment that were formerly direct and > natural become mediated by culture developing on the base of material > productivity. Thus culture appears, for individuals, in the form of meaning > imparted by speech signs-symbols' > > That view, which Leontyev attributes to L. White (1949), seems to me very > very close to the way in which the notion of 'mediation' is mobilised in > much of the current literature from a CHAT perspectve. But this view, > Leontyev argues, is also problematic, for, he argues, 'no complicating of > the original formula coming from this postulate ... can eliminate those > methodological difficulties that it produces in psychology'. Leontyev then > proposes to overcome the postulate through 'the introduction ... of the > category of object activity'. > > Whether he succeeds or not is another story. But what seems important to > me is the way he poses the contrast between the basic (problematic) > postulate of immediacy and its alternative (let's call it mediation): > First, he speaks of substituting the binomial formulas with a trinomial > one, which involves including 'a mediating link'. This sounds very much as > the canonical approach to mediation as S- tool/sign - R. It is unclear to > me, however, how White's model, which he critiques, was not already of this > type (perhaps others in the list can help here). But nevertheless, what > seems most interesting is the analogy he makes next: > > 'From the point of view of the problem of determining the psyche, this > alternative may be formulated thus: We will take either the position that > consciousness is determined by the surrounding objects and phenomena, or > the position that consciousness is determined by the social existence of > people, which, in the determination of Marx and Engels, is nothing more > than the real process of their life'. > > But if the latter is true, if, as Marx and Engels argue, 'as individuals > express their life, so they are. What they are, therefore, coincides with > their production', then 'mediation', as approached by Leont'ev, is not very > far from Spinoza's quotation that we brought to bear in our article and > which Helena was picking up on. > > So, as the non-dualist alternative to the 'postulate of immediacy', > mediation is not problematic to me. But then, we have to agree that > mediation runs all the way, from the most simple to the most complex living > form (as Leontiev also seems to argue in his 1981 work when he describes > the genesis of sensation). And for each form, we will still have to specify > its genesis, dynamics, and development; and this, I am assuming, without > recourse to the form 'this thing mediates this other thing or process'. > > Alfredo > ________________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of ?Haydi Zulfei ? > Sent: 11 April 2017 20:24 > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky > > Dear Helena,It's so nice to hear you.My reference to your name was because > you are so frank in your remarks of wanting to be convinced , to receive > examples of ideas , of preferring to figure out ideas and examples which > have practical use and applications.At times one gets confused with so many > interpretations in abstraction. I might be accused of this charge myself in > which case I'll submit to corrections. > Some notes : > I now prefer to talk about tools and reserve sign for other occasions. > Tools are objects , yes , but they 'act' as continuation and stretching of > our limbs , hands in particular . Tools are fashioned by man and then are , > figuratively speaking , located between him and the object of need but , in > actuality , it so seems that while they are put in the hands and hit > something , quite simultaneously the stroke shakes the brain/intellect of > the hominid as we see in chimpanzees with their way of solving problems . > The gap between the instrumental activities of the hominids and the > instrumental activities of primitive man is apparently filled with the > repeated use of the tool.A thousand times we've heard that labour with tool > changed the world and man himself therefrom.That's not really the case that > we naively hang ourselves from the rope of Engels' doctrine but because we > hear no other useful and convincing argument. Why should , then , activity > theory be awkward? > >From this beginning phase , we jump to ZPD and affordances. This is > repetitious but I have to cling to it. I wonder if Wolff-Michael agrees . > In his recent short note , he inclined to shy away from 'reference and > meaning' . In a room , I'm sitting at the table sweating of warmth . My > colleague enters and keeps the door open . Is any speech needed? There are > daily too many acts that are carried out without speech/articulation. A > need has been satisfied even without an obvious gesture. Does my > colleague's volition to act emanate from imitating some grammar-based > command which first was issued to others and now is issued from myself to > myself? You say these are the beginnings and we have distanced ourselves > from those days. Now we are articulate 'mammals' . Again repetitious : > Vygotsky said word crowns the deed . Did he say word stops acting or is it > the case that we , even now , either obviate speech and choose a direct > arrival to act or ripen and enrich our thoughts with the word/s so that we > reach the threshold of act and performance more rapidly and with more > self-confidence . However , ultimately a decision should have been made . > Then , it's again the turn for action. To see the day workers having been > converted to scientists and scientists having been converted to workers is > apparently very far off. Now our colleagues say Vygotsky by word meant much > wider strands of talk and discourse . It demands delving into . > > But does the concept of mediation lead to dualism, as Roth and Jornet > suggest? > > Ilyenko has worked out the 'ideal'. He says ideal is nothing but the > reflection of the material activity onto mind. And says we don't have two > kinds of activities , then ; one material , the other spiritual. One is the > copy of the other. Before that , he says for 'man' the whole world is > humanized . Man must have the 'ideal' of everything so that he can work and > satisfy his needs through the use of these 'ideals' within the process of > activity. Ideal is objectified so things get 'forms' and come into being > (reification) ; again the reified , the product , at some critical crucial > point , is deobjectified and idealized so that it pierces into another > process of activity to deliver and satisfy the novel need . Some scholars > say the problem of the 'internalization' or so-called 'involution' is > dualistic because on one side we have the external and on the other we have > the internal . That works for itself and this works for itself , too . Then > what medium is available , other than thought transfer impossible though, > to let one unite with the other ? They say with the ideal the dualism is > removed because in the labour process (activity) the ideal and the material > are just moments (inseparable,undissociable) within the one process. As we > had the discussion of the 'molars' when we relied on Davydov who's > unanimous both with Vygotsky as epistemology and formation of concepts are > concerned and with Ilyenko as ontology of the ideal and the material is > concerned. > > I need time to continue ... > Best wishesHaydi >?????? From: Helena Worthen >? To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Cc: Alfredo Jornet Gil >? Sent: Tuesday, 11 April 2017, 4:17:47 >? Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky > > Sorry, message got pasted in twice. Please ignore previous message. > > Helena Worthen > helenaworthen@gmail.com > Berkeley, CA 94707 > Blog about US and Viet Nam: helenaworthen.wordpress.com > > > > > On Apr 10, 2017, at 4:41 PM, Helena Worthen > wrote: > > > > hi - > > > > In an effort to get back in the conversation, I have read the > Roth-Jornet paper, Theorizing Without Mediators, and have some comments. As > usual, I like to see ideas tested agains concrete examples. I like it even > better when the ideas seem to have some useful, practical applications. > > > > Roth and Jornet argue that the well-worn familiar term, ?mediation,? > leaves sociocultural theory open to charges of dualism, and that Vygotsky > himself was abandoning the term (and perhaps the concept) in his late years > > > > I agree that the English word "mediation" has some problems. Tools and > signs are said to ?mediate? but they are not themselves active; they are > objects, they don?t initiate anything. They have a function, however. > While a text does not actively do anything, someone does something with it. > So ?mediating? looks like a verb (a gerund) but really isn?t.? Nor does > mediate simply locate something in the middle, or between two things. To > extend Roth and Jornet?s metaphor, a river does not mediate its shores; it > may lie between them, but a bridge, if there is one, would mediate. > > > >? This vocabulary problem affects other words that are terms of art in > sociocultural theory. ?Affordances? is one. The phrase ?activity theory? is > a little awkward. When introducing someone to sociocultural theory, I > always have to warn them that there is a kind of private language involved. > I don?t know where it came from ? translations? > > > > But does the concept of mediation lead to dualism, as Roth and Jornet > suggest???????? ` > > > > I have tried to collect the pairs that are referenced when we talk about > ?mediation? or ?artifact mediation??? Some that are mentioned in the first > couple of pages of this article are: > > > > Nature/culture > > Intrasubjective/intersubjective > > Individual/(collective or group) ? this is my addition > > Inner mind/outer world > > Developing individual/social practice > > > >? So are these dualisms or dialectical partners? > > > >? The idea that a tool or a sign ?mediates? between all of these does not > seem problematical to me. I can think of concrete examplesThe idea that a > tool or a sign ?mediates? between all of these does not seem problematical > to me. I can think of concrete examples for all of them. Schools mediate > between nature and culture. Writing a poem mediates between one?s inner > mind and the outer world; same for intrasubjective/intersubjective. A > teacher mediates between a developing individual and a social practice. An > agenda mediates between an individual and a group.? The document drafted by > Jimmy Carter and amended sequentially by Rabin and Sadat mediated that > phase of the negotiations, etc. > > > >? This does not seem to lead to the quote from Mikhailov in line 46 on > page 1, about ?from the perspective of the soul, there are no mediators.? I > am also not convinced that if tools, technology and signs mediate every > activity, ?mediation would explain nothing.?? I can see that in numbers, > this is true ? 4ab x 6a = 24ab is really 4b x 6 = 24b, right?- but not in > communication.? Nor do I really understand the quote from Spinoza on line > 25 of page 2, ?being is transparent in its determination . . . in that it > excludes every mediation that would produce the determination.? Being as > existence?? And the thalidomide baby example is striking but it does not > earn its place by being clear.? What is the sign or tool here? What is the > activity? > > > >? Overall, the jump to Spinoza confuses me. Spinoza wrote in Latin, in > the 1800s; does he mean what Vygotsky means by ?mediation?? > > > > > > Spinoza aside, I?m willing to accept that Vygotsky, according to > Mikhailov, supplanted ?mediation? with ?the intersubjective speech field.? > We can still look at what is in the middle of the intersubjective speech > field and see what?s going on. If ?intersubjective speech field? is a new > way of talking about mediation, so be it. > > > > > >? Now we go to the concrete case provided by Roth and Jornet, one that > might seem to be an example of mediation, to see what is different if we > look at it as an example of a speech field. The authors indicate that this > concept will be different because it ?includes time and social relations as > irreducible aspects of the unit of analysis.? I am not convinced that this > is different: the famous Engestrom triangle places a tool or sign as the > mediator between categories that are embodied in people (history, customs, > rules etc. on the one side and an object/outcome on the other), all in > dynamic whole that changes over time.? So time and social relations are > irreducible aspects of that unit of analysis, too. > > > > > >? But on to the case: page 5, with images of a Quick Reference Handbook > (QRH), script of an interaction between an examiner and an airline pilot. > The pilot has made a mistake and the examiner is quizzing him about how it > happened. The QRH shows a checklist of what was supposed to happen; it is > the authority to which both refer. I think that the discussion illustrated > with variations of the famous triangle is summarized in the paragraph in > the middle of page 7: ?To identify the QRH as a mediator, the > subjectivities of pilot and examiner must be assumed to pre-exist the > relation, and the tool be placed in between. It also functions to ?mediate? > between the different (subjective) ?meanings? and as a tool in the > ?construction of? intersubjectivity. Alternatively, however, and in line > with a unit analysis, it is possible to consider the QRH to be an aspect > integral to the field in which the two participants are also constitutive > parts. The QRH then is integral part of the common ground in and to the > sequentially organized turn taking of examiner and pilot. Such is the > approach we work towards in the sections below.? > > > >? So we are looking for a unit analysis (analysis of a whole unit, not > unit of analysis) rather than an analysis into elements. I am not yet > convinced that in practice there is really any difference. > > > > > >? On the other hand, the expanded script on page 10 does certainly show > how the words of the conversation exist for both the pilot and the > examiner, and thereby creates a shared social space. In other words, > ?intersubjective speech field? makes sense ? a moment in time when the > words of each person (subject) are alive in the hearing and consciousness > of the other ? ?I hear you and you hear me.? And it does not leave a crack > by which it could be opened to the charge of dualism. Instead it is a > whole, a coherent unit of analysis. But ?intersubjective speech field?? - > another term of art!! > > > > > > Finally, while I have had trouble with the term ?mediate? and can see > that it is open to misunderstandings, I have always found that these > misunderstandings melted away quickly when I was working with something > very concrete.? When a union steward, for example, is defending a worker > who has been disciplined, the text of the contract definitely mediates the > relationship between the worker and the employer. No doubt about it; take > that text away, and the relationship changes abruptly. > > > > > > What would the ?intersubjective speech field? have been like if the QRH > had not been available?? Would the pilot have offered a different defense? > That would be a way to have tested what mediating role it played. > > > > Helena > >> On Apr 9, 2017, at 4:53 PM, Larry Purss lpscholar2@gmail.com>> wrote: > >> > >> Alfredo, Amelia, and Pablo, > >> > >> Alfredo, > >> Your hope that we will cover this ground by reference to a wider > literature by ?expanding ? the field, may have the unintended consequence > of also ?abbreviating? the focus on ?with/out mediation,? at the core of > your paper. > >> > >> This notion of abbreviation and expansion and when each direction is > appropriate. > >> This speaks to your article?s notion of ?accented?. When contents are > accented by some reference [I.e. deictic, body orientation, verbal > indication] then, the semantic, sense-giving *field* changes.? The contents > no longer have to be said because the presence of the contents in the > *field* goes ?without? saying, being an aspect of the integral co-inhabited > space. > >> > >> Following this line, I notice Amelia and Pablo?s article explores five > usually overlooked aspects of Vygotsky?s work. The first overlooked aspect > is: > >> > >> ?the understanding of the mediational system as a trans-organic, > EXTENDED branch of the psychological system. > >> > >> This first aspect explored by Amelia and Pablo? may or may not share a > family resemblance to your and Michael?s exploration of theorizing with/out > mediation? > >> > >> I hope Amelia and Pablo read through your article so that we can read > each article through the perspective of the other article thus expanding > our notion of ?mediation?? I am referring to the title of Amelia and > Pablo?s article [Vygotsky and beyond: Horizons for the Future of > Psychology]. This is a theme of ?extending? with/out premature > abbreviation. May require a middle path? > >> > >> I will re-send your and Michael?s article in the hope of engaging both > articles with the potential to? open possible new horizons? through > engaging with the ?later? Vygotsky [1932-1934] and his re/thinking his > life?s work and this new direction?s relevance for our current moment in > time. I am referring to the title of Amelia and Pablo?s article > >> Also recognizing this is contested ground. > >> > >> Searching for a new con/sensus > >> > >> Sent from Mail for Windows 10 > >> > >> From: Alfredo Jornet Gil > >> Sent: April 9, 2017 10:50 AM > >> To: lpscholar2@gmail.com ; eXtended Mind, > Culture, Activity > >> Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky > >> > >> Thank you Larry for sharing your reading of our article, which I think > is a very sensible read. I hope that by posting Amelia and Pablo's article, > we can cover the ground by reference to a wider literature as well. > Obviously, ours is only one among other takes in current literature that > point in the similar direction; and there are yet others quiet critical to > these 'revisionist' takes. As you anticipate, getting these into dialogue > would be a great xmca accomplishment. > >> > >> Alfredo > >> > >> From: lpscholar2@gmail.com < > lpscholar2@gmail.com > > >> Sent: 09 April 2017 14:21 > >> To: Alfredo Jornet Gil; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >> Subject: RE: [Xmca-l] Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky > >> > >> Alfredo, > >> I have been slowly reading (and digesting) your and Wolff-Michael?s > article (Theorizing ? with/out mediators) that joins the current ?takes? on > the later Vygotsky. > >> > >> My impression (and appreciation) of this emerging tradition is > significant as? an enlarging of the scope and ?re-working? of the Vygotsky > who was known in the process of moving into the West European? and North > Atlantic form of theorizing. > >> > >> I am reading your article in relation to the notion of ?playworlds? and > ?spielraum? (translated playrooms). > >> > >> A key re-working of (mediation) has to do with re/thinking triangle > diagrams as static (with mediation at the apex). > >> This generates a PREsumption of two variables at the base of the > triangle assumed as (elements, essences, things) that inter/act through an > ?intermediary? third (element, essence, thing). > >> Your article indicates this is the classical or canonical version of > (mediation) as the third thing/element through which the other two > things/elements become changed or develop. > >> > >> Your re-working of (mediation) adds the temporal, duration, and (unit > of analysis) and implies it is not the elements or parts that each > individually change or develop (classic intermediary model of elements > transformed by going through a third element IN a triangle with an apex > mediator) > >> But rather > >> There are only relation of (within UNITS). > >> When a tool, technique, sign, word, artifact) develops then the ENTIRE > UNIT (not elements) develops. > >> > >> Alfredo, I personally believe your approach (currently re-working > classical and Western canonical versions) deserves to have its own (place) > as a subsection on the XMCA site. To become more clear on this ?later? > Vygotsky. > >> Then a conversation may generate that puts in question this re-working > >> BUT > >> In a spirit of ?play? in rooms. > >> A movement back and forth, oscillating, spiralling, developing, and > never reaching a determinate conclusion, once and forever. > >> > >> Putting in play triangles with mediators at the apex as static diagrams. > >> More open, fluid, theorizing with ANDA WITHOUT ?mediators? as we play > with these notions. > >> > >> I recommend others read the article ?Theorizing with/out mediators?. > >> Reading the (/) to mean interval where we tarry awhile in a spirit of > re-working theorizing with/out mediators. > >> > >> I believe we need to create a subsection on XMCA to let these notions > percolate and permeate the more classical boundary markers. > >> > >> My way of saying your article is a pro-found re-working of the notions > of (within) and (without) and (mediation) at the core of this re-working > PRE-assumptions. > >> > >> My morning muse > >> > >> Sent from my Windows 10 phone > >> > >> From: Alfredo Jornet Gil > >> Sent: April 8, 2017 10:20 PM > >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky > >> > >> Hi Esteban, > >> > >> yes, things have been a little quiet lately, but there have been few > threads going on, perhaps most importantly the one discussing Jang's (this > issue's) paper on multi-ethnic issues on Second Language. > >> > >> Other threads have seemed to resonate on recent articles/works > attempting to re-work (or work further) some of Vygotsky's key concepts, in > particular ZPD and Mediation (with a couple of articles having been > circulated). > >> > >> Connecting to the latter, it seems that several of those efforts are > making emphasis on Vygotsky's later period, suggesting that much of the > prior and current uptakes have focused almost exclusively on the > instrumental aspects that were more salient in his middle period, and not > so much on the lines of inquiry that the psychologist was opening never had > the chance to pursue. > >> > >> I attach yet another such work, this time by del R?o and ?lvarez. Much > is being written about how and to what extent Vygotsky was revising his own > prior work. This one tells as more about that, and does so both in English > and in Spanish. > >> > >> I wonder how do xmca'ers (who likely are busy reading world news as > things are getting more and more perplexing) feel and think about this > tendency/prospect in cultural-historical theory literature. > >> > >> Alfredo > >> ________________________________________ > >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu mailman.ucsd.edu> mailman.ucsd.edu>> on behalf of Helena Worthen > > >> Sent: 09 April 2017 03:11 > >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Playworlds, Performance, Perezhivanie, > Apophasis ... and TRUMP'S speech! > >> > >> Hi, Esteban - > >> > >> Things have been a little quiet recently. I suspect my co-xmca-ers in > the US are either mid-semester or digging in on big projects that will have > some significance, hopefully, given what we?re dealing with here. > >> > >> You may or may not be aware that our new Secretary of Education is the > sister of Erik Prince, http://www.ibtimes.com/who- > betsy-devos-brother-erik-princes-involvement-blackwater-chinese-money- > laundering- princes-involvement-blackwater-chinese-money-laundering->2493834 > >> > >> Just a hint of what is happening to education, top to bottom, in the US. > >> > >> > >> Helena > >> > >> > >> Helena Worthen > >> helenaworthen@gmail.com > >> Berkeley, CA 94707 > >> Blog about US and Viet Nam: helenaworthen.wordpress.com > >> > >> > >> > >>> On Apr 8, 2017, at 3:15 PM, Stephen Diaz wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi Bruce, > >>> > >>> Don't know if you are still the one for xmcc but I am not getting any > emails from that list serve.? Can you please check on that.? I still want > to continue on it if possible.? Thanks. > >>> > >>> Esteban Diaz > >>> > >>> > >>> ________________________________ > >>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Bruce Jones > >>> Sent: Sunday, February 5, 2017 3:23 PM > >>> To: mike cole; Andy Blunden; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Playworlds, Performance, Perezhivanie, Apophasis > ... and TRUMP'S speech! > >>> > >>> On 2/5/17 2:39 PM, mike cole wrote: > >>>> Bruce's email is not bouncing from san diego. > >>>> Perhaps there is only one c in unsubscribe? > >>> > >>> Spelling mistakes will not cause bounces.? I do the unsubscribes by > hand > >>> in order to make sure they are removed from the database. > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Bruce Jones > >>> Sys Admin, LCHC > >>> bjones@ucsd.edu > >>> 619-823-8281 > >>> > >>> -- > >> > >> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > From clay.spinuzzi@utexas.edu Fri Apr 14 07:19:18 2017 From: clay.spinuzzi@utexas.edu (Clay Spinuzzi) Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 09:19:18 -0500 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Writing date of Leontiev - The Present Tasks of Soviet Psychology ? Message-ID: Thanks, David, Mike, and Haydi, for your efforts and for the link to the older xmca thread! I appreciate the context as well as the link to the PDF. CS Message: 18 > Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 08:09:57 +1000 > From: David Kellogg > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Writing date of Leontiev - The Present Tasks of > Soviet Psychology ? > To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Message-ID: > gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > Clay: > We discussed this text on xmca back in 2011, e.g. > http://lchc.ucsd.edu/mca/Mail/xmcamail.2011_12.dir/msg00047.html > Here's what Mike said at the time: > "From the book itself, it is difficult to date the articles or to link them > to a particular occasion. The book was published in 1961 and came from > East Germany. From the introductory material by Hans Hiebsch, an East > German > > psychologist, it appears to have followed the "Victory of Lysenko in > August 1948." It appeared in "Soviet Pedagogy" in Number 1, 1949. I do not > have a copy. > I think I have a copy of it back in my library in Korea, in a pamphlet put > out by psychiatrists sympathetic to the Communist Party--sometime in the > mid-fifties, at the height of the McCarthy witch-hunt. But I'm in Australia > right now! > David Kellogg > Macquarie University -- Dr. Clay Spinuzzi Associate Chair, Department of Rhetoric and Writing University of Texas at Austin 208 W. 21st St., Stop B5500 Austin, TX 78712-1038 From mcole@ucsd.edu Fri Apr 14 09:06:35 2017 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 09:06:35 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Writing date of Leontiev - The Present Tasks of Soviet Psychology ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The experience of reading those articles helped to deepen our understanding of the Vygotsky-Leontiev falling out, Clay. For those, like myself, for whom the grounding of our analyses in everyday activities is a central concern, Leontiev gave a way to motivate deeper theorizing of the "context" of mediated action. Along with Yrjo Engestrom, Arne Raiethel, Alfred Lang, and others we came up with the "chat" name for attempts to supersede the differences between them. Pushed toward extremes signocentricism and authoritarian behaviorism, we opted for both/and. We have been chatting here ever since. And as you can see, recycling and re-thinking prior understandings as we go. mike On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 7:19 AM, Clay Spinuzzi wrote: > Thanks, David, Mike, and Haydi, for your efforts and for the link to the > older xmca thread! I appreciate the context as well as the link to the PDF. > CS > > > Message: 18 > > Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 08:09:57 +1000 > > From: David Kellogg > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Writing date of Leontiev - The Present Tasks of > > Soviet Psychology ? > > To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > > Message-ID: > > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > Clay: > > We discussed this text on xmca back in 2011, e.g. > > http://lchc.ucsd.edu/mca/Mail/xmcamail.2011_12.dir/msg00047.html > > Here's what Mike said at the time: > > "From the book itself, it is difficult to date the articles or to link > them > > to a particular occasion. The book was published in 1961 and came from > > East Germany. From the introductory material by Hans Hiebsch, an East > > German > > > psychologist, it appears to have followed the "Victory of Lysenko in > > August 1948." It appeared in "Soviet Pedagogy" in Number 1, 1949. I do > not > > have a copy. > > I think I have a copy of it back in my library in Korea, in a pamphlet > put > > out by psychiatrists sympathetic to the Communist Party--sometime in the > > mid-fifties, at the height of the McCarthy witch-hunt. But I'm in > Australia > > right now! > > David Kellogg > > Macquarie University > > > -- > Dr. Clay Spinuzzi > Associate Chair, Department of Rhetoric and Writing > University of Texas at Austin > 208 W. 21st St., Stop B5500 > Austin, TX 78712-1038 > From a.j.gil@iped.uio.no Fri Apr 14 11:17:40 2017 From: a.j.gil@iped.uio.no (Alfredo Jornet Gil) Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 18:17:40 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Writing date of Leontiev - The Present Tasks of Soviet Psychology ? In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: <1492193860269.2316@iped.uio.no> Wow, great historical and bibliographical references, thanks. I just found this 2017 book, where Andy B. has a chapter, and which is one example (or rather several, as it is an edited volume) of what in the present day is taken to be a Marxist psychology. Ratner, C., & Silva, D.N.H. (Eds.) (2017). Vygotsky and Marx: Toward a Marxist Psychology. Routledge. https://books.google.ca/books?hl=no&lr=&id=ZOyfDgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT126&ots=YeTJ4fOp-h&sig=papwRk5IKK3cJIKophwMNOQOMhM&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of mike cole Sent: 14 April 2017 18:06 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Writing date of Leontiev - The Present Tasks of Soviet Psychology ? The experience of reading those articles helped to deepen our understanding of the Vygotsky-Leontiev falling out, Clay. For those, like myself, for whom the grounding of our analyses in everyday activities is a central concern, Leontiev gave a way to motivate deeper theorizing of the "context" of mediated action. Along with Yrjo Engestrom, Arne Raiethel, Alfred Lang, and others we came up with the "chat" name for attempts to supersede the differences between them. Pushed toward extremes signocentricism and authoritarian behaviorism, we opted for both/and. We have been chatting here ever since. And as you can see, recycling and re-thinking prior understandings as we go. mike On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 7:19 AM, Clay Spinuzzi wrote: > Thanks, David, Mike, and Haydi, for your efforts and for the link to the > older xmca thread! I appreciate the context as well as the link to the PDF. > CS > > > Message: 18 > > Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 08:09:57 +1000 > > From: David Kellogg > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Writing date of Leontiev - The Present Tasks of > > Soviet Psychology ? > > To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > > Message-ID: > > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > Clay: > > We discussed this text on xmca back in 2011, e.g. > > http://lchc.ucsd.edu/mca/Mail/xmcamail.2011_12.dir/msg00047.html > > Here's what Mike said at the time: > > "From the book itself, it is difficult to date the articles or to link > them > > to a particular occasion. The book was published in 1961 and came from > > East Germany. From the introductory material by Hans Hiebsch, an East > > German > > > psychologist, it appears to have followed the "Victory of Lysenko in > > August 1948." It appeared in "Soviet Pedagogy" in Number 1, 1949. I do > not > > have a copy. > > I think I have a copy of it back in my library in Korea, in a pamphlet > put > > out by psychiatrists sympathetic to the Communist Party--sometime in the > > mid-fifties, at the height of the McCarthy witch-hunt. But I'm in > Australia > > right now! > > David Kellogg > > Macquarie University > > > -- > Dr. Clay Spinuzzi > Associate Chair, Department of Rhetoric and Writing > University of Texas at Austin > 208 W. 21st St., Stop B5500 > Austin, TX 78712-1038 > From lpscholar2@gmail.com Fri Apr 14 14:56:36 2017 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (lpscholar2@gmail.com) Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 14:56:36 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Writing date of Leontiev - The Present Tasks of SovietPsychology ? In-Reply-To: <1492193860269.2316@iped.uio.no> References: , <1492193860269.2316@iped.uio.no> Message-ID: <58f145a5.84cc620a.92676.c3f0@mx.google.com> Mike indicates grounding our analyses in everyday activities as a focus. Alfredo highlights the many current manifestations of Marxian psychology in our current explorations. This may be an appropriate moment to consider Wolff Michael Roth?s 2006 article (A Dialectical Material Reading of the sign) posted here on April 9 2017. Page 141 to 144 opens the article with an empirical example of everyday activities and identifies the way signs are exchanged at 3 different levels. 1st) sign complexes are ?traded? between research assistant and participant 2nd) the person actually ?translates? one sign complex into another sign complex. (graph into text) Another kind of ?translation? occurs while the scientist follows a curve on the graph with his pencil, thereby ?reproducing? the curve iconically 3rd) Roth?s article does NOT feature the original sign complex, but in a manner that (reflects) its content, uses other material sign complexes to point back to the original sign complexes EXCHANGED during the encounter between the research assistant and participants in the empirical example. With this grounding ?in? and ?of? exchange levels, Roth moves to Marxian notions of exchange and exchange value through exploring ?commensurability?. On page 143 Roth claims: ?Commensurability, that is sameness in the face of difference, is at the HEART of Karl Marx?s (1976) Capital, and in particular the dialectic of commodities.? Then Roth moves to this (as if relation) between sign complexes and commodities. In Roth?s words: ?It therefore appears as if there is some similarity between signs and commodities UNDER the light of their role and function in EXCHANGE processes? I find Roth?s exploration of ?commensurability? at the ?heart? of Marx?s writing (sign complexes) under the light of exchange relations a fascinating way of understanding (sameness in the face of difference). A theme of symmetry in the face of asymmetry. My turn is up but I find Wolff Michael and Alfredo?s collaboration generative. Sent from my Windows 10 phone From: Alfredo Jornet Gil Sent: April 14, 2017 11:19 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Writing date of Leontiev - The Present Tasks of SovietPsychology ? Wow, great historical and bibliographical references, thanks. I just found this 2017 book, where Andy B. has a chapter, and which is one example (or rather several, as it is an edited volume) of what in the present day is taken to be a Marxist psychology. Ratner, C., & Silva, D.N.H. (Eds.) (2017). Vygotsky and Marx: Toward a Marxist Psychology. Routledge. https://books.google.ca/books?hl=no&lr=&id=ZOyfDgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT126&ots=YeTJ4fOp-h&sig=papwRk5IKK3cJIKophwMNOQOMhM&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of mike cole Sent: 14 April 2017 18:06 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Writing date of Leontiev - The Present Tasks of Soviet Psychology ? The experience of reading those articles helped to deepen our understanding of the Vygotsky-Leontiev falling out, Clay. For those, like myself, for whom the grounding of our analyses in everyday activities is a central concern, Leontiev gave a way to motivate deeper theorizing of the "context" of mediated action. Along with Yrjo Engestrom, Arne Raiethel, Alfred Lang, and others we came up with the "chat" name for attempts to supersede the differences between them. Pushed toward extremes signocentricism and authoritarian behaviorism, we opted for both/and. We have been chatting here ever since. And as you can see, recycling and re-thinking prior understandings as we go. mike On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 7:19 AM, Clay Spinuzzi wrote: > Thanks, David, Mike, and Haydi, for your efforts and for the link to the > older xmca thread! I appreciate the context as well as the link to the PDF. > CS > > > Message: 18 > > Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 08:09:57 +1000 > > From: David Kellogg > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Writing date of Leontiev - The Present Tasks of > > Soviet Psychology ? > > To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > > Message-ID: > > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > Clay: > > We discussed this text on xmca back in 2011, e.g. > > http://lchc.ucsd.edu/mca/Mail/xmcamail.2011_12.dir/msg00047.html > > Here's what Mike said at the time: > > "From the book itself, it is difficult to date the articles or to link > them > > to a particular occasion. The book was published in 1961 and came from > > East Germany. From the introductory material by Hans Hiebsch, an East > > German > > > psychologist, it appears to have followed the "Victory of Lysenko in > > August 1948." It appeared in "Soviet Pedagogy" in Number 1, 1949. I do > not > > have a copy. > > I think I have a copy of it back in my library in Korea, in a pamphlet > put > > out by psychiatrists sympathetic to the Communist Party--sometime in the > > mid-fifties, at the height of the McCarthy witch-hunt. But I'm in > Australia > > right now! > > David Kellogg > > Macquarie University > > > -- > Dr. Clay Spinuzzi > Associate Chair, Department of Rhetoric and Writing > University of Texas at Austin > 208 W. 21st St., Stop B5500 > Austin, TX 78712-1038 > From wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com Fri Apr 14 17:15:47 2017 From: wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com (Wolff-Michael Roth) Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 17:15:47 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Writing date of Leontiev - The Present Tasks of SovietPsychology ? In-Reply-To: <58f145a5.84cc620a.92676.c3f0@mx.google.com> References: <1492193860269.2316@iped.uio.no> <58f145a5.84cc620a.92676.c3f0@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Larry, the idea can also be expressed in the Spinozist manner: singular plural or plural singular. The philosopher Jean-Luc Nancy---someone who doesn't require mediation, and who writes about mediation that mediates nothing, has articulated this idea of the plural singular. Some Spinozist Marxian scholars, too, are taking this route. Michael -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor Applied Cognitive Science MacLaurin Building A567 University of Victoria Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics * On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 2:56 PM, wrote: > Mike indicates grounding our analyses in everyday activities as a focus. > Alfredo highlights the many current manifestations of Marxian psychology > in our current explorations. > > This may be an appropriate moment to consider Wolff Michael Roth?s 2006 > article (A Dialectical Material Reading of the sign) posted here on April 9 > 2017. > Page 141 to 144 opens the article with an empirical example of everyday > activities and identifies the way signs are exchanged at 3 different levels. > 1st) sign complexes are ?traded? between research assistant and participant > 2nd) the person actually ?translates? one sign complex into another sign > complex. (graph into text) > Another kind of ?translation? occurs while the scientist follows a curve > on the graph with his pencil, thereby ?reproducing? the curve iconically > 3rd) Roth?s article does NOT feature the original sign complex, but in a > manner that (reflects) its content, uses other material sign complexes to > point back to the original sign complexes EXCHANGED during the encounter > between the research assistant and participants in the empirical example. > > With this grounding ?in? and ?of? exchange levels, Roth moves to Marxian > notions of exchange and exchange value through exploring > ?commensurability?. On page 143 Roth claims: > > ?Commensurability, that is sameness in the face of difference, is at the > HEART of Karl Marx?s (1976) Capital, and in particular the dialectic of > commodities.? > > Then Roth moves to this (as if relation) between sign complexes and > commodities. In Roth?s words: > > ?It therefore appears as if there is some similarity between signs and > commodities UNDER the light of their role and function in EXCHANGE > processes? > > I find Roth?s exploration of ?commensurability? at the ?heart? of Marx?s > writing (sign complexes) under the light of exchange relations a > fascinating way of understanding (sameness in the face of difference). > A theme of symmetry in the face of asymmetry. > My turn is up but I find Wolff Michael and Alfredo?s collaboration > generative. > > > > > > Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > From: Alfredo Jornet Gil > Sent: April 14, 2017 11:19 AM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Writing date of Leontiev - The Present Tasks of > SovietPsychology ? > > Wow, great historical and bibliographical references, thanks. > > I just found this 2017 book, where Andy B. has a chapter, and which is one > example (or rather several, as it is an edited volume) of what in the > present day is taken to be a Marxist psychology. > > Ratner, C., & Silva, D.N.H. (Eds.) (2017). Vygotsky and Marx: Toward a > Marxist Psychology. Routledge. > > https://books.google.ca/books?hl=no&lr=&id=ZOyfDgAAQBAJ&oi= > fnd&pg=PT126&ots=YeTJ4fOp-h&sig=papwRk5IKK3cJIKophwMNOQOMhM& > redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false > ________________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of mike cole > Sent: 14 April 2017 18:06 > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Writing date of Leontiev - The Present Tasks of > Soviet Psychology ? > > The experience of reading those articles helped to deepen our understanding > of the Vygotsky-Leontiev falling out, Clay. For those, like myself, for > whom the grounding of our analyses in everyday activities is a central > concern, Leontiev gave a way to motivate deeper theorizing of the "context" > of mediated action. > > Along with Yrjo Engestrom, Arne Raiethel, Alfred Lang, and others we came > up with the "chat" name for attempts to supersede the differences between > them. Pushed toward extremes signocentricism and authoritarian behaviorism, > we opted for both/and. > > We have been chatting here ever since. And as you can see, recycling and > re-thinking prior understandings as we go. > > mike > > On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 7:19 AM, Clay Spinuzzi > wrote: > > > Thanks, David, Mike, and Haydi, for your efforts and for the link to the > > older xmca thread! I appreciate the context as well as the link to the > PDF. > > CS > > > > > > Message: 18 > > > Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 08:09:57 +1000 > > > From: David Kellogg > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Writing date of Leontiev - The Present Tasks of > > > Soviet Psychology ? > > > To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > > > Message-ID: > > > > > gmail.com> > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > > Clay: > > > We discussed this text on xmca back in 2011, e.g. > > > http://lchc.ucsd.edu/mca/Mail/xmcamail.2011_12.dir/msg00047.html > > > Here's what Mike said at the time: > > > "From the book itself, it is difficult to date the articles or to link > > them > > > to a particular occasion. The book was published in 1961 and came from > > > East Germany. From the introductory material by Hans Hiebsch, an East > > > German > > > > psychologist, it appears to have followed the "Victory of Lysenko in > > > August 1948." It appeared in "Soviet Pedagogy" in Number 1, 1949. I do > > not > > > have a copy. > > > I think I have a copy of it back in my library in Korea, in a pamphlet > > put > > > out by psychiatrists sympathetic to the Communist Party--sometime in > the > > > mid-fifties, at the height of the McCarthy witch-hunt. But I'm in > > Australia > > > right now! > > > David Kellogg > > > Macquarie University > > > > > > -- > > Dr. Clay Spinuzzi > > Associate Chair, Department of Rhetoric and Writing > > University of Texas at Austin > > 208 W. 21st St., Stop B5500 > > Austin, TX 78712-1038 > > > > From lpscholar2@gmail.com Sat Apr 15 07:25:01 2017 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (lpscholar2@gmail.com) Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2017 07:25:01 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Writing date of Leontiev - The Present Tasks ofSovietPsychology ? In-Reply-To: References: <1492193860269.2316@iped.uio.no> <58f145a5.84cc620a.92676.c3f0@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <58f22d4f.0741630a.1ce0b.4c6d@mx.google.com> Michael, I am aware this thread is focused on Leontiv and tasks of soviet society. Your prompts may need their own particular thread (the idea OF the plural singular)?? If it is agreeable to include your and Alfredo?s insights into the orbit/trajectory of this thread (enlarging it's scope) I hesitantly move to note 3 (page 168) of your 2006 article. Your premise that ?sign complexes? & ?commodities? share a family resemblance because of (a third). That third is the nature ?of? exchange value that lies ?under? both ?sign complexes? & ?commodities?. This (third) implying ?commensurability? at the HEART OF (Dad Kapital). This trajectory (possibly subsumed under the theme: Plural-singular) is moved forward in your note 3. You express in this note that Karl Marx opens (Dad Kapital) with ?commodity? but does not define this term PRIOR to beginning his analysis but allows the ?nature of? commodity to emerge in the course of his analysis AS SOMETHING that has ?use value? & ?exchange value?. This being the ?nature of? the ?third?. This trajectory is in the (spirit of) Wittgenstein, according to which a word does not have meaning BUT That the meaning lies in its use (exchange value). This indicating a family resemblance between Marx (in the German Ideology) & Wittgenstein?s (Philosophische Untersungen). I acknowledge all this is new and challenging to understand. My intent is to try to move along WITHIN the orbit of this trajectory squiring a ?feeling? of the mood. Is it time or appropriate to open a new thread titled (Plural-Singular Realization)? The theme exploring the ?nature of? thirds that include the nature of ?other? terms as faces, factors, facets, aspects, of the UNIT as ?third? Possibly turning to Jean-Luc Nancy?. An open question Sent from my Windows 10 phone From: Wolff-Michael Roth Sent: April 14, 2017 5:18 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Writing date of Leontiev - The Present Tasks ofSovietPsychology ? Larry, the idea can also be expressed in the Spinozist manner: singular plural or plural singular. The philosopher Jean-Luc Nancy---someone who doesn't require mediation, and who writes about mediation that mediates nothing, has articulated this idea of the plural singular. Some Spinozist Marxian scholars, too, are taking this route. Michael -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor Applied Cognitive Science MacLaurin Building A567 University of Victoria Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics * On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 2:56 PM, wrote: > Mike indicates grounding our analyses in everyday activities as a focus. > Alfredo highlights the many current manifestations of Marxian psychology > in our current explorations. > > This may be an appropriate moment to consider Wolff Michael Roth?s 2006 > article (A Dialectical Material Reading of the sign) posted here on April 9 > 2017. > Page 141 to 144 opens the article with an empirical example of everyday > activities and identifies the way signs are exchanged at 3 different levels. > 1st) sign complexes are ?traded? between research assistant and participant > 2nd) the person actually ?translates? one sign complex into another sign > complex. (graph into text) > Another kind of ?translation? occurs while the scientist follows a curve > on the graph with his pencil, thereby ?reproducing? the curve iconically > 3rd) Roth?s article does NOT feature the original sign complex, but in a > manner that (reflects) its content, uses other material sign complexes to > point back to the original sign complexes EXCHANGED during the encounter > between the research assistant and participants in the empirical example. > > With this grounding ?in? and ?of? exchange levels, Roth moves to Marxian > notions of exchange and exchange value through exploring > ?commensurability?. On page 143 Roth claims: > > ?Commensurability, that is sameness in the face of difference, is at the > HEART of Karl Marx?s (1976) Capital, and in particular the dialectic of > commodities.? > > Then Roth moves to this (as if relation) between sign complexes and > commodities. In Roth?s words: > > ?It therefore appears as if there is some similarity between signs and > commodities UNDER the light of their role and function in EXCHANGE > processes? > > I find Roth?s exploration of ?commensurability? at the ?heart? of Marx?s > writing (sign complexes) under the light of exchange relations a > fascinating way of understanding (sameness in the face of difference). > A theme of symmetry in the face of asymmetry. > My turn is up but I find Wolff Michael and Alfredo?s collaboration > generative. > > > > > > Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > From: Alfredo Jornet Gil > Sent: April 14, 2017 11:19 AM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Writing date of Leontiev - The Present Tasks of > SovietPsychology ? > > Wow, great historical and bibliographical references, thanks. > > I just found this 2017 book, where Andy B. has a chapter, and which is one > example (or rather several, as it is an edited volume) of what in the > present day is taken to be a Marxist psychology. > > Ratner, C., & Silva, D.N.H. (Eds.) (2017). Vygotsky and Marx: Toward a > Marxist Psychology. Routledge. > > https://books.google.ca/books?hl=no&lr=&id=ZOyfDgAAQBAJ&oi= > fnd&pg=PT126&ots=YeTJ4fOp-h&sig=papwRk5IKK3cJIKophwMNOQOMhM& > redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false > ________________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of mike cole > Sent: 14 April 2017 18:06 > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Writing date of Leontiev - The Present Tasks of > Soviet Psychology ? > > The experience of reading those articles helped to deepen our understanding > of the Vygotsky-Leontiev falling out, Clay. For those, like myself, for > whom the grounding of our analyses in everyday activities is a central > concern, Leontiev gave a way to motivate deeper theorizing of the "context" > of mediated action. > > Along with Yrjo Engestrom, Arne Raiethel, Alfred Lang, and others we came > up with the "chat" name for attempts to supersede the differences between > them. Pushed toward extremes signocentricism and authoritarian behaviorism, > we opted for both/and. > > We have been chatting here ever since. And as you can see, recycling and > re-thinking prior understandings as we go. > > mike > > On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 7:19 AM, Clay Spinuzzi > wrote: > > > Thanks, David, Mike, and Haydi, for your efforts and for the link to the > > older xmca thread! I appreciate the context as well as the link to the > PDF. > > CS > > > > > > Message: 18 > > > Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 08:09:57 +1000 > > > From: David Kellogg > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Writing date of Leontiev - The Present Tasks of > > > Soviet Psychology ? > > > To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > > > Message-ID: > > > > > gmail.com> > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > > Clay: > > > We discussed this text on xmca back in 2011, e.g. > > > http://lchc.ucsd.edu/mca/Mail/xmcamail.2011_12.dir/msg00047.html > > > Here's what Mike said at the time: > > > "From the book itself, it is difficult to date the articles or to link > > them > > > to a particular occasion. The book was published in 1961 and came from > > > East Germany. From the introductory material by Hans Hiebsch, an East > > > German > > > > psychologist, it appears to have followed the "Victory of Lysenko in > > > August 1948." It appeared in "Soviet Pedagogy" in Number 1, 1949. I do > > not > > > have a copy. > > > I think I have a copy of it back in my library in Korea, in a pamphlet > > put > > > out by psychiatrists sympathetic to the Communist Party--sometime in > the > > > mid-fifties, at the height of the McCarthy witch-hunt. But I'm in > > Australia > > > right now! > > > David Kellogg > > > Macquarie University > > > > > > -- > > Dr. Clay Spinuzzi > > Associate Chair, Department of Rhetoric and Writing > > University of Texas at Austin > > 208 W. 21st St., Stop B5500 > > Austin, TX 78712-1038 > > > > From ulvi.icil@gmail.com Sat Apr 15 15:42:34 2017 From: ulvi.icil@gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?VWx2aSDEsMOnaWw=?=) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 01:42:34 +0300 Subject: [Xmca-l] "THE LAST INTERNATIONALE | WORKERS OF THE WORLD- UNITE! ( OFFICIAL VIDEO)" Message-ID: https://youtu.be/dgaJb0lQJ84 From dkellogg60@gmail.com Sat Apr 15 16:37:16 2017 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 09:37:16 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: "THE LAST INTERNATIONALE | WORKERS OF THE WORLD- UNITE! ( OFFICIAL VIDEO)" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Too pessimistic, Ulvi! And not a little self-contradictory, because in the end she leaves New Orleans and gives up the fight. What happens to all those Latino workers farmworkers she's living behind in New Orleans? You are a pianist. You will appreciate this, particularly the ending: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlivqMItDFo It's called the "Yellow River Cantata", and it was originally written by Xian Xinghai in a cave in 1939, over six days, as the Japanese were closing in. The composer is using a bunch of local folk melodies and opera motifs to describe how the Yellow River itself will defend those who defend it. The conclusion is an example of "huanwei"--this is a technique used in Chinese opera when the whole audience is singing along and they all think they know exactly how it is going to end (on "East is Red", which back then as now was a nationalistic theme). Instead, it ends with a phrase from the Internationale...and yet somehow the two fit together perfectly, and the audience is not wrong footed at all, but instead lifted from tune to a higher one, and (metaphorically, anyway) from one form of anti-imperialist consciousness to a still higher one. (Notice that the pianist herself is not Chinese!) David Kelllogg Macquarie University On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 8:42 AM, Ulvi ??il wrote: > https://youtu.be/dgaJb0lQJ84 > From ulvi.icil@gmail.com Sat Apr 15 16:47:23 2017 From: ulvi.icil@gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?VWx2aSDEsMOnaWw=?=) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 02:47:23 +0300 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: "THE LAST INTERNATIONALE | WORKERS OF THE WORLD- UNITE! ( OFFICIAL VIDEO)" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: You are at least partly right David. Why does she leave New Orleans? Meanwhile I am not a pianist. I am a father whose son takes piano lessons. I turned out to be a piano pedagogue because he did not like to work alone nor to leave lessons. 16 Nis 2017 02:38 tarihinde "David Kellogg" yazd?: > Too pessimistic, Ulvi! And not a little self-contradictory, because in the > end she leaves New Orleans and gives up the fight. What happens to all > those Latino workers farmworkers she's living behind in New Orleans? > > You are a pianist. You will appreciate this, particularly the ending: > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlivqMItDFo > > It's called the "Yellow River Cantata", and it was originally written by > Xian Xinghai in a cave in 1939, over six days, as the Japanese were closing > in. The composer is using a bunch of local folk melodies and opera motifs > to describe how the Yellow River itself will defend those who defend it. > > The conclusion is an example of "huanwei"--this is a technique used in > Chinese opera when the whole audience is singing along and they all think > they know exactly how it is going to end (on "East is Red", which back then > as now was a nationalistic theme). Instead, it ends with a phrase from the > Internationale...and yet somehow the two fit together perfectly, and the > audience is not wrong footed at all, but instead lifted from tune to a > higher one, and (metaphorically, anyway) from one form of anti-imperialist > consciousness to a still higher one. > > (Notice that the pianist herself is not Chinese!) > > David Kelllogg > Macquarie University > > > > On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 8:42 AM, Ulvi ??il wrote: > > > https://youtu.be/dgaJb0lQJ84 > > > From helenaworthen@gmail.com Sat Apr 15 16:49:42 2017 From: helenaworthen@gmail.com (Helena Worthen) Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2017 16:49:42 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: "THE LAST INTERNATIONALE | WORKERS OF THE WORLD- UNITE! ( OFFICIAL VIDEO)" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I also don't like wailing songs about workers. But the Yellow River Cantata is a kick!!! The one that came up for me had Lang Lang, who was having a great time. Helena Worthen helenaworthen@gmail.com Vietnam blog: helenaworthen.wordpress.com On Apr 15, 2017, at 4:37 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > Too pessimistic, Ulvi! And not a little self-contradictory, because in the > end she leaves New Orleans and gives up the fight. What happens to all > those Latino workers farmworkers she's living behind in New Orleans? > > You are a pianist. You will appreciate this, particularly the ending: > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlivqMItDFo > > It's called the "Yellow River Cantata", and it was originally written by > Xian Xinghai in a cave in 1939, over six days, as the Japanese were closing > in. The composer is using a bunch of local folk melodies and opera motifs > to describe how the Yellow River itself will defend those who defend it. > > The conclusion is an example of "huanwei"--this is a technique used in > Chinese opera when the whole audience is singing along and they all think > they know exactly how it is going to end (on "East is Red", which back then > as now was a nationalistic theme). Instead, it ends with a phrase from the > Internationale...and yet somehow the two fit together perfectly, and the > audience is not wrong footed at all, but instead lifted from tune to a > higher one, and (metaphorically, anyway) from one form of anti-imperialist > consciousness to a still higher one. > > (Notice that the pianist herself is not Chinese!) > > David Kelllogg > Macquarie University > > > > On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 8:42 AM, Ulvi ??il wrote: > >> https://youtu.be/dgaJb0lQJ84 >> From helenaworthen@gmail.com Sun Apr 16 10:31:02 2017 From: helenaworthen@gmail.com (Helena Worthen) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 10:31:02 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Writing date of Leontiev - The Present Tasks ofSovietPsychology ? In-Reply-To: <58f22d4f.0741630a.1ce0b.4c6d@mx.google.com> References: <1492193860269.2316@iped.uio.no> <58f145a5.84cc620a.92676.c3f0@mx.google.com> <58f22d4f.0741630a.1ce0b.4c6d@mx.google.com> Message-ID: HI ? I followed the link provided by Mike: >> http://lchc.ucsd.edu/mca/Mail/xmcamail.2011_12.dir/msg00047.html which got me started reading the chapter by Hiebsch, where I found what I copy below. Isn?t the discussion about mediation a revival of this fundamental issue? Idealism means dualism; the existence of something non-material which we would call ?mind? or ?consciousness?. ?Materialism? eliminates that non-material thing, whatever it is, and turns to culture, words, language, history and other aspects of social interaction to explain how human beings differ from animals. I don?t see how mediation exposes CHAT to the charge of dualism, though/ I would say mediation is necessary to avoid the charge of dualism. What you pick to do the mediation then is the question. It?s a pretty riviting chapter. Here?s a quote from pages 12-13: "The history of psychology, like that, of other sciences, is the history of the conflict between materialism and idealism. All progressive thinkers were adherents of the materialist theory, while idealism al- ways provided a foundation of reactionary views. It not only hampered the progress of sciences, but was an obstacle to their very formation. We define idealism as all philosophical theories according to which the psychic factor is something autonomous and independent of mat- ter; i.e., it is not a special property of matter, nor is it a product of the brain. We define materialism, on the contrary, as all the theories which start from the assump- tion that the psychic factor has no independent existence, but is only a property of matter and is formed in the long process of its development.? This is particularly interesting to me becuase of working with researchers in Viet Nam ? where the education system post-1975 was heavily influenced by the USSR. the few social scientists i have met recognize the name Vygotsky but i?ll bet that their view of his work is all the post-1936 version, which would explain a lot about what I am running into. H Helena Worthen helenaworthen@gmail.com Berkeley, CA 94707 Blog about US and Viet Nam: helenaworthen.wordpress.com > On Apr 15, 2017, at 7:25 AM, wrote: > > Michael, I am aware this thread is focused on Leontiv and tasks of soviet society. > Your prompts may need their own particular thread (the idea OF the plural singular)?? > > If it is agreeable to include your and Alfredo?s insights into the orbit/trajectory of this thread (enlarging it's scope) I hesitantly move to note 3 (page 168) of your 2006 article. > > Your premise that ?sign complexes? & ?commodities? share a family resemblance because of (a third). That third is the nature ?of? exchange value that lies ?under? both ?sign complexes? & ?commodities?. This (third) implying ?commensurability? at the HEART OF (Dad Kapital). > > This trajectory (possibly subsumed under the theme: Plural-singular) is moved forward in your note 3. > You express in this note that Karl Marx opens (Dad Kapital) with ?commodity? but does not define this term PRIOR to beginning his analysis but allows the ?nature of? commodity to emerge in the course of his analysis AS SOMETHING that has ?use value? & ?exchange value?. > This being the ?nature of? the ?third?. > This trajectory is in the (spirit of) Wittgenstein, according to which a word does not have meaning > BUT > That the meaning lies in its use (exchange value). > This indicating a family resemblance between Marx (in the German Ideology) & Wittgenstein?s (Philosophische Untersungen). > > I acknowledge all this is new and challenging to understand. My intent is to try to move along WITHIN the orbit of this trajectory squiring a ?feeling? of the mood. > Is it time or appropriate to open a new thread titled (Plural-Singular Realization)? The theme exploring the ?nature of? thirds that include the nature of ?other? terms as faces, factors, facets, aspects, of the UNIT as ?third? > > Possibly turning to Jean-Luc Nancy?. > An open question > > Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > From: Wolff-Michael Roth > Sent: April 14, 2017 5:18 PM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Writing date of Leontiev - The Present Tasks ofSovietPsychology ? > > Larry, > the idea can also be expressed in the Spinozist manner: singular plural or > plural singular. The philosopher Jean-Luc Nancy---someone who doesn't > require mediation, and who writes about mediation that mediates nothing, > has articulated this idea of the plural singular. Some Spinozist Marxian > scholars, too, are taking this route. > Michael > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor > Applied Cognitive Science > MacLaurin Building A567 > University of Victoria > Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 > http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth > > New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > * > > On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 2:56 PM, wrote: > >> Mike indicates grounding our analyses in everyday activities as a focus. >> Alfredo highlights the many current manifestations of Marxian psychology >> in our current explorations. >> >> This may be an appropriate moment to consider Wolff Michael Roth?s 2006 >> article (A Dialectical Material Reading of the sign) posted here on April 9 >> 2017. >> Page 141 to 144 opens the article with an empirical example of everyday >> activities and identifies the way signs are exchanged at 3 different levels. >> 1st) sign complexes are ?traded? between research assistant and participant >> 2nd) the person actually ?translates? one sign complex into another sign >> complex. (graph into text) >> Another kind of ?translation? occurs while the scientist follows a curve >> on the graph with his pencil, thereby ?reproducing? the curve iconically >> 3rd) Roth?s article does NOT feature the original sign complex, but in a >> manner that (reflects) its content, uses other material sign complexes to >> point back to the original sign complexes EXCHANGED during the encounter >> between the research assistant and participants in the empirical example. >> >> With this grounding ?in? and ?of? exchange levels, Roth moves to Marxian >> notions of exchange and exchange value through exploring >> ?commensurability?. On page 143 Roth claims: >> >> ?Commensurability, that is sameness in the face of difference, is at the >> HEART of Karl Marx?s (1976) Capital, and in particular the dialectic of >> commodities.? >> >> Then Roth moves to this (as if relation) between sign complexes and >> commodities. In Roth?s words: >> >> ?It therefore appears as if there is some similarity between signs and >> commodities UNDER the light of their role and function in EXCHANGE >> processes? >> >> I find Roth?s exploration of ?commensurability? at the ?heart? of Marx?s >> writing (sign complexes) under the light of exchange relations a >> fascinating way of understanding (sameness in the face of difference). >> A theme of symmetry in the face of asymmetry. >> My turn is up but I find Wolff Michael and Alfredo?s collaboration >> generative. >> >> >> >> >> >> Sent from my Windows 10 phone >> >> From: Alfredo Jornet Gil >> Sent: April 14, 2017 11:19 AM >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Writing date of Leontiev - The Present Tasks of >> SovietPsychology ? >> >> Wow, great historical and bibliographical references, thanks. >> >> I just found this 2017 book, where Andy B. has a chapter, and which is one >> example (or rather several, as it is an edited volume) of what in the >> present day is taken to be a Marxist psychology. >> >> Ratner, C., & Silva, D.N.H. (Eds.) (2017). Vygotsky and Marx: Toward a >> Marxist Psychology. Routledge. >> >> https://books.google.ca/books?hl=no&lr=&id=ZOyfDgAAQBAJ&oi= >> fnd&pg=PT126&ots=YeTJ4fOp-h&sig=papwRk5IKK3cJIKophwMNOQOMhM& >> redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false >> ________________________________________ >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >> on behalf of mike cole >> Sent: 14 April 2017 18:06 >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Writing date of Leontiev - The Present Tasks of >> Soviet Psychology ? >> >> The experience of reading those articles helped to deepen our understanding >> of the Vygotsky-Leontiev falling out, Clay. For those, like myself, for >> whom the grounding of our analyses in everyday activities is a central >> concern, Leontiev gave a way to motivate deeper theorizing of the "context" >> of mediated action. >> >> Along with Yrjo Engestrom, Arne Raiethel, Alfred Lang, and others we came >> up with the "chat" name for attempts to supersede the differences between >> them. Pushed toward extremes signocentricism and authoritarian behaviorism, >> we opted for both/and. >> >> We have been chatting here ever since. And as you can see, recycling and >> re-thinking prior understandings as we go. >> >> mike >> >> On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 7:19 AM, Clay Spinuzzi >> wrote: >> >>> Thanks, David, Mike, and Haydi, for your efforts and for the link to the >>> older xmca thread! I appreciate the context as well as the link to the >> PDF. >>> CS >>> >>> >>> Message: 18 >>>> Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 08:09:57 +1000 >>>> From: David Kellogg >>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Writing date of Leontiev - The Present Tasks of >>>> Soviet Psychology ? >>>> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" >>>> Message-ID: >>>> >>> gmail.com> >>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 >>>> Clay: >>>> We discussed this text on xmca back in 2011, e.g. >>>> http://lchc.ucsd.edu/mca/Mail/xmcamail.2011_12.dir/msg00047.html >>>> Here's what Mike said at the time: >>>> "From the book itself, it is difficult to date the articles or to link >>> them >>>> to a particular occasion. The book was published in 1961 and came from >>>> East Germany. From the introductory material by Hans Hiebsch, an East >>>> German >>>>> psychologist, it appears to have followed the "Victory of Lysenko in >>>> August 1948." It appeared in "Soviet Pedagogy" in Number 1, 1949. I do >>> not >>>> have a copy. >>>> I think I have a copy of it back in my library in Korea, in a pamphlet >>> put >>>> out by psychiatrists sympathetic to the Communist Party--sometime in >> the >>>> mid-fifties, at the height of the McCarthy witch-hunt. But I'm in >>> Australia >>>> right now! >>>> David Kellogg >>>> Macquarie University >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Dr. Clay Spinuzzi >>> Associate Chair, Department of Rhetoric and Writing >>> University of Texas at Austin >>> 208 W. 21st St., Stop B5500 >>> Austin, TX 78712-1038 >>> >> >> > From ulvi.icil@gmail.com Sun Apr 16 13:49:30 2017 From: ulvi.icil@gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?VWx2aSDEsMOnaWw=?=) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 23:49:30 +0300 Subject: [Xmca-l] Communist Party of Turkey: 'There is no legitimacy of political power anymore' Message-ID: http://news.sol.org.tr/communist-party-turkey-there-no-legitimacy-political-power-anymore-172017 From dkellogg60@gmail.com Sun Apr 16 14:34:46 2017 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2017 07:34:46 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Communist Party of Turkey: 'There is no legitimacy of political power anymore' In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Ulvi: I wonder how many parents have been taught to play piano by their children. Makes you think that the Suzuki way really is a "Mommy Method"! When I was a kid growing up in France, we learned a parodistic version of the Internationale before we learned the real one, and the last verse always ended with: "L'internationale sera le genre humain (The Internationale will be the human race)." And we would add: "Et le boudin! (And sausage too!)" Since we were not yet in middle school, we thought the last line, which we delivered with a kind of pianistic flourish, was really part of the song. As Lang Lang shows--we were right. (Thanks, Helena!) The "huanwei" ending of the Yellow River Concerto (originally a Cantata) was Xian Xinghai's way of trying to convert a nationalist struggle into an internationalist one. You can see that the struggle of the Kurds against Erdogan has that potential. You can see that Erdogan's struggle against the Kurds does not. From Xian Xinghai's perspective, the TKP position that both struggles are somehow equivalent makes no sense at all: it is like saying that the Chinese struggle against Japan is the same as Japan's struggle against China. And by the way.... a) In English, if you say that there is no legitimacy any more, that means that there was legitimacy before. Was there? b) The TKP admits that the countryside still votes Erdogan, but says there is "no chance" that his legitimacy will be accepted in the cities. How about winning over peasants? c) The statement says that AKP has lost its "capability" to rule. Whistling in the graveyard! d) Nothing--nothing whatsoever--about Kurdistan. David Kellogg Macquarie University On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 6:49 AM, Ulvi ??il wrote: > http://news.sol.org.tr/communist-party-turkey-there- > no-legitimacy-political-power-anymore-172017 > From dkellogg60@gmail.com Sun Apr 16 15:17:10 2017 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2017 08:17:10 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Writing date of Leontiev - The Present Tasks ofSovietPsychology ? In-Reply-To: References: <1492193860269.2316@iped.uio.no> <58f145a5.84cc620a.92676.c3f0@mx.google.com> <58f22d4f.0741630a.1ce0b.4c6d@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Helena: I think I am like you: I came to philosophy rather late in life and I still go there reluctantly. But I also think that both positions: the vulgar materialist one and the good old Bergsonian idealist one, are dualistic. The vulgar materialists say that everything can be explained as a property of matter. Right now that's a touching leap of faith: there isn't any way to explain the deliberate design of behaviour as a property of matter at the moment. My dad rattles on about quantum effects in the brain and so on, but even if we assume that will do it, we are left with a kind of Schrodinger's Cat problem--how do you harness those quantum effects to raising your right arm? I don't think "mediation" can do the trick on its own. As Ruqaiya Hasan said, mediation needs a mediator and a mediat-ee (she's thinking of teaching, of course), and each of these has to have a way of deliberately designing their behaviour. That is why vulgar materialists end up transferring the properties of mediator (and mediat-ee) to the means of mediation itself (why Wertsch, for example, tries to explain development as "decontextualization of mediational means" rather than by the RECONTEXTUALIZATION of that means from mediator-mediat-ee to an imaginary mediator-mediat-ee relationship within the learner). But the truth is that menus can't choose, much less explain their choices: only diners do that. So even the most vulgar materialist will end up an idealist when confronted with a menu. Good old Bergson is in pretty much the same position. So you say that there is some kind of vital essence that does all this heavy lifting. You still have to figure out some point at which the vital essence rolls up its sleeves and interfaces with matter. At least Descartes had his pineal gland, that is, a form of mediation. But mediation doesn't really do the trick here either. Suppose you do what Vygotsky does in HDHMF which is to argue that humans create counter-balances, like the stone counter-weight that allows a woman with a weak arm to draw a heavy goat-skin of water out of a well, and this allows us to overcome one set of stimuli and impose instead another (e.g. to put hold out your arm impassively for an operation without anaesthetic, or to put up with years of schooling in order to enjoy a life of leisured ease). But then you have the same problem: the counter-balance cannot choose to draw water, much less explain its choice: only the woman with the weak arm can do that. So Bergsonians end up dualists, as soon as they get thirsty. Halliday says that there are really two ways of looking at anything: as matter or as meaning. This actually IS true at the level of physics (we speak of entropy of information as well as of molecular motion, and a particle can be thought as a thing or as a wave function). It's true at the level of biology (we can look at life as biochemistry or as ecological interactions). It's even true in sociology (we can see a city as a pile of bricks or as a set of social relations), and of course in my own field, linguistics, I have to work with physical sound waves as well as with semantics. Halliday says that these aren't really two different kinds of substance: they are just two different ways of looking at the same substance. I don't think the two ways are equally useful. It seems to me that "matter" is a more useful way of looking at physics, particularly at the beginning of the universe, but "meaning" becomes more and more important as "matter" gets organized in biology, sociology and above all linguistics. What I think is that at no point is it really useful to say that anything is just "thing", or any meaning is just "meaning". People do that sometimes, e.g. in that text by Hibsch and in the vulgar materialist (Pavlovian) interpretation of activity theory, or when the TKP decides that Erdogan has simply lost all his "capacity" as well as his legitimacy to rule. But they are either being very ingenuous or very disingenuous. There is always meaning in matter and matter in meaning, and it doesn't much matter if we acknowledge it or not. Matter just is, whether we mean it or not; and where there is matter, there is movement, and where there is movement, there is potential and hence meaning. It is said that when Galileo was forced to renounce his heliocentric solar system, with the subversive idea that our earth is a moveable feast, he muttered the words "e pur si muove" ("And yet it will move!") under his breath. I don't know if it's true or not: I suspect it's not true, because Galileo would have known how unnecessary the words were. But here's something that is true. The staunch Catholic and counter-reformation painter Murillo (in whose paintings of children Mike will immediately recognize the world view of Caravaggio) did a portrait of a penitent Galileo in prison, staring at the wall. In 1911 the restorers of the painting uncovered, scrawled on the prison wall and then painted over, the words "e pur si muove!" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei#/media/File:E_pur_si_muove.jpg David Kellogg Macquarie University On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 3:31 AM, Helena Worthen wrote: > HI ? I followed the link provided by Mike: > > >> http://lchc.ucsd.edu/mca/Mail/xmcamail.2011_12.dir/msg00047.html > > > which got me started reading the chapter by Hiebsch, where I found what I > copy below. Isn?t the discussion about mediation a revival of this > fundamental issue? Idealism means dualism; the existence of something > non-material which we would call ?mind? or ?consciousness?. ?Materialism? > eliminates that non-material thing, whatever it is, and turns to culture, > words, language, history and other aspects of social interaction to explain > how human beings differ from animals. > > I don?t see how mediation exposes CHAT to the charge of dualism, though/ I > would say mediation is necessary to avoid the charge of dualism. What you > pick to do the mediation then is the question. > > It?s a pretty riviting chapter. Here?s a quote from pages 12-13: > > "The history of psychology, like that, > of other sciences, is the history of the conflict between > materialism and idealism. All progressive thinkers were > adherents of the materialist theory, while idealism al- > ways provided a foundation of reactionary views. It not > only hampered the progress of sciences, but was an > obstacle to their very formation. We define idealism as > all philosophical theories according to which the psychic > factor is something autonomous and independent of mat- > ter; i.e., it is not a special property of matter, nor is it > a product of the brain. We define materialism, on the > contrary, as all the theories which start from the assump- > tion that the psychic factor has no independent existence, > but is only a property of matter and is formed in the > long process of its development.? > > This is particularly interesting to me becuase of working with researchers > in Viet Nam ? where the education system post-1975 was heavily influenced > by the USSR. the few social scientists i have met recognize the name > Vygotsky but i?ll bet that their view of his work is all the post-1936 > version, which would explain a lot about what I am running into. > > H > > Helena Worthen > helenaworthen@gmail.com > Berkeley, CA 94707 > Blog about US and Viet Nam: helenaworthen.wordpress.com > > > > > On Apr 15, 2017, at 7:25 AM, < > lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Michael, I am aware this thread is focused on Leontiv and tasks of > soviet society. > > Your prompts may need their own particular thread (the idea OF the > plural singular)?? > > > > If it is agreeable to include your and Alfredo?s insights into the > orbit/trajectory of this thread (enlarging it's scope) I hesitantly move to > note 3 (page 168) of your 2006 article. > > > > Your premise that ?sign complexes? & ?commodities? share a family > resemblance because of (a third). That third is the nature ?of? exchange > value that lies ?under? both ?sign complexes? & ?commodities?. This (third) > implying ?commensurability? at the HEART OF (Dad Kapital). > > > > This trajectory (possibly subsumed under the theme: Plural-singular) is > moved forward in your note 3. > > You express in this note that Karl Marx opens (Dad Kapital) with > ?commodity? but does not define this term PRIOR to beginning his analysis > but allows the ?nature of? commodity to emerge in the course of his > analysis AS SOMETHING that has ?use value? & ?exchange value?. > > This being the ?nature of? the ?third?. > > This trajectory is in the (spirit of) Wittgenstein, according to which a > word does not have meaning > > BUT > > That the meaning lies in its use (exchange value). > > This indicating a family resemblance between Marx (in the German > Ideology) & Wittgenstein?s (Philosophische Untersungen). > > > > I acknowledge all this is new and challenging to understand. My intent > is to try to move along WITHIN the orbit of this trajectory squiring a > ?feeling? of the mood. > > Is it time or appropriate to open a new thread titled (Plural-Singular > Realization)? The theme exploring the ?nature of? thirds that include the > nature of ?other? terms as faces, factors, facets, aspects, of the UNIT as > ?third? > > > > Possibly turning to Jean-Luc Nancy?. > > An open question > > > > Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > > > From: Wolff-Michael Roth > > Sent: April 14, 2017 5:18 PM > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Writing date of Leontiev - The Present Tasks > ofSovietPsychology ? > > > > Larry, > > the idea can also be expressed in the Spinozist manner: singular plural > or > > plural singular. The philosopher Jean-Luc Nancy---someone who doesn't > > require mediation, and who writes about mediation that mediates nothing, > > has articulated this idea of the plural singular. Some Spinozist Marxian > > scholars, too, are taking this route. > > Michael > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > -------------------- > > Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor > > Applied Cognitive Science > > MacLaurin Building A567 > > University of Victoria > > Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 > > http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth > > > > New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the- > mathematics-of-mathematics/>* > > > > On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 2:56 PM, wrote: > > > >> Mike indicates grounding our analyses in everyday activities as a focus. > >> Alfredo highlights the many current manifestations of Marxian psychology > >> in our current explorations. > >> > >> This may be an appropriate moment to consider Wolff Michael Roth?s 2006 > >> article (A Dialectical Material Reading of the sign) posted here on > April 9 > >> 2017. > >> Page 141 to 144 opens the article with an empirical example of > everyday > >> activities and identifies the way signs are exchanged at 3 different > levels. > >> 1st) sign complexes are ?traded? between research assistant and > participant > >> 2nd) the person actually ?translates? one sign complex into another sign > >> complex. (graph into text) > >> Another kind of ?translation? occurs while the scientist follows a curve > >> on the graph with his pencil, thereby ?reproducing? the curve iconically > >> 3rd) Roth?s article does NOT feature the original sign complex, but in a > >> manner that (reflects) its content, uses other material sign complexes > to > >> point back to the original sign complexes EXCHANGED during the encounter > >> between the research assistant and participants in the empirical > example. > >> > >> With this grounding ?in? and ?of? exchange levels, Roth moves to Marxian > >> notions of exchange and exchange value through exploring > >> ?commensurability?. On page 143 Roth claims: > >> > >> ?Commensurability, that is sameness in the face of difference, is at the > >> HEART of Karl Marx?s (1976) Capital, and in particular the dialectic of > >> commodities.? > >> > >> Then Roth moves to this (as if relation) between sign complexes and > >> commodities. In Roth?s words: > >> > >> ?It therefore appears as if there is some similarity between signs and > >> commodities UNDER the light of their role and function in EXCHANGE > >> processes? > >> > >> I find Roth?s exploration of ?commensurability? at the ?heart? of Marx?s > >> writing (sign complexes) under the light of exchange relations a > >> fascinating way of understanding (sameness in the face of difference). > >> A theme of symmetry in the face of asymmetry. > >> My turn is up but I find Wolff Michael and Alfredo?s collaboration > >> generative. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Sent from my Windows 10 phone > >> > >> From: Alfredo Jornet Gil > >> Sent: April 14, 2017 11:19 AM > >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Writing date of Leontiev - The Present Tasks of > >> SovietPsychology ? > >> > >> Wow, great historical and bibliographical references, thanks. > >> > >> I just found this 2017 book, where Andy B. has a chapter, and which is > one > >> example (or rather several, as it is an edited volume) of what in the > >> present day is taken to be a Marxist psychology. > >> > >> Ratner, C., & Silva, D.N.H. (Eds.) (2017). Vygotsky and Marx: Toward a > >> Marxist Psychology. Routledge. > >> > >> https://books.google.ca/books?hl=no&lr=&id=ZOyfDgAAQBAJ&oi= > >> fnd&pg=PT126&ots=YeTJ4fOp-h&sig=papwRk5IKK3cJIKophwMNOQOMhM& > >> redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false > >> ________________________________________ > >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > >> on behalf of mike cole > >> Sent: 14 April 2017 18:06 > >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Writing date of Leontiev - The Present Tasks of > >> Soviet Psychology ? > >> > >> The experience of reading those articles helped to deepen our > understanding > >> of the Vygotsky-Leontiev falling out, Clay. For those, like myself, for > >> whom the grounding of our analyses in everyday activities is a central > >> concern, Leontiev gave a way to motivate deeper theorizing of the > "context" > >> of mediated action. > >> > >> Along with Yrjo Engestrom, Arne Raiethel, Alfred Lang, and others we > came > >> up with the "chat" name for attempts to supersede the differences > between > >> them. Pushed toward extremes signocentricism and authoritarian > behaviorism, > >> we opted for both/and. > >> > >> We have been chatting here ever since. And as you can see, recycling and > >> re-thinking prior understandings as we go. > >> > >> mike > >> > >> On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 7:19 AM, Clay Spinuzzi < > clay.spinuzzi@utexas.edu> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> Thanks, David, Mike, and Haydi, for your efforts and for the link to > the > >>> older xmca thread! I appreciate the context as well as the link to the > >> PDF. > >>> CS > >>> > >>> > >>> Message: 18 > >>>> Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 08:09:57 +1000 > >>>> From: David Kellogg > >>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Writing date of Leontiev - The Present Tasks of > >>>> Soviet Psychology ? > >>>> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > >>>> Message-ID: > >>>> >>>> gmail.com> > >>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > >>>> Clay: > >>>> We discussed this text on xmca back in 2011, e.g. > >>>> http://lchc.ucsd.edu/mca/Mail/xmcamail.2011_12.dir/msg00047.html > >>>> Here's what Mike said at the time: > >>>> "From the book itself, it is difficult to date the articles or to link > >>> them > >>>> to a particular occasion. The book was published in 1961 and came from > >>>> East Germany. From the introductory material by Hans Hiebsch, an East > >>>> German > >>>>> psychologist, it appears to have followed the "Victory of Lysenko in > >>>> August 1948." It appeared in "Soviet Pedagogy" in Number 1, 1949. I do > >>> not > >>>> have a copy. > >>>> I think I have a copy of it back in my library in Korea, in a pamphlet > >>> put > >>>> out by psychiatrists sympathetic to the Communist Party--sometime in > >> the > >>>> mid-fifties, at the height of the McCarthy witch-hunt. But I'm in > >>> Australia > >>>> right now! > >>>> David Kellogg > >>>> Macquarie University > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Dr. Clay Spinuzzi > >>> Associate Chair, Department of Rhetoric and Writing > >>> University of Texas at Austin > >>> 208 W. 21st St., Stop B5500 > >>> Austin, TX 78712-1038 > >>> > >> > >> > > > > > From dkellogg60@gmail.com Sun Apr 16 15:23:15 2017 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2017 08:23:15 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Writing date of Leontiev - The Present Tasks ofSovietPsychology ? In-Reply-To: References: <1492193860269.2316@iped.uio.no> <58f145a5.84cc620a.92676.c3f0@mx.google.com> <58f22d4f.0741630a.1ce0b.4c6d@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Sorry--I should have said "the woman's thirstiness cannot draw water, only the woman's weak arm can do that", not "the counterbalance cannot draw water". Now I will shut up and go draw myself some coffee. David Kellogg Macquarie University On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 3:31 AM, Helena Worthen wrote: > HI ? I followed the link provided by Mike: > > >> http://lchc.ucsd.edu/mca/Mail/xmcamail.2011_12.dir/msg00047.html > > > which got me started reading the chapter by Hiebsch, where I found what I > copy below. Isn?t the discussion about mediation a revival of this > fundamental issue? Idealism means dualism; the existence of something > non-material which we would call ?mind? or ?consciousness?. ?Materialism? > eliminates that non-material thing, whatever it is, and turns to culture, > words, language, history and other aspects of social interaction to explain > how human beings differ from animals. > > I don?t see how mediation exposes CHAT to the charge of dualism, though/ I > would say mediation is necessary to avoid the charge of dualism. What you > pick to do the mediation then is the question. > > It?s a pretty riviting chapter. Here?s a quote from pages 12-13: > > "The history of psychology, like that, > of other sciences, is the history of the conflict between > materialism and idealism. All progressive thinkers were > adherents of the materialist theory, while idealism al- > ways provided a foundation of reactionary views. It not > only hampered the progress of sciences, but was an > obstacle to their very formation. We define idealism as > all philosophical theories according to which the psychic > factor is something autonomous and independent of mat- > ter; i.e., it is not a special property of matter, nor is it > a product of the brain. We define materialism, on the > contrary, as all the theories which start from the assump- > tion that the psychic factor has no independent existence, > but is only a property of matter and is formed in the > long process of its development.? > > This is particularly interesting to me becuase of working with researchers > in Viet Nam ? where the education system post-1975 was heavily influenced > by the USSR. the few social scientists i have met recognize the name > Vygotsky but i?ll bet that their view of his work is all the post-1936 > version, which would explain a lot about what I am running into. > > H > > Helena Worthen > helenaworthen@gmail.com > Berkeley, CA 94707 > Blog about US and Viet Nam: helenaworthen.wordpress.com > > > > > On Apr 15, 2017, at 7:25 AM, < > lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Michael, I am aware this thread is focused on Leontiv and tasks of > soviet society. > > Your prompts may need their own particular thread (the idea OF the > plural singular)?? > > > > If it is agreeable to include your and Alfredo?s insights into the > orbit/trajectory of this thread (enlarging it's scope) I hesitantly move to > note 3 (page 168) of your 2006 article. > > > > Your premise that ?sign complexes? & ?commodities? share a family > resemblance because of (a third). That third is the nature ?of? exchange > value that lies ?under? both ?sign complexes? & ?commodities?. This (third) > implying ?commensurability? at the HEART OF (Dad Kapital). > > > > This trajectory (possibly subsumed under the theme: Plural-singular) is > moved forward in your note 3. > > You express in this note that Karl Marx opens (Dad Kapital) with > ?commodity? but does not define this term PRIOR to beginning his analysis > but allows the ?nature of? commodity to emerge in the course of his > analysis AS SOMETHING that has ?use value? & ?exchange value?. > > This being the ?nature of? the ?third?. > > This trajectory is in the (spirit of) Wittgenstein, according to which a > word does not have meaning > > BUT > > That the meaning lies in its use (exchange value). > > This indicating a family resemblance between Marx (in the German > Ideology) & Wittgenstein?s (Philosophische Untersungen). > > > > I acknowledge all this is new and challenging to understand. My intent > is to try to move along WITHIN the orbit of this trajectory squiring a > ?feeling? of the mood. > > Is it time or appropriate to open a new thread titled (Plural-Singular > Realization)? The theme exploring the ?nature of? thirds that include the > nature of ?other? terms as faces, factors, facets, aspects, of the UNIT as > ?third? > > > > Possibly turning to Jean-Luc Nancy?. > > An open question > > > > Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > > > From: Wolff-Michael Roth > > Sent: April 14, 2017 5:18 PM > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Writing date of Leontiev - The Present Tasks > ofSovietPsychology ? > > > > Larry, > > the idea can also be expressed in the Spinozist manner: singular plural > or > > plural singular. The philosopher Jean-Luc Nancy---someone who doesn't > > require mediation, and who writes about mediation that mediates nothing, > > has articulated this idea of the plural singular. Some Spinozist Marxian > > scholars, too, are taking this route. > > Michael > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > -------------------- > > Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor > > Applied Cognitive Science > > MacLaurin Building A567 > > University of Victoria > > Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 > > http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth > > > > New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the- > mathematics-of-mathematics/>* > > > > On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 2:56 PM, wrote: > > > >> Mike indicates grounding our analyses in everyday activities as a focus. > >> Alfredo highlights the many current manifestations of Marxian psychology > >> in our current explorations. > >> > >> This may be an appropriate moment to consider Wolff Michael Roth?s 2006 > >> article (A Dialectical Material Reading of the sign) posted here on > April 9 > >> 2017. > >> Page 141 to 144 opens the article with an empirical example of > everyday > >> activities and identifies the way signs are exchanged at 3 different > levels. > >> 1st) sign complexes are ?traded? between research assistant and > participant > >> 2nd) the person actually ?translates? one sign complex into another sign > >> complex. (graph into text) > >> Another kind of ?translation? occurs while the scientist follows a curve > >> on the graph with his pencil, thereby ?reproducing? the curve iconically > >> 3rd) Roth?s article does NOT feature the original sign complex, but in a > >> manner that (reflects) its content, uses other material sign complexes > to > >> point back to the original sign complexes EXCHANGED during the encounter > >> between the research assistant and participants in the empirical > example. > >> > >> With this grounding ?in? and ?of? exchange levels, Roth moves to Marxian > >> notions of exchange and exchange value through exploring > >> ?commensurability?. On page 143 Roth claims: > >> > >> ?Commensurability, that is sameness in the face of difference, is at the > >> HEART of Karl Marx?s (1976) Capital, and in particular the dialectic of > >> commodities.? > >> > >> Then Roth moves to this (as if relation) between sign complexes and > >> commodities. In Roth?s words: > >> > >> ?It therefore appears as if there is some similarity between signs and > >> commodities UNDER the light of their role and function in EXCHANGE > >> processes? > >> > >> I find Roth?s exploration of ?commensurability? at the ?heart? of Marx?s > >> writing (sign complexes) under the light of exchange relations a > >> fascinating way of understanding (sameness in the face of difference). > >> A theme of symmetry in the face of asymmetry. > >> My turn is up but I find Wolff Michael and Alfredo?s collaboration > >> generative. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Sent from my Windows 10 phone > >> > >> From: Alfredo Jornet Gil > >> Sent: April 14, 2017 11:19 AM > >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Writing date of Leontiev - The Present Tasks of > >> SovietPsychology ? > >> > >> Wow, great historical and bibliographical references, thanks. > >> > >> I just found this 2017 book, where Andy B. has a chapter, and which is > one > >> example (or rather several, as it is an edited volume) of what in the > >> present day is taken to be a Marxist psychology. > >> > >> Ratner, C., & Silva, D.N.H. (Eds.) (2017). Vygotsky and Marx: Toward a > >> Marxist Psychology. Routledge. > >> > >> https://books.google.ca/books?hl=no&lr=&id=ZOyfDgAAQBAJ&oi= > >> fnd&pg=PT126&ots=YeTJ4fOp-h&sig=papwRk5IKK3cJIKophwMNOQOMhM& > >> redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false > >> ________________________________________ > >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > >> on behalf of mike cole > >> Sent: 14 April 2017 18:06 > >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Writing date of Leontiev - The Present Tasks of > >> Soviet Psychology ? > >> > >> The experience of reading those articles helped to deepen our > understanding > >> of the Vygotsky-Leontiev falling out, Clay. For those, like myself, for > >> whom the grounding of our analyses in everyday activities is a central > >> concern, Leontiev gave a way to motivate deeper theorizing of the > "context" > >> of mediated action. > >> > >> Along with Yrjo Engestrom, Arne Raiethel, Alfred Lang, and others we > came > >> up with the "chat" name for attempts to supersede the differences > between > >> them. Pushed toward extremes signocentricism and authoritarian > behaviorism, > >> we opted for both/and. > >> > >> We have been chatting here ever since. And as you can see, recycling and > >> re-thinking prior understandings as we go. > >> > >> mike > >> > >> On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 7:19 AM, Clay Spinuzzi < > clay.spinuzzi@utexas.edu> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> Thanks, David, Mike, and Haydi, for your efforts and for the link to > the > >>> older xmca thread! I appreciate the context as well as the link to the > >> PDF. > >>> CS > >>> > >>> > >>> Message: 18 > >>>> Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 08:09:57 +1000 > >>>> From: David Kellogg > >>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Writing date of Leontiev - The Present Tasks of > >>>> Soviet Psychology ? > >>>> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > >>>> Message-ID: > >>>> >>>> gmail.com> > >>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > >>>> Clay: > >>>> We discussed this text on xmca back in 2011, e.g. > >>>> http://lchc.ucsd.edu/mca/Mail/xmcamail.2011_12.dir/msg00047.html > >>>> Here's what Mike said at the time: > >>>> "From the book itself, it is difficult to date the articles or to link > >>> them > >>>> to a particular occasion. The book was published in 1961 and came from > >>>> East Germany. From the introductory material by Hans Hiebsch, an East > >>>> German > >>>>> psychologist, it appears to have followed the "Victory of Lysenko in > >>>> August 1948." It appeared in "Soviet Pedagogy" in Number 1, 1949. I do > >>> not > >>>> have a copy. > >>>> I think I have a copy of it back in my library in Korea, in a pamphlet > >>> put > >>>> out by psychiatrists sympathetic to the Communist Party--sometime in > >> the > >>>> mid-fifties, at the height of the McCarthy witch-hunt. But I'm in > >>> Australia > >>>> right now! > >>>> David Kellogg > >>>> Macquarie University > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Dr. Clay Spinuzzi > >>> Associate Chair, Department of Rhetoric and Writing > >>> University of Texas at Austin > >>> 208 W. 21st St., Stop B5500 > >>> Austin, TX 78712-1038 > >>> > >> > >> > > > > > From lpscholar2@gmail.com Sun Apr 16 19:17:38 2017 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (Larry Purss) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 19:17:38 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Writing date of Leontiev - The Present TasksofSovietPsychology ? In-Reply-To: References: <1492193860269.2316@iped.uio.no> <58f145a5.84cc620a.92676.c3f0@mx.google.com> <58f22d4f.0741630a.1ce0b.4c6d@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <58f425e8.425c620a.d7749.39f0@mx.google.com> Helena, Thanks for this reflection that as you say is riveting reading. Certainly gives a visceral sense to the meaning of con/text. I want to juxtapose pose your reading as a way of [seeing through] to the historicity of Soviet Psychology with a riveting *figure* from Roth?s article [A Dialectcal Materialist Reading of the Sign] on page 148. I will attach the article so that this figure can be referenced. The figure engages three alternative sign complexes that express the hierarchical relation of travelling through an arc from the most concrete to the least concrete. In other words from the most real [lived-in] world towards the ideal world and ideas. Notice the top figure [looks like a castle turret] in which ?matter? moves to ?form? THEN THE GAP, and then matter-form-gap, matter-form-gap. The gap is critical, being the [interval] Now move down to the five frames [photograph, drawing, diagram, graph, equations] and may particular attention to the GAP separating each of the five frames. Now move down to the third sign complex [written words] and notice this third form [sign complex] is ?translating]? the other two sign complexes presented. Notice in particular the last phrase [from which they are separated by AN ONTOLOGICAL GAP. In all three *different* sign complexes the ONTOLOGICAL GAP exists as being at the ?heart? of translation. Helena, I found this figure#3 [on page 148] riveting. Put into relation with the quotation you presented from the book [Soviet Psychology] we may have a way of deepening our horizon of understanding of the relation of materialism & idealism?? Who knows? Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Helena Worthen Sent: April 16, 2017 10:32 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Writing date of Leontiev - The Present TasksofSovietPsychology ? HI ? I followed the link provided by Mike: >> http://lchc.ucsd.edu/mca/Mail/xmcamail.2011_12.dir/msg00047.html which got me started reading the chapter by Hiebsch, where I found what I copy below. Isn?t the discussion about mediation a revival of this fundamental issue? Idealism means dualism; the existence of something non-material which we would call ?mind? or ?consciousness?. ?Materialism? eliminates that non-material thing, whatever it is, and turns to culture, words, language, history and other aspects of social interaction to explain how human beings differ from animals. I don?t see how mediation exposes CHAT to the charge of dualism, though/ I would say mediation is necessary to avoid the charge of dualism. What you pick to do the mediation then is the question. It?s a pretty riviting chapter. Here?s a quote from pages 12-13: "The history of psychology, like that, of other sciences, is the history of the conflict between materialism and idealism. All progressive thinkers were adherents of the materialist theory, while idealism al- ways provided a foundation of reactionary views. It not only hampered the progress of sciences, but was an obstacle to their very formation. We define idealism as all philosophical theories according to which the psychic factor is something autonomous and independent of mat- ter; i.e., it is not a special property of matter, nor is it a product of the brain. We define materialism, on the contrary, as all the theories which start from the assump- tion that the psychic factor has no independent existence, but is only a property of matter and is formed in the long process of its development.? This is particularly interesting to me becuase of working with researchers in Viet Nam ? where the education system post-1975 was heavily influenced by the USSR. the few social scientists i have met recognize the name Vygotsky but i?ll bet that their view of his work is all the post-1936 version, which would explain a lot about what I am running into. H Helena Worthen helenaworthen@gmail.com Berkeley, CA 94707 Blog about US and Viet Nam: helenaworthen.wordpress.com > On Apr 15, 2017, at 7:25 AM, wrote: > > Michael, I am aware this thread is focused on Leontiv and tasks of soviet society. > Your prompts may need their own particular thread (the idea OF the plural singular)?? > > If it is agreeable to include your and Alfredo?s insights into the orbit/trajectory of this thread (enlarging it's scope) I hesitantly move to note 3 (page 168) of your 2006 article. > > Your premise that ?sign complexes? & ?commodities? share a family resemblance because of (a third). That third is the nature ?of? exchange value that lies ?under? both ?sign complexes? & ?commodities?. This (third) implying ?commensurability? at the HEART OF (Dad Kapital). > > This trajectory (possibly subsumed under the theme: Plural-singular) is moved forward in your note 3. > You express in this note that Karl Marx opens (Dad Kapital) with ?commodity? but does not define this term PRIOR to beginning his analysis but allows the ?nature of? commodity to emerge in the course of his analysis AS SOMETHING that has ?use value? & ?exchange value?. > This being the ?nature of? the ?third?. > This trajectory is in the (spirit of) Wittgenstein, according to which a word does not have meaning > BUT > That the meaning lies in its use (exchange value). > This indicating a family resemblance between Marx (in the German Ideology) & Wittgenstein?s (Philosophische Untersungen). > > I acknowledge all this is new and challenging to understand. My intent is to try to move along WITHIN the orbit of this trajectory squiring a ?feeling? of the mood. > Is it time or appropriate to open a new thread titled (Plural-Singular Realization)? The theme exploring the ?nature of? thirds that include the nature of ?other? terms as faces, factors, facets, aspects, of the UNIT as ?third? > > Possibly turning to Jean-Luc Nancy?. > An open question > > Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > From: Wolff-Michael Roth > Sent: April 14, 2017 5:18 PM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Writing date of Leontiev - The Present Tasks ofSovietPsychology ? > > Larry, > the idea can also be expressed in the Spinozist manner: singular plural or > plural singular. The philosopher Jean-Luc Nancy---someone who doesn't > require mediation, and who writes about mediation that mediates nothing, > has articulated this idea of the plural singular. Some Spinozist Marxian > scholars, too, are taking this route. > Michael > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor > Applied Cognitive Science > MacLaurin Building A567 > University of Victoria > Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 > http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth > > New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > * > > On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 2:56 PM, wrote: > >> Mike indicates grounding our analyses in everyday activities as a focus. >> Alfredo highlights the many current manifestations of Marxian psychology >> in our current explorations. >> >> This may be an appropriate moment to consider Wolff Michael Roth?s 2006 >> article (A Dialectical Material Reading of the sign) posted here on April 9 >> 2017. >> Page 141 to 144 opens the article with an empirical example of everyday >> activities and identifies the way signs are exchanged at 3 different levels. >> 1st) sign complexes are ?traded? between research assistant and participant >> 2nd) the person actually ?translates? one sign complex into another sign >> complex. (graph into text) >> Another kind of ?translation? occurs while the scientist follows a curve >> on the graph with his pencil, thereby ?reproducing? the curve iconically >> 3rd) Roth?s article does NOT feature the original sign complex, but in a >> manner that (reflects) its content, uses other material sign complexes to >> point back to the original sign complexes EXCHANGED during the encounter >> between the research assistant and participants in the empirical example. >> >> With this grounding ?in? and ?of? exchange levels, Roth moves to Marxian >> notions of exchange and exchange value through exploring >> ?commensurability?. On page 143 Roth claims: >> >> ?Commensurability, that is sameness in the face of difference, is at the >> HEART of Karl Marx?s (1976) Capital, and in particular the dialectic of >> commodities.? >> >> Then Roth moves to this (as if relation) between sign complexes and >> commodities. In Roth?s words: >> >> ?It therefore appears as if there is some similarity between signs and >> commodities UNDER the light of their role and function in EXCHANGE >> processes? >> >> I find Roth?s exploration of ?commensurability? at the ?heart? of Marx?s >> writing (sign complexes) under the light of exchange relations a >> fascinating way of understanding (sameness in the face of difference). >> A theme of symmetry in the face of asymmetry. >> My turn is up but I find Wolff Michael and Alfredo?s collaboration >> generative. >> >> >> >> >> >> Sent from my Windows 10 phone >> >> From: Alfredo Jornet Gil >> Sent: April 14, 2017 11:19 AM >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Writing date of Leontiev - The Present Tasks of >> SovietPsychology ? >> >> Wow, great historical and bibliographical references, thanks. >> >> I just found this 2017 book, where Andy B. has a chapter, and which is one >> example (or rather several, as it is an edited volume) of what in the >> present day is taken to be a Marxist psychology. >> >> Ratner, C., & Silva, D.N.H. (Eds.) (2017). Vygotsky and Marx: Toward a >> Marxist Psychology. Routledge. >> >> https://books.google.ca/books?hl=no&lr=&id=ZOyfDgAAQBAJ&oi= >> fnd&pg=PT126&ots=YeTJ4fOp-h&sig=papwRk5IKK3cJIKophwMNOQOMhM& >> redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false >> ________________________________________ >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >> on behalf of mike cole >> Sent: 14 April 2017 18:06 >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Writing date of Leontiev - The Present Tasks of >> Soviet Psychology ? >> >> The experience of reading those articles helped to deepen our understanding >> of the Vygotsky-Leontiev falling out, Clay. For those, like myself, for >> whom the grounding of our analyses in everyday activities is a central >> concern, Leontiev gave a way to motivate deeper theorizing of the "context" >> of mediated action. >> >> Along with Yrjo Engestrom, Arne Raiethel, Alfred Lang, and others we came >> up with the "chat" name for attempts to supersede the differences between >> them. Pushed toward extremes signocentricism and authoritarian behaviorism, >> we opted for both/and. >> >> We have been chatting here ever since. And as you can see, recycling and >> re-thinking prior understandings as we go. >> >> mike >> >> On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 7:19 AM, Clay Spinuzzi >> wrote: >> >>> Thanks, David, Mike, and Haydi, for your efforts and for the link to the >>> older xmca thread! I appreciate the context as well as the link to the >> PDF. >>> CS >>> >>> >>> Message: 18 >>>> Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 08:09:57 +1000 >>>> From: David Kellogg >>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Writing date of Leontiev - The Present Tasks of >>>> Soviet Psychology ? >>>> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" >>>> Message-ID: >>>> >>> gmail.com> >>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 >>>> Clay: >>>> We discussed this text on xmca back in 2011, e.g. >>>> http://lchc.ucsd.edu/mca/Mail/xmcamail.2011_12.dir/msg00047.html >>>> Here's what Mike said at the time: >>>> "From the book itself, it is difficult to date the articles or to link >>> them >>>> to a particular occasion. The book was published in 1961 and came from >>>> East Germany. From the introductory material by Hans Hiebsch, an East >>>> German >>>>> psychologist, it appears to have followed the "Victory of Lysenko in >>>> August 1948." It appeared in "Soviet Pedagogy" in Number 1, 1949. I do >>> not >>>> have a copy. >>>> I think I have a copy of it back in my library in Korea, in a pamphlet >>> put >>>> out by psychiatrists sympathetic to the Communist Party--sometime in >> the >>>> mid-fifties, at the height of the McCarthy witch-hunt. But I'm in >>> Australia >>>> right now! >>>> David Kellogg >>>> Macquarie University >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Dr. Clay Spinuzzi >>> Associate Chair, Department of Rhetoric and Writing >>> University of Texas at Austin >>> 208 W. 21st St., Stop B5500 >>> Austin, TX 78712-1038 >>> >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ROTH WOLFF MICHAEL APRIL 9 2017 A Dialectical Materialist Reading of the Sign.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 819165 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20170416/6338ffa9/attachment-0001.pdf From lpscholar2@gmail.com Mon Apr 17 08:31:26 2017 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (lpscholar2@gmail.com) Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2017 08:31:26 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value' Message-ID: <58f4dfe0.5a45620a.c2a11.c004@mx.google.com> I am attempting to follow Wolff-Michael?s 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 ?use-value? & sign complex ?value?. His methodology is to read Marx ?substituting? the word ?SIGN? (implying sign complex) FOR ?commodity? 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: ?natural signs? such as animal footprints are useful/functional to the hunter inherently; they do NOT have ?value? (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 ?value? (exchangeable). Someone who satisfies HER needs through her product produces ?use-value? but NOT ?value?. b) VALUE: (exchangeable). To produce SIGNS (complexes), she has to produce not only ?use-value? but use-value FOR others. She has to produce ?societal? use-values.... To be/come (exchangeable) SIGN, the product HAS TO BE TRANSFERRED to another, FOR whom the SIGN complex ?constitutes? use-value. The production of signs that produce no ?value? that is exchangeable FOR others leads to personal notes often having NO use-value to others. To trans/form use-value to BE come ?value? 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 ?use-value? & ?value? (exchangeable) My morning musement Sent from my Windows 10 phone From ulvi.icil@gmail.com Mon Apr 17 09:39:21 2017 From: ulvi.icil@gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?VWx2aSDEsMOnaWw=?=) Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2017 19:39:21 +0300 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Communist Party of Turkey: 'There is no legitimacy of political power anymore' In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: David, We founded our first legal party in 1992 with the name Party for Socialist Turkey because we believe that seizure of the political power is at the center of Marxism and Leninism, a central point I believe today and in the last 100 years after October, tens of communist parties could not understand due to a very poor understanding of leninism, that "develop democracy first, then socialist revolution" nonsense. I look at today's communist parties for being able to see who is for a socialist revolution, in the October sense, led by urban proletariat supported by rural proletariat. I can not see such a leninist party, except our party, greek communist party, to a certain extent venezuelan, russian communist workers' party but unfortunately none in Latin America, nor in Asia and Africa, nowhere in the South. Our first party wrote it in its program that autodetermination of Kurdish people was an absolute right and it was forbidden in 1993, we foresaw it. But we wrote it. Then we founded Party for Socialist Power in 1993. Then we took the actual name. In all three programs, it is stated that Kurdish people and Turkish people are the equal founder peoples of Socialist Turkey. I draw your attention to this point: equal founder peoples a a future socialist Turkey. David, this programatic stance is well beyond that of the current Kurdish social democratic movement. We see ourselves as the communist party of both kurdish as well as turkish proletariat, urban and rural. Kurdish dynamics is immensely valuable. For what? For a socialist revolution. We always attached great value to it and we imagined that Kurdish people's struggle is very important for such a revolution as long as...it is a movement for poor peasants, workers. (Now in the midst of an immensely barbaric capitalist exploitation, this movement does absolutely nothing for Kurdish workers in cities like Istanbul where millions of Kurdish people work). Then, Kurdish movement especially since 1995 preferred another path, it got closer to islamists and exploiting Kurdish bougeoisie and to imperialist European Union and United States. Currently, Kurdish capital Diyarbakir, is less important to this movement than Brussels and Washington. And why Demirtas now in jail does not make its party's press conferences in its own buildings but in businessmen's restaurants related with Mr. Soros, without having any shame to say that the votes received by its party represent a victory for the toiled masses. The name of this businessman is osman kavala. He headed Soros' Open Society Foundation in Turkey for some years and together with Demirtas they labeled June 2013 movement in Turkey as an attempt of coup d'etat to Erdogan. Kurdish movement, Demirtas and Ocalan stated more than once that they saved Erdogan and this is public information. Everyone knows that any time Erdogan will call them they will approach him selling the people's cause. They are nit anti imperialist, they are praising islamic figures together with Erdogan, they do nit defend laicism and leftist values anymore. Minutes of meetings between state and Ocalan are published and it is also a public information that since long time Ocalan and the state work together on a project. A project to liquidate communist movement via adherence to this heroic epic Kurdish people's struggle. In fact, there is no more left in Turkey, except our party. It adhered to Kurdish movement who makes negotiations, bargains with AKP and with EU and USA. If, in the name of respecting this epic struggle, we are expected to forget our primary task, that of preparing a socialist revolution in Turkey, we will not do that. Never. We are not stupid. And we have our own lessons from these 100 years, of the capability of inperialism how to manage leftist movements, national liberation movements etc as in the case of Syriza, Spain and Portugal that I mentioned before even as in USSR. Kurdish movement can rely on our support as long as they are jailed, as soon as they struggle for Kurdish masses. But if while they are giving their right hand to Graham Fuller from CIA and expect us to take their left hand. No. We are now clever enough after so many hard lessons. I would be glad to know more revolutionary movements, communist parties, their existence if any, which, like us, concentrate their efforts only and only, immediately on the seizure of the political power by the proletariat. Not for "struggling" for "advanced democracy stupidities. 17 Nis 2017 00:36 tarihinde "David Kellogg" yazd?: > Ulvi: > > I wonder how many parents have been taught to play piano by their children. > Makes you think that the Suzuki way really is a "Mommy Method"! > > When I was a kid growing up in France, we learned a parodistic version of > the Internationale before we learned the real one, and the last verse > always ended with: > > "L'internationale sera le genre humain (The Internationale will be the > human race)." > > And we would add: > > "Et le boudin! (And sausage too!)" > > Since we were not yet in middle school, we thought the last line, which we > delivered with a kind of pianistic flourish, was really part of the song. > As Lang Lang shows--we were right. (Thanks, Helena!) > > The "huanwei" ending of the Yellow River Concerto (originally a Cantata) > was Xian Xinghai's way of trying to convert a nationalist struggle into an > internationalist one. You can see that the struggle of the Kurds against > Erdogan has that potential. You can see that Erdogan's struggle against the > Kurds does not. From Xian Xinghai's perspective, the TKP position that both > struggles are somehow equivalent makes no sense at all: it is like saying > that the Chinese struggle against Japan is the same as Japan's struggle > against China. > > And by the way.... > > a) In English, if you say that there is no legitimacy any more, that means > that there was legitimacy before. Was there? > b) The TKP admits that the countryside still votes Erdogan, but says there > is "no chance" that his legitimacy will be accepted in the cities. How > about winning over peasants? > c) The statement says that AKP has lost its "capability" to rule. Whistling > in the graveyard! > d) Nothing--nothing whatsoever--about Kurdistan. > > David Kellogg > Macquarie University > > On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 6:49 AM, Ulvi ??il wrote: > > > http://news.sol.org.tr/communist-party-turkey-there- > > no-legitimacy-political-power-anymore-172017 > > > From wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com Mon Apr 17 10:22:18 2017 From: wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com (Wolff-Michael Roth) Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2017 10:22:18 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value' In-Reply-To: <58f4dfe0.5a45620a.c2a11.c004@mx.google.com> References: <58f4dfe0.5a45620a.c2a11.c004@mx.google.com> Message-ID: 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 "r?le". I am quoting from p. 178: Marx joins Hegel as regards terminology, and not Kant or Fichte, who tried to solve the problem of ?ideality? (i.e., activity) while remaining ?inside consciousness?, 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 ?ideality? takes in the whole range of phenomena within which the ?ideal?, 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 ?moment? 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 people?s eyes, the commodity-form of the product, particularly in its dazzling money-form, in the form of the notorious ?real talers?, ?real roubles?, or ?real dollars?, things which, as soon as we have the slightest theoretical understanding of them, immediately turn out to be not ?real? at all, but ?ideal? through and through, things whose category quite unambiguously includes words, the units of language, and many other ?things?. Things that, while being wholly ?material?, palpable-corporeal formations, acquire all their ?meaning? (function and r?le) from ?spirit?, from ?thought? 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 New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics * On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 8:31 AM, wrote: > I am attempting to follow Wolff-Michael?s 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 ?use-value? & sign > complex ?value?. > His methodology is to read Marx ?substituting? the word ?SIGN? (implying > sign complex) FOR ?commodity? 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: ?natural signs? such as animal footprints are > useful/functional to the hunter inherently; they do NOT have ?value? > (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 ?value? (exchangeable). Someone who > satisfies HER needs through her product produces ?use-value? but NOT > ?value?. > b) VALUE: (exchangeable). To produce SIGNS (complexes), she has to produce > not only ?use-value? but use-value FOR others. She has to produce > ?societal? use-values.... To be/come (exchangeable) SIGN, the product HAS > TO BE TRANSFERRED to another, FOR whom the SIGN complex ?constitutes? > use-value. > > The production of signs that produce no ?value? that is exchangeable FOR > others leads to personal notes often having NO use-value to others. To > trans/form use-value to BE come ?value? 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 ?use-value? & ?value? > (exchangeable) > My morning musement > > Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > From julian.williams@manchester.ac.uk Mon Apr 17 12:11:19 2017 From: julian.williams@manchester.ac.uk (Julian Williams) Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2017 19:11:19 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value' In-Reply-To: References: <58f4dfe0.5a45620a.c2a11.c004@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Michael and all I am coming late to this discussion and maybe have been missing some important things? 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 .. '?? ? ' 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 field? 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 say?) when I have thought about this a bit more - maybe in 2018? we should pick up! :-) On 17/04/2017 18:22, "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Wolff-Michael Roth" 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 >"r?le". I am quoting from p. 178: > >Marx joins Hegel as regards terminology, and not Kant or Fichte, >who tried to solve the problem of ?ideality? (i.e., activity) while >remaining ?inside >consciousness?, 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 ?ideality? takes in the whole >range of phenomena >within which the ?ideal?, 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 ?moment? 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 people?s eyes, the >commodity-form of >the product, particularly in its dazzling money-form, in the form of the >notorious ?real >talers?, ?real roubles?, or ?real dollars?, things which, as soon as we >have the slightest >theoretical understanding of them, immediately turn out to be not ?real? >at >all, but ?ideal? >through and through, things whose category quite unambiguously includes >words, the >units of language, and many other ?things?. Things that, while being >wholly >?material?, >palpable-corporeal formations, acquire all their ?meaning? (function and >r?le) from ?spirit?, >from ?thought? 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 > >New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of-mathematics/>* > >On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 8:31 AM, wrote: > >> I am attempting to follow Wolff-Michael?s 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 ?use-value? & >>sign >> complex ?value?. >> His methodology is to read Marx ?substituting? the word ?SIGN? (implying >> sign complex) FOR ?commodity? 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: ?natural signs? such as animal footprints are >> useful/functional to the hunter inherently; they do NOT have ?value? >> (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 ?value? (exchangeable). Someone >>who >> satisfies HER needs through her product produces ?use-value? but NOT >> ?value?. >> b) VALUE: (exchangeable). To produce SIGNS (complexes), she has to >>produce >> not only ?use-value? but use-value FOR others. She has to produce >> ?societal? use-values.... To be/come (exchangeable) SIGN, the product >>HAS >> TO BE TRANSFERRED to another, FOR whom the SIGN complex ?constitutes? >> use-value. >> >> The production of signs that produce no ?value? that is exchangeable FOR >> others leads to personal notes often having NO use-value to others. To >> trans/form use-value to BE come ?value? 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 ?use-value? & >>?value? >> (exchangeable) >> My morning musement >> >> Sent from my Windows 10 phone >> >> From wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com Mon Apr 17 13:49:41 2017 From: wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com (Wolff-Michael Roth) Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2017 13:49:41 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value' In-Reply-To: References: <58f4dfe0.5a45620a.c2a11.c004@mx.google.com> Message-ID: 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 New book: *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 things? 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 .. '?? ? ' > 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 field? 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 say?) when I have thought about this a bit more - maybe in > 2018? we should pick up! :-) > > On 17/04/2017 18:22, "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of > Wolff-Michael Roth" 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 > >"r?le". I am quoting from p. 178: > > > >Marx joins Hegel as regards terminology, and not Kant or Fichte, > >who tried to solve the problem of ?ideality? (i.e., activity) while > >remaining ?inside > >consciousness?, 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 ?ideality? takes in the whole > >range of phenomena > >within which the ?ideal?, 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 ?moment? 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 people?s eyes, the > >commodity-form of > >the product, particularly in its dazzling money-form, in the form of the > >notorious ?real > >talers?, ?real roubles?, or ?real dollars?, things which, as soon as we > >have the slightest > >theoretical understanding of them, immediately turn out to be not ?real? > >at > >all, but ?ideal? > >through and through, things whose category quite unambiguously includes > >words, the > >units of language, and many other ?things?. Things that, while being > >wholly > >?material?, > >palpable-corporeal formations, acquire all their ?meaning? (function and > >r?le) from ?spirit?, > >from ?thought? 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 > > > >New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > directions-in-mat > >hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of-mathematics/>* > > > >On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 8:31 AM, wrote: > > > >> I am attempting to follow Wolff-Michael?s 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 ?use-value? & > >>sign > >> complex ?value?. > >> His methodology is to read Marx ?substituting? the word ?SIGN? (implying > >> sign complex) FOR ?commodity? 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: ?natural signs? such as animal footprints are > >> useful/functional to the hunter inherently; they do NOT have ?value? > >> (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 ?value? (exchangeable). Someone > >>who > >> satisfies HER needs through her product produces ?use-value? but NOT > >> ?value?. > >> b) VALUE: (exchangeable). To produce SIGNS (complexes), she has to > >>produce > >> not only ?use-value? but use-value FOR others. She has to produce > >> ?societal? use-values.... To be/come (exchangeable) SIGN, the product > >>HAS > >> TO BE TRANSFERRED to another, FOR whom the SIGN complex ?constitutes? > >> use-value. > >> > >> The production of signs that produce no ?value? that is exchangeable FOR > >> others leads to personal notes often having NO use-value to others. To > >> trans/form use-value to BE come ?value? 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 ?use-value? & > >>?value? > >> (exchangeable) > >> My morning musement > >> > >> Sent from my Windows 10 phone > >> > >> > > > From julian.williams@manchester.ac.uk Mon Apr 17 14:01:33 2017 From: julian.williams@manchester.ac.uk (Julian Williams) Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2017 21:01:33 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value' In-Reply-To: References: <58f4dfe0.5a45620a.c2a11.c004@mx.google.com> Message-ID: 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" 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 > >New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >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 things? 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 .. '?? ? ' >> 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 field? 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 say?) when I have thought about this a bit more - maybe in >> 2018? we should pick up! :-) >> >> On 17/04/2017 18:22, "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of >> Wolff-Michael Roth" > 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 >> >"r?le". I am quoting from p. 178: >> > >> >Marx joins Hegel as regards terminology, and not Kant or Fichte, >> >who tried to solve the problem of ?ideality? (i.e., activity) while >> >remaining ?inside >> >consciousness?, 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 ?ideality? takes in the whole >> >range of phenomena >> >within which the ?ideal?, 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 ?moment? 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 people?s eyes, the >> >commodity-form of >> >the product, particularly in its dazzling money-form, in the form of >>the >> >notorious ?real >> >talers?, ?real roubles?, or ?real dollars?, things which, as soon as we >> >have the slightest >> >theoretical understanding of them, immediately turn out to be not >>?real? >> >at >> >all, but ?ideal? >> >through and through, things whose category quite unambiguously includes >> >words, the >> >units of language, and many other ?things?. Things that, while being >> >wholly >> >?material?, >> >palpable-corporeal formations, acquire all their ?meaning? (function >>and >> >r?le) from ?spirit?, >> >from ?thought? 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 >> > >> >New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >> >> directions-in-mat >> >hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of-mathematics/>* >> > >> >On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 8:31 AM, wrote: >> > >> >> I am attempting to follow Wolff-Michael?s 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 ?use-value? & >> >>sign >> >> complex ?value?. >> >> His methodology is to read Marx ?substituting? the word ?SIGN? >>(implying >> >> sign complex) FOR ?commodity? 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: ?natural signs? such as animal footprints are >> >> useful/functional to the hunter inherently; they do NOT have ?value? >> >> (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 ?value? (exchangeable). Someone >> >>who >> >> satisfies HER needs through her product produces ?use-value? but NOT >> >> ?value?. >> >> b) VALUE: (exchangeable). To produce SIGNS (complexes), she has to >> >>produce >> >> not only ?use-value? but use-value FOR others. She has to produce >> >> ?societal? use-values.... To be/come (exchangeable) SIGN, the product >> >>HAS >> >> TO BE TRANSFERRED to another, FOR whom the SIGN complex ?constitutes? >> >> use-value. >> >> >> >> The production of signs that produce no ?value? that is exchangeable >>FOR >> >> others leads to personal notes often having NO use-value to others. >>To >> >> trans/form use-value to BE come ?value? 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 ?use-value? & >> >>?value? >> >> (exchangeable) >> >> My morning musement >> >> >> >> Sent from my Windows 10 phone >> >> >> >> >> >> >> From wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com Mon Apr 17 14:10:46 2017 From: wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com (Wolff-Michael Roth) Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2017 14:10:46 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value' In-Reply-To: References: <58f4dfe0.5a45620a.c2a11.c004@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Julian, I have shown it in a number of cases: the contradiction exists in the in-principle different supersensuous aspect, what Bateson refers to as the double vision that IS the relation! Michael -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor Applied Cognitive Science MacLaurin Building A567 University of Victoria Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics * On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 2:01 PM, Julian Williams < julian.williams@manchester.ac.uk> 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" 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 > > > >New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > directions-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 things? 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 .. '?? ? ' > >> 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 field? 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 say?) when I have thought about this a bit more - maybe in > >> 2018? we should pick up! :-) > >> > >> On 17/04/2017 18:22, "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of > >> Wolff-Michael Roth" >> 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 > >> >"r?le". I am quoting from p. 178: > >> > > >> >Marx joins Hegel as regards terminology, and not Kant or Fichte, > >> >who tried to solve the problem of ?ideality? (i.e., activity) while > >> >remaining ?inside > >> >consciousness?, 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 ?ideality? takes in the whole > >> >range of phenomena > >> >within which the ?ideal?, 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 ?moment? 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 people?s eyes, the > >> >commodity-form of > >> >the product, particularly in its dazzling money-form, in the form of > >>the > >> >notorious ?real > >> >talers?, ?real roubles?, or ?real dollars?, things which, as soon as we > >> >have the slightest > >> >theoretical understanding of them, immediately turn out to be not > >>?real? > >> >at > >> >all, but ?ideal? > >> >through and through, things whose category quite unambiguously includes > >> >words, the > >> >units of language, and many other ?things?. Things that, while being > >> >wholly > >> >?material?, > >> >palpable-corporeal formations, acquire all their ?meaning? (function > >>and > >> >r?le) from ?spirit?, > >> >from ?thought? 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 > >> > > >> >New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > >> > >> directions-in-mat > >> >hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of-mathematics/>* > >> > > >> >On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 8:31 AM, wrote: > >> > > >> >> I am attempting to follow Wolff-Michael?s 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 ?use-value? & > >> >>sign > >> >> complex ?value?. > >> >> His methodology is to read Marx ?substituting? the word ?SIGN? > >>(implying > >> >> sign complex) FOR ?commodity? 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: ?natural signs? such as animal footprints are > >> >> useful/functional to the hunter inherently; they do NOT have ?value? > >> >> (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 ?value? (exchangeable). Someone > >> >>who > >> >> satisfies HER needs through her product produces ?use-value? but NOT > >> >> ?value?. > >> >> b) VALUE: (exchangeable). To produce SIGNS (complexes), she has to > >> >>produce > >> >> not only ?use-value? but use-value FOR others. She has to produce > >> >> ?societal? use-values.... To be/come (exchangeable) SIGN, the product > >> >>HAS > >> >> TO BE TRANSFERRED to another, FOR whom the SIGN complex ?constitutes? > >> >> use-value. > >> >> > >> >> The production of signs that produce no ?value? that is exchangeable > >>FOR > >> >> others leads to personal notes often having NO use-value to others. > >>To > >> >> trans/form use-value to BE come ?value? 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 ?use-value? & > >> >>?value? > >> >> (exchangeable) > >> >> My morning musement > >> >> > >> >> Sent from my Windows 10 phone > >> >> > >> >> > >> > >> > >> > > > From dkellogg60@gmail.com Mon Apr 17 14:29:17 2017 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 07:29:17 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Communist Party of Turkey: 'There is no legitimacy of political power anymore' In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: You didn't answer any of my four questions, Ulvi. They had nothing to do with TKP history, Syriza, George Soros, Abdullah Ocalan or any connection, real or imaginary, between them. I don't care who owns the restaurants where Kurdish leaders meet. (When I taught about use value and exchange value to steelworkers in Algeria, we met in restaurants owned by street gangs and drug pushers.) My questions were about the statement which the TKP released which you circulated on this list. I think it's an important moment, and it's worth circulating a statement. But I also think that it's worth asking some questions about it, and getting some answers. So let's stay on topic (YOUR topic) as best we can. David Kellogg Macquarie University On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 2:39 AM, Ulvi ??il wrote: > David, > We founded our first legal party in 1992 with the name Party for Socialist > Turkey because we believe that seizure of the political power is at the > center of Marxism and Leninism, a central point I believe today and in the > last 100 years after October, tens of communist parties could not > understand due to a very poor understanding of leninism, that "develop > democracy first, then socialist revolution" nonsense. I look at today's > communist parties for being able to see who is for a socialist revolution, > in the October sense, led by urban proletariat supported by rural > proletariat. I can not see such a leninist party, except our party, greek > communist party, to a certain extent venezuelan, russian communist workers' > party but unfortunately none in Latin America, nor in Asia and Africa, > nowhere in the South. > Our first party wrote it in its program that autodetermination of Kurdish > people was an absolute right and it was forbidden in 1993, we foresaw it. > But we wrote it. Then we founded Party for Socialist Power in 1993. Then we > took the actual name. In all three programs, it is stated that Kurdish > people and Turkish people are the equal founder peoples of Socialist > Turkey. I draw your attention to this point: equal founder peoples a a > future socialist Turkey. > > David, this programatic stance is well beyond that of the current Kurdish > social democratic movement. We see ourselves as the communist party of both > kurdish as well as turkish proletariat, urban and rural. > > Kurdish dynamics is immensely valuable. For what? For a socialist > revolution. We always attached great value to it and we imagined that > Kurdish people's struggle is very important for such a revolution as long > as...it is a movement for poor peasants, workers. > (Now in the midst of an immensely barbaric capitalist exploitation, this > movement does absolutely nothing for Kurdish workers in cities like > Istanbul where millions of Kurdish people work). > > Then, Kurdish movement especially since 1995 preferred another path, it got > closer to islamists and exploiting Kurdish bougeoisie and to imperialist > European Union and United States. > > Currently, Kurdish capital Diyarbakir, is less important to this movement > than Brussels and Washington. > > And why Demirtas now in jail does not make its party's press conferences in > its own buildings but in businessmen's restaurants related with Mr. Soros, > without having any shame to say that the votes received by its party > represent a victory for the toiled masses. > > The name of this businessman is osman kavala. He headed Soros' Open Society > Foundation in Turkey for some years and together with Demirtas they labeled > June 2013 movement in Turkey as an attempt of coup d'etat to Erdogan. > > Kurdish movement, Demirtas and Ocalan stated more than once that they saved > Erdogan and this is public information. > > Everyone knows that any time Erdogan will call them they will approach him > selling the people's cause. They are nit anti imperialist, they are > praising islamic figures together with Erdogan, they do nit defend laicism > and leftist values anymore. > > Minutes of meetings between state and Ocalan are published and it is also a > public information that since long time Ocalan and the state work together > on a project. A project to liquidate communist > movement via adherence to this heroic epic Kurdish people's struggle. > > In fact, there is no more left in Turkey, except our party. It adhered to > Kurdish movement who makes negotiations, bargains with AKP and with EU and > USA. > > If, in the name of respecting this epic struggle, we are expected to forget > our primary task, that of preparing a socialist revolution in Turkey, we > will not do that. Never. We are not stupid. And we have our own lessons > from these 100 years, of the capability of inperialism how to manage > leftist movements, national liberation movements etc as in the case of > Syriza, Spain and Portugal that I mentioned before even as in USSR. > > Kurdish movement can rely on our support as long as they are jailed, as > soon as they struggle for Kurdish masses. > > But if while they are giving their right hand to Graham Fuller from CIA and > expect us to take their left hand. > > No. We are now clever enough after so many hard lessons. > > I would be glad to know more revolutionary movements, communist parties, > their existence if any, which, like us, concentrate their efforts only and > only, immediately on the seizure of the political power by the proletariat. > Not for "struggling" for "advanced democracy stupidities. > > > > 17 Nis 2017 00:36 tarihinde "David Kellogg" yazd?: > > > Ulvi: > > > > I wonder how many parents have been taught to play piano by their > children. > > Makes you think that the Suzuki way really is a "Mommy Method"! > > > > When I was a kid growing up in France, we learned a parodistic version of > > the Internationale before we learned the real one, and the last verse > > always ended with: > > > > "L'internationale sera le genre humain (The Internationale will be the > > human race)." > > > > And we would add: > > > > "Et le boudin! (And sausage too!)" > > > > Since we were not yet in middle school, we thought the last line, which > we > > delivered with a kind of pianistic flourish, was really part of the song. > > As Lang Lang shows--we were right. (Thanks, Helena!) > > > > The "huanwei" ending of the Yellow River Concerto (originally a Cantata) > > was Xian Xinghai's way of trying to convert a nationalist struggle into > an > > internationalist one. You can see that the struggle of the Kurds against > > Erdogan has that potential. You can see that Erdogan's struggle against > the > > Kurds does not. From Xian Xinghai's perspective, the TKP position that > both > > struggles are somehow equivalent makes no sense at all: it is like saying > > that the Chinese struggle against Japan is the same as Japan's struggle > > against China. > > > > And by the way.... > > > > a) In English, if you say that there is no legitimacy any more, that > means > > that there was legitimacy before. Was there? > > b) The TKP admits that the countryside still votes Erdogan, but says > there > > is "no chance" that his legitimacy will be accepted in the cities. How > > about winning over peasants? > > c) The statement says that AKP has lost its "capability" to rule. > Whistling > > in the graveyard! > > d) Nothing--nothing whatsoever--about Kurdistan. > > > > David Kellogg > > Macquarie University > > > > On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 6:49 AM, Ulvi ??il wrote: > > > > > http://news.sol.org.tr/communist-party-turkey-there- > > > no-legitimacy-political-power-anymore-172017 > > > > > > From ulvi.icil@gmail.com Mon Apr 17 15:13:15 2017 From: ulvi.icil@gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?VWx2aSDEsMOnaWw=?=) Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 01:13:15 +0300 Subject: [Xmca-l] Fwd: Re: Communist Party of Turkey: 'There is no legitimacy of political power anymore' In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: David, a) I do not know if this is an error in English but we surely do not think that Erdogan had legitimacy before. I think that in such a declaration there is no harm to focus on and to emphasize the current illegitimate situation and no one in Turkey will criticize TKP (CPT) for, with such a statement, legitimizing earlier situation because we are well known with our anti bourgois parliamentarist path and rhetoric and criticized rather for this latter. I can say that this statement relies on this accumulated perception of our party in this direction. We are comfortable about it. Our aim is a focus, an emphasis. b) We think that countryside will follow the big cities in Turkey and that this latter are determining the course in Turkey. There are tens of cities in Turkey, with traditionally reactionary ideologies but we think that primary are the big cities and not only the biggest three , but some biggest 10 or 15. Rural proletarit, we believe will follow urban proletariat ideologically or let's say forced to follow. For c) David, it is apparent that Turkey can not be governed in this manner, impossible. In fact, Erdogan currently does not govern. What lengthens Erdogan's political life is solely that imperialism too in a deeper crisis and they do not want to get rid of it at this stage. But in cities kie Antalya in south, a foreign minister went for a meeting before referendum and only some 200 people gathered where the result on Sunday was % 50 - 50. Turkey is not a banana republic, governable in Erdogan's manner. They demolished 1923 republic, try to establish a new one, and you see, can a second republic be built on the foundation of such a fraud? d) About Kurdistan, I preferred to present our general understanding. Currently, due to serious mistakes of Kurdish movement about confrontations with state forces, there is a complete disaster in the Kurdish cities. Due to this mistaken policies of Kurdish movement, Kurdish people and cities are in a very bad situation. Since years, in Turkey, especially on the left movement, there is an understanding that the most urgent problem is Kurdish problem and that firstly, Kurdish problem must be solved first. We always stood against such an approach together with solidarising with Kurdish people. Because we believe that Kurdish problem is not the most urgent question in Turkey (and in Kurdistan), that the most urgent one is the capitalist exploitation of both Kurdish and Turkish working masses. We disagree with Kurdish movement in that dependency on imperialism, capitalist exploitation problem are problems to be postponed to after the solution of Kurdish problem. Conceiving Kurdish problem solely as a national problem divides the working-class in Turkey. We conceive Kurdish problem as a labour problem. Specifically, in this statement we did not mention Kurdistan. Why to mention it specifically in a statement which covers the whole country? I do not see it necessary to make any reference to Kurdistan in such a statement. And this does not make us non internationalist. We do not have misconceptions of any kind of Turkish nationalism in our movement nor any reserve about Kurdish people. P.S. Owner of the restaurant is important in this case. It is not a random example. He is well-known as a Soros guy. Why to reject it as a concrete fact? Why to reject the connections of Kurdish politics with such people? Not only in restaurants, but also in popular uprisings like the one in June 2013. When events broke, Kurdish MPs came together with him to Taksim square, to take the lead of the movement and to prevent it from becoming one against Erdogan. They struggled for preventing the slogans requesting Erdogan's dismissal. Why to conceal the fact that Kurdish movement is a collaborator of imperialism, of USA, of European Union. Everybody knows this, it is public information. They themselves do not reject this fact.That Kurdish leader Demirtas was promoted on bourgeois mass media during the election campaign in 2015, everyone knows this. That Kurdish movement deliberately preferred to include in its body islamist and reactionary figures as MPs is also a public information. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: David Kellogg Date: 18 April 2017 at 00:29 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Communist Party of Turkey: 'There is no legitimacy of political power anymore' To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" You didn't answer any of my four questions, Ulvi. They had nothing to do with TKP history, Syriza, George Soros, Abdullah Ocalan or any connection, real or imaginary, between them. I don't care who owns the restaurants where Kurdish leaders meet. (When I taught about use value and exchange value to steelworkers in Algeria, we met in restaurants owned by street gangs and drug pushers.) My questions were about the statement which the TKP released which you circulated on this list. I think it's an important moment, and it's worth circulating a statement. But I also think that it's worth asking some questions about it, and getting some answers. So let's stay on topic (YOUR topic) as best we can. David Kellogg Macquarie University On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 2:39 AM, Ulvi ??il wrote: > David, > We founded our first legal party in 1992 with the name Party for Socialist > Turkey because we believe that seizure of the political power is at the > center of Marxism and Leninism, a central point I believe today and in the > last 100 years after October, tens of communist parties could not > understand due to a very poor understanding of leninism, that "develop > democracy first, then socialist revolution" nonsense. I look at today's > communist parties for being able to see who is for a socialist revolution, > in the October sense, led by urban proletariat supported by rural > proletariat. I can not see such a leninist party, except our party, greek > communist party, to a certain extent venezuelan, russian communist workers' > party but unfortunately none in Latin America, nor in Asia and Africa, > nowhere in the South. > Our first party wrote it in its program that autodetermination of Kurdish > people was an absolute right and it was forbidden in 1993, we foresaw it. > But we wrote it. Then we founded Party for Socialist Power in 1993. Then we > took the actual name. In all three programs, it is stated that Kurdish > people and Turkish people are the equal founder peoples of Socialist > Turkey. I draw your attention to this point: equal founder peoples a a > future socialist Turkey. > > David, this programatic stance is well beyond that of the current Kurdish > social democratic movement. We see ourselves as the communist party of both > kurdish as well as turkish proletariat, urban and rural. > > Kurdish dynamics is immensely valuable. For what? For a socialist > revolution. We always attached great value to it and we imagined that > Kurdish people's struggle is very important for such a revolution as long > as...it is a movement for poor peasants, workers. > (Now in the midst of an immensely barbaric capitalist exploitation, this > movement does absolutely nothing for Kurdish workers in cities like > Istanbul where millions of Kurdish people work). > > Then, Kurdish movement especially since 1995 preferred another path, it got > closer to islamists and exploiting Kurdish bougeoisie and to imperialist > European Union and United States. > > Currently, Kurdish capital Diyarbakir, is less important to this movement > than Brussels and Washington. > > And why Demirtas now in jail does not make its party's press conferences in > its own buildings but in businessmen's restaurants related with Mr. Soros, > without having any shame to say that the votes received by its party > represent a victory for the toiled masses. > > The name of this businessman is osman kavala. He headed Soros' Open Society > Foundation in Turkey for some years and together with Demirtas they labeled > June 2013 movement in Turkey as an attempt of coup d'etat to Erdogan. > > Kurdish movement, Demirtas and Ocalan stated more than once that they saved > Erdogan and this is public information. > > Everyone knows that any time Erdogan will call them they will approach him > selling the people's cause. They are nit anti imperialist, they are > praising islamic figures together with Erdogan, they do nit defend laicism > and leftist values anymore. > > Minutes of meetings between state and Ocalan are published and it is also a > public information that since long time Ocalan and the state work together > on a project. A project to liquidate communist > movement via adherence to this heroic epic Kurdish people's struggle. > > In fact, there is no more left in Turkey, except our party. It adhered to > Kurdish movement who makes negotiations, bargains with AKP and with EU and > USA. > > If, in the name of respecting this epic struggle, we are expected to forget > our primary task, that of preparing a socialist revolution in Turkey, we > will not do that. Never. We are not stupid. And we have our own lessons > from these 100 years, of the capability of inperialism how to manage > leftist movements, national liberation movements etc as in the case of > Syriza, Spain and Portugal that I mentioned before even as in USSR. > > Kurdish movement can rely on our support as long as they are jailed, as > soon as they struggle for Kurdish masses. > > But if while they are giving their right hand to Graham Fuller from CIA and > expect us to take their left hand. > > No. We are now clever enough after so many hard lessons. > > I would be glad to know more revolutionary movements, communist parties, > their existence if any, which, like us, concentrate their efforts only and > only, immediately on the seizure of the political power by the proletariat. > Not for "struggling" for "advanced democracy stupidities. > > > > 17 Nis 2017 00:36 tarihinde "David Kellogg" yazd?: > > > Ulvi: > > > > I wonder how many parents have been taught to play piano by their > children. > > Makes you think that the Suzuki way really is a "Mommy Method"! > > > > When I was a kid growing up in France, we learned a parodistic version of > > the Internationale before we learned the real one, and the last verse > > always ended with: > > > > "L'internationale sera le genre humain (The Internationale will be the > > human race)." > > > > And we would add: > > > > "Et le boudin! (And sausage too!)" > > > > Since we were not yet in middle school, we thought the last line, which > we > > delivered with a kind of pianistic flourish, was really part of the song. > > As Lang Lang shows--we were right. (Thanks, Helena!) > > > > The "huanwei" ending of the Yellow River Concerto (originally a Cantata) > > was Xian Xinghai's way of trying to convert a nationalist struggle into > an > > internationalist one. You can see that the struggle of the Kurds against > > Erdogan has that potential. You can see that Erdogan's struggle against > the > > Kurds does not. From Xian Xinghai's perspective, the TKP position that > both > > struggles are somehow equivalent makes no sense at all: it is like saying > > that the Chinese struggle against Japan is the same as Japan's struggle > > against China. > > > > And by the way.... > > > > a) In English, if you say that there is no legitimacy any more, that > means > > that there was legitimacy before. Was there? > > b) The TKP admits that the countryside still votes Erdogan, but says > there > > is "no chance" that his legitimacy will be accepted in the cities. How > > about winning over peasants? > > c) The statement says that AKP has lost its "capability" to rule. > Whistling > > in the graveyard! > > d) Nothing--nothing whatsoever--about Kurdistan. > > > > David Kellogg > > Macquarie University > > > > On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 6:49 AM, Ulvi ??il wrote: > > > > > http://news.sol.org.tr/communist-party-turkey-there- > > > no-legitimacy-political-power-anymore-172017 > > > > > > From helenaworthen@gmail.com Mon Apr 17 17:17:33 2017 From: helenaworthen@gmail.com (Helena Worthen) Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2017 17:17:33 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Communist Party of Turkey: 'There is no legitimacy of political power anymore' In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <770787EC-EBD8-4512-910D-00FC63473171@gmail.com> Hi, guys -- I was actually interested in the history Ulvi was telling. No one else around here is going to share that. And it's interesting, David, that you taught steelworkers in Algeria -- when was that? Post-revolution, I assume. We're about the same age. H Helena Worthen helenaworthen@gmail.com Vietnam blog: helenaworthen.wordpress.com On Apr 17, 2017, at 2:29 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > You didn't answer any of my four questions, Ulvi. They had nothing to do > with TKP history, Syriza, George Soros, Abdullah Ocalan or any connection, > real or imaginary, between them. I don't care who owns the restaurants > where Kurdish leaders meet. (When I taught about use value and exchange > value to steelworkers in Algeria, we met in restaurants owned by street > gangs and drug pushers.) > > My questions were about the statement which the TKP released which you > circulated on this list. I think it's an important moment, and it's worth > circulating a statement. But I also think that it's worth asking some > questions about it, and getting some answers. So let's stay on topic (YOUR > topic) as best we can. > > David Kellogg > Macquarie University > > On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 2:39 AM, Ulvi ??il wrote: > >> David, >> We founded our first legal party in 1992 with the name Party for Socialist >> Turkey because we believe that seizure of the political power is at the >> center of Marxism and Leninism, a central point I believe today and in the >> last 100 years after October, tens of communist parties could not >> understand due to a very poor understanding of leninism, that "develop >> democracy first, then socialist revolution" nonsense. I look at today's >> communist parties for being able to see who is for a socialist revolution, >> in the October sense, led by urban proletariat supported by rural >> proletariat. I can not see such a leninist party, except our party, greek >> communist party, to a certain extent venezuelan, russian communist workers' >> party but unfortunately none in Latin America, nor in Asia and Africa, >> nowhere in the South. >> Our first party wrote it in its program that autodetermination of Kurdish >> people was an absolute right and it was forbidden in 1993, we foresaw it. >> But we wrote it. Then we founded Party for Socialist Power in 1993. Then we >> took the actual name. In all three programs, it is stated that Kurdish >> people and Turkish people are the equal founder peoples of Socialist >> Turkey. I draw your attention to this point: equal founder peoples a a >> future socialist Turkey. >> >> David, this programatic stance is well beyond that of the current Kurdish >> social democratic movement. We see ourselves as the communist party of both >> kurdish as well as turkish proletariat, urban and rural. >> >> Kurdish dynamics is immensely valuable. For what? For a socialist >> revolution. We always attached great value to it and we imagined that >> Kurdish people's struggle is very important for such a revolution as long >> as...it is a movement for poor peasants, workers. >> (Now in the midst of an immensely barbaric capitalist exploitation, this >> movement does absolutely nothing for Kurdish workers in cities like >> Istanbul where millions of Kurdish people work). >> >> Then, Kurdish movement especially since 1995 preferred another path, it got >> closer to islamists and exploiting Kurdish bougeoisie and to imperialist >> European Union and United States. >> >> Currently, Kurdish capital Diyarbakir, is less important to this movement >> than Brussels and Washington. >> >> And why Demirtas now in jail does not make its party's press conferences in >> its own buildings but in businessmen's restaurants related with Mr. Soros, >> without having any shame to say that the votes received by its party >> represent a victory for the toiled masses. >> >> The name of this businessman is osman kavala. He headed Soros' Open Society >> Foundation in Turkey for some years and together with Demirtas they labeled >> June 2013 movement in Turkey as an attempt of coup d'etat to Erdogan. >> >> Kurdish movement, Demirtas and Ocalan stated more than once that they saved >> Erdogan and this is public information. >> >> Everyone knows that any time Erdogan will call them they will approach him >> selling the people's cause. They are nit anti imperialist, they are >> praising islamic figures together with Erdogan, they do nit defend laicism >> and leftist values anymore. >> >> Minutes of meetings between state and Ocalan are published and it is also a >> public information that since long time Ocalan and the state work together >> on a project. A project to liquidate communist >> movement via adherence to this heroic epic Kurdish people's struggle. >> >> In fact, there is no more left in Turkey, except our party. It adhered to >> Kurdish movement who makes negotiations, bargains with AKP and with EU and >> USA. >> >> If, in the name of respecting this epic struggle, we are expected to forget >> our primary task, that of preparing a socialist revolution in Turkey, we >> will not do that. Never. We are not stupid. And we have our own lessons >> from these 100 years, of the capability of inperialism how to manage >> leftist movements, national liberation movements etc as in the case of >> Syriza, Spain and Portugal that I mentioned before even as in USSR. >> >> Kurdish movement can rely on our support as long as they are jailed, as >> soon as they struggle for Kurdish masses. >> >> But if while they are giving their right hand to Graham Fuller from CIA and >> expect us to take their left hand. >> >> No. We are now clever enough after so many hard lessons. >> >> I would be glad to know more revolutionary movements, communist parties, >> their existence if any, which, like us, concentrate their efforts only and >> only, immediately on the seizure of the political power by the proletariat. >> Not for "struggling" for "advanced democracy stupidities. >> >> >> >> 17 Nis 2017 00:36 tarihinde "David Kellogg" yazd?: >> >>> Ulvi: >>> >>> I wonder how many parents have been taught to play piano by their >> children. >>> Makes you think that the Suzuki way really is a "Mommy Method"! >>> >>> When I was a kid growing up in France, we learned a parodistic version of >>> the Internationale before we learned the real one, and the last verse >>> always ended with: >>> >>> "L'internationale sera le genre humain (The Internationale will be the >>> human race)." >>> >>> And we would add: >>> >>> "Et le boudin! (And sausage too!)" >>> >>> Since we were not yet in middle school, we thought the last line, which >> we >>> delivered with a kind of pianistic flourish, was really part of the song. >>> As Lang Lang shows--we were right. (Thanks, Helena!) >>> >>> The "huanwei" ending of the Yellow River Concerto (originally a Cantata) >>> was Xian Xinghai's way of trying to convert a nationalist struggle into >> an >>> internationalist one. You can see that the struggle of the Kurds against >>> Erdogan has that potential. You can see that Erdogan's struggle against >> the >>> Kurds does not. From Xian Xinghai's perspective, the TKP position that >> both >>> struggles are somehow equivalent makes no sense at all: it is like saying >>> that the Chinese struggle against Japan is the same as Japan's struggle >>> against China. >>> >>> And by the way.... >>> >>> a) In English, if you say that there is no legitimacy any more, that >> means >>> that there was legitimacy before. Was there? >>> b) The TKP admits that the countryside still votes Erdogan, but says >> there >>> is "no chance" that his legitimacy will be accepted in the cities. How >>> about winning over peasants? >>> c) The statement says that AKP has lost its "capability" to rule. >> Whistling >>> in the graveyard! >>> d) Nothing--nothing whatsoever--about Kurdistan. >>> >>> David Kellogg >>> Macquarie University >>> >>> On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 6:49 AM, Ulvi ??il wrote: >>> >>>> http://news.sol.org.tr/communist-party-turkey-there- >>>> no-legitimacy-political-power-anymore-172017 >>>> >>> >> From ablunden@mira.net Mon Apr 17 23:52:22 2017 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 16:52:22 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value' In-Reply-To: References: <58f4dfe0.5a45620a.c2a11.c004@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <62ef71d1-672d-bf3e-cae2-87aecbd09692@mira.net> 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-making 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" 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 >> >> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >> > 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 things? 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 .. '?? ? ' >>> 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 field? 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 say?) when I have thought about this a bit more - maybe in >>> 2018? we should pick up! :-) >>> >>> On 17/04/2017 18:22, "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of >>> Wolff-Michael Roth" >> 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 >>>> "r?le". I am quoting from p. 178: >>>> >>>> Marx joins Hegel as regards terminology, and not Kant or Fichte, >>>> who tried to solve the problem of ?ideality? (i.e., activity) while >>>> remaining ?inside >>>> consciousness?, 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 ?ideality? takes in the whole >>>> range of phenomena >>>> within which the ?ideal?, 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 ?moment? 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 people?s eyes, the >>>> commodity-form of >>>> the product, particularly in its dazzling money-form, in the form of >>> the >>>> notorious ?real >>>> talers?, ?real roubles?, or ?real dollars?, things which, as soon as we >>>> have the slightest >>>> theoretical understanding of them, immediately turn out to be not >>> ?real? >>>> at >>>> all, but ?ideal? >>>> through and through, things whose category quite unambiguously includes >>>> words, the >>>> units of language, and many other ?things?. Things that, while being >>>> wholly >>>> ?material?, >>>> palpable-corporeal formations, acquire all their ?meaning? (function >>> and >>>> r?le) from ?spirit?, >>> >from ?thought? 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 >>>> >>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >>>> >> directions-in-mat >>>> hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of-mathematics/>* >>>> >>>> On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 8:31 AM, wrote: >>>> >>>>> I am attempting to follow Wolff-Michael?s 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 ?use-value? & >>>>> sign >>>>> complex ?value?. >>>>> His methodology is to read Marx ?substituting? the word ?SIGN? >>> (implying >>>>> sign complex) FOR ?commodity? 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: ?natural signs? such as animal footprints are >>>>> useful/functional to the hunter inherently; they do NOT have ?value? >>>>> (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 ?value? (exchangeable). Someone >>>>> who >>>>> satisfies HER needs through her product produces ?use-value? but NOT >>>>> ?value?. >>>>> b) VALUE: (exchangeable). To produce SIGNS (complexes), she has to >>>>> produce >>>>> not only ?use-value? but use-value FOR others. She has to produce >>>>> ?societal? use-values.... To be/come (exchangeable) SIGN, the product >>>>> HAS >>>>> TO BE TRANSFERRED to another, FOR whom the SIGN complex ?constitutes? >>>>> use-value. >>>>> >>>>> The production of signs that produce no ?value? that is exchangeable >>> FOR >>>>> others leads to personal notes often having NO use-value to others. >>> To >>>>> trans/form use-value to BE come ?value? 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 ?use-value? & >>>>> ?value? >>>>> (exchangeable) >>>>> My morning musement >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> > > > From ulvi.icil@gmail.com Tue Apr 18 04:33:49 2017 From: ulvi.icil@gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?VWx2aSDEsMOnaWw=?=) Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 14:33:49 +0300 Subject: [Xmca-l] PCV: 'An independent and class-based block is growing' | international communist press In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: http://icp.sol.org.tr/americasa/pcv-independent-and-class-based-block-growing A valuable informing interview I think. There is also a declaration about a support to VCP on icp.sol.org.tr page. Also here is a review and a narrow leninist group in world communist movement. iccr.gr From ulvi.icil@gmail.com Tue Apr 18 04:58:15 2017 From: ulvi.icil@gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?VWx2aSDEsMOnaWw=?=) Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 14:58:15 +0300 Subject: [Xmca-l] Kemal Okuyan: 'This country has no choice but struggle' Message-ID: http://news.sol.org.tr/kemal-okuyan-country-has-no-choice-struggle-172036 From lpscholar2@gmail.com Tue Apr 18 06:44:02 2017 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (lpscholar2@gmail.com) Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 06:44:02 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value' In-Reply-To: <62ef71d1-672d-bf3e-cae2-87aecbd09692@mira.net> References: <58f4dfe0.5a45620a.c2a11.c004@mx.google.com> <62ef71d1-672d-bf3e-cae2-87aecbd09692@mira.net> Message-ID: <58f61836.8e2c620a.3b9e9.7d11@mx.google.com> 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 Sent: April 17, 2017 11:54 PM To: 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-making 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" 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 >> >> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >> > 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 things? 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 .. '?? ? ' >>> 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 field? 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 say?) when I have thought about this a bit more - maybe in >>> 2018? we should pick up! :-) >>> >>> On 17/04/2017 18:22, "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of >>> Wolff-Michael Roth" >> 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 >>>> "r?le". I am quoting from p. 178: >>>> >>>> Marx joins Hegel as regards terminology, and not Kant or Fichte, >>>> who tried to solve the problem of ?ideality? (i.e., activity) while >>>> remaining ?inside >>>> consciousness?, 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 ?ideality? takes in the whole >>>> range of phenomena >>>> within which the ?ideal?, 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 ?moment? 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 people?s eyes, the >>>> commodity-form of >>>> the product, particularly in its dazzling money-form, in the form of >>> the >>>> notorious ?real >>>> talers?, ?real roubles?, or ?real dollars?, things which, as soon as we >>>> have the slightest >>>> theoretical understanding of them, immediately turn out to be not >>> ?real? >>>> at >>>> all, but ?ideal? >>>> through and through, things whose category quite unambiguously includes >>>> words, the >>>> units of language, and many other ?things?. Things that, while being >>>> wholly >>>> ?material?, >>>> palpable-corporeal formations, acquire all their ?meaning? (function >>> and >>>> r?le) from ?spirit?, >>> >from ?thought? 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 >>>> >>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >>>> >> directions-in-mat >>>> hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of-mathematics/>* >>>> >>>> On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 8:31 AM, wrote: >>>> >>>>> I am attempting to follow Wolff-Michael?s 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 ?use-value? & >>>>> sign >>>>> complex ?value?. >>>>> His methodology is to read Marx ?substituting? the word ?SIGN? >>> (implying >>>>> sign complex) FOR ?commodity? 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: ?natural signs? such as animal footprints are >>>>> useful/functional to the hunter inherently; they do NOT have ?value? >>>>> (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 ?value? (exchangeable). Someone >>>>> who >>>>> satisfies HER needs through her product produces ?use-value? but NOT >>>>> ?value?. >>>>> b) VALUE: (exchangeable). To produce SIGNS (complexes), she has to >>>>> produce >>>>> not only ?use-value? but use-value FOR others. She has to produce >>>>> ?societal? use-values.... To be/come (exchangeable) SIGN, the product >>>>> HAS >>>>> TO BE TRANSFERRED to another, FOR whom the SIGN complex ?constitutes? >>>>> use-value. >>>>> >>>>> The production of signs that produce no ?value? that is exchangeable >>> FOR >>>>> others leads to personal notes often having NO use-value to others. >>> To >>>>> trans/form use-value to BE come ?value? 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 ?use-value? & >>>>> ?value? >>>>> (exchangeable) >>>>> My morning musement >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> > > > From ablunden@mira.net Tue Apr 18 08:18:11 2017 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 01:18:11 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value' In-Reply-To: <58f61836.8e2c620a.3b9e9.7d11@mx.google.com> References: <58f4dfe0.5a45620a.c2a11.c004@mx.google.com> <62ef71d1-672d-bf3e-cae2-87aecbd09692@mira.net> <58f61836.8e2c620a.3b9e9.7d11@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <0d06b705-2e34-1171-1a2e-f4be2a14503b@mira.net> different trajectories, Larry. a ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://home.mira.net/~andy http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making 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 > *Sent: *April 17, 2017 11:54 PM > *To: *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-making > > > 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" 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 > > > >> > > >> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > >> > > >> > 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 things? 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 .. '?? ? ' > > >>> 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 field? 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 say?) when I have thought about this a bit > more - maybe in > > >>> 2018? we should pick up! :-) > > >>> > > >>> On 17/04/2017 18:22, "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of > > >>> Wolff-Michael Roth" 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 > > >>>> "r?le". I am quoting from p. 178: > > >>>> > > >>>> Marx joins Hegel as regards terminology, and not Kant > or Fichte, > > >>>> who tried to solve the problem of ?ideality? (i.e., > activity) while > > >>>> remaining ?inside > > >>>> consciousness?, 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 ?ideality? > takes in the whole > > >>>> range of phenomena > > >>>> within which the ?ideal?, 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 ?moment? 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 > people?s eyes, the > > >>>> commodity-form of > > >>>> the product, particularly in its dazzling money-form, > in the form of > > >>> the > > >>>> notorious ?real > > >>>> talers?, ?real roubles?, or ?real dollars?, things > which, as soon as we > > >>>> have the slightest > > >>>> theoretical understanding of them, immediately turn > out to be not > > >>> ?real? > > >>>> at > > >>>> all, but ?ideal? > > >>>> through and through, things whose category quite > unambiguously includes > > >>>> words, the > > >>>> units of language, and many other ?things?. Things > that, while being > > >>>> wholly > > >>>> ?material?, > > >>>> palpable-corporeal formations, acquire all their > ?meaning? (function > > >>> and > > >>>> r?le) from ?spirit?, > > >>> >from ?thought? 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 > > > >>>> > > >>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > >>>> > >>> directions-in-mat > > >>>> > hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of-mathematics/>* > > >>>> > > >>>> On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 8:31 AM, > wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> I am attempting to follow Wolff-Michael?s 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 ?use-value? & > > >>>>> sign > > >>>>> complex ?value?. > > >>>>> His methodology is to read Marx ?substituting? the > word ?SIGN? > > >>> (implying > > >>>>> sign complex) FOR ?commodity? 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: ?natural signs? such as animal > footprints are > > >>>>> useful/functional to the hunter inherently; they do > NOT have ?value? > > >>>>> (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 ?value? > (exchangeable). Someone > > >>>>> who > > >>>>> satisfies HER needs through her product produces > ?use-value? but NOT > > >>>>> ?value?. > > >>>>> b) VALUE: (exchangeable). To produce SIGNS > (complexes), she has to > > >>>>> produce > > >>>>> not only ?use-value? but use-value FOR others. She > has to produce > > >>>>> ?societal? use-values.... To be/come (exchangeable) > SIGN, the product > > >>>>> HAS > > >>>>> TO BE TRANSFERRED to another, FOR whom the SIGN > complex ?constitutes? > > >>>>> use-value. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> The production of signs that produce no ?value? that > is exchangeable > > >>> FOR > > >>>>> others leads to personal notes often having NO > use-value to others. > > >>> To > > >>>>> trans/form use-value to BE come ?value? 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 > ?use-value? & > > >>>>> ?value? > > >>>>> (exchangeable) > > >>>>> My morning musement > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > From wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com Tue Apr 18 08:34:43 2017 From: wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com (Wolff-Michael Roth) Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 08:34:43 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value' In-Reply-To: <0d06b705-2e34-1171-1a2e-f4be2a14503b@mira.net> References: <58f4dfe0.5a45620a.c2a11.c004@mx.google.com> <62ef71d1-672d-bf3e-cae2-87aecbd09692@mira.net> <58f61836.8e2c620a.3b9e9.7d11@mx.google.com> <0d06b705-2e34-1171-1a2e-f4be2a14503b@mira.net> Message-ID: 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 New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics * On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 8:18 AM, Andy Blunden wrote: > different trajectories, Larry. > > a > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://home.mira.net/~andy > http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making > 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 >> *Sent: *April 17, 2017 11:54 PM >> *To: *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-making >> >> 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" > >> > 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 >> >> >> >> >> >> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >> >> >> > 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 things? 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 .. '?? >> ? ' >> >> >>> 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 field? 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 say?) when I have thought about this a bit more - maybe in >> >> >>> 2018? we should pick up! :-) >> >> >>> >> >> >>> On 17/04/2017 18:22, "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of >> >> >>> Wolff-Michael Roth" > >> >>> 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 >> >> >>>> "r?le". I am quoting from p. 178: >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> Marx joins Hegel as regards terminology, and not Kant or Fichte, >> >> >>>> who tried to solve the problem of ?ideality? (i.e., activity) while >> >> >>>> remaining ?inside >> >> >>>> consciousness?, 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 ?ideality? takes in the >> whole >> >> >>>> range of phenomena >> >> >>>> within which the ?ideal?, 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 ?moment? 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 people?s eyes, the >> >> >>>> commodity-form of >> >> >>>> the product, particularly in its dazzling money-form, in the form of >> >> >>> the >> >> >>>> notorious ?real >> >> >>>> talers?, ?real roubles?, or ?real dollars?, things which, as soon as >> we >> >> >>>> have the slightest >> >> >>>> theoretical understanding of them, immediately turn out to be not >> >> >>> ?real? >> >> >>>> at >> >> >>>> all, but ?ideal? >> >> >>>> through and through, things whose category quite unambiguously >> includes >> >> >>>> words, the >> >> >>>> units of language, and many other ?things?. Things that, while being >> >> >>>> wholly >> >> >>>> ?material?, >> >> >>>> palpable-corporeal formations, acquire all their ?meaning? (function >> >> >>> and >> >> >>>> r?le) from ?spirit?, >> >> >>> >from ?thought? 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 >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >> >> >>>> > >> >>> directions-in-mat >> >> >>>> hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of-mathematics/>* >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 8:31 AM, wrote: >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>>> I am attempting to follow Wolff-Michael?s 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 ?use-value? >> & >> >> >>>>> sign >> >> >>>>> complex ?value?. >> >> >>>>> His methodology is to read Marx ?substituting? the word ?SIGN? >> >> >>> (implying >> >> >>>>> sign complex) FOR ?commodity? 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: ?natural signs? such as animal footprints are >> >> >>>>> useful/functional to the hunter inherently; they do NOT have ?value? >> >> >>>>> (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 ?value? (exchangeable). >> Someone >> >> >>>>> who >> >> >>>>> satisfies HER needs through her product produces ?use-value? but NOT >> >> >>>>> ?value?. >> >> >>>>> b) VALUE: (exchangeable). To produce SIGNS (complexes), she has to >> >> >>>>> produce >> >> >>>>> not only ?use-value? but use-value FOR others. She has to produce >> >> >>>>> ?societal? use-values.... To be/come (exchangeable) SIGN, the >> product >> >> >>>>> HAS >> >> >>>>> TO BE TRANSFERRED to another, FOR whom the SIGN complex >> ?constitutes? >> >> >>>>> use-value. >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> The production of signs that produce no ?value? that is exchangeable >> >> >>> FOR >> >> >>>>> others leads to personal notes often having NO use-value to others. >> >> >>> To >> >> >>>>> trans/form use-value to BE come ?value? 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 ?use-value? & >> >> >>>>> ?value? >> >> >>>>> (exchangeable) >> >> >>>>> My morning musement >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > From ewall@umich.edu Tue Apr 18 09:11:09 2017 From: ewall@umich.edu (Edward Wall) Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 11:11:09 -0500 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: [Rstlist] RST versus issue trees? In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.0.14.2.20170412123807.04946608@mail.hughes.net> Message-ID: David I apologize in taking so long in getting back to this; my email account has been essentially inaccessible for a week. Thanks for this analysis! I will pass it on. Ed > On Apr 12, 2017, at 4:48 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > > Ed: > > What happens to an "issue tree" when a branch breaks, either because the > wind is too strong or the branch is too long? Here are some > non-metaphorical examples of what I mean, taken directly from the links you > provided: > > "There are some well known indicators that expressed thought has a > branching structure. The outline, for example, and the nesting of blog > comments are both tree structures. There are also various so-called ?mind > mapping? techniques. My discovery is that this structure is precise, well > defined and universal.Actually it is not quite this simple because > sometimes a statement will refer to a body of prior statements rather that > a single one, but that is an advanced topic. The real question is, how is > this useful to know?" > > There are some not very well known indicators that the author is being a > sloppy thinker here. For example, an outline is actually a list. It can be > nested, but it isn't always. And nesting isn't always an example of > branching structure (it's usually an example of embedding, which is > something quite different). "Mind-mapping" can include branching > and nesting, but the original idea was that it was supposed to include > everything, whether connected or not, and then you clear away things that > are not connected. > > Our author doesn't clear away any of this. To his credit, though, he does > hesitate a little over the sheer audacity of "My discovery...". But then > he provides us with the classic business-school fake-out: I know the > answer, but it's too advanced for you; it's for my high-paying customers. > Here's a question you Art of the Deal 101 types really WILL care about: how > can I USE this? Since we are not business school types, but academics, we > might consider this as his answer: > > "For some time I have been working on a basic model of scientific progress > (or, since ?progress? is a value-loaded term, a model of how science > progresses)." > > Now, you can see that the material in parentheses is indeed an answer to a > question which the imaginary interlocutor might have about the first > clause, to wit: > > "What the hell do you mean, progress? You call this progress?" > > We shall leave aside, for the moment, the na?ve assumption that words like > "model", "scientific", "working", and even "for some time" are not value > loaded in precisely the same way. You can certainly see that his idea > that turning a noun into a verb makes it less value-loaded is risible. > > I think RST is a much more serious approach, Ed. The problem that David > Wojick is TRYING to address with his sloppy thinking is a key one: it's > Vygotsky's genetic law ""How does communication lead to > co-generalization?"), the problem Bernstein raised ("How does the outside > become the inside?" which is actually a NON-dualist question), and an > essential problem of speech development in children ("How does dialogue > become narrative, in artistic thinking, and how do verbalized perceptions > give rise to hierarchies of invisible concepts"?). > > So for example: > > a) > > BEAST: "I'm ugly." > BELLA: "Yes, you are. But you are gentle." > > > b) > > BEAST: "I'm ugly, but I'm gentle. > > > c) > > BEAST: "Despite my ugliness (for all ill-proportioned countenance), I am > capable of tenderness." > > Now, you can see that something has turned into something else (a turn has > become a clause, and a clause has become a nominalization). You can see > this is related to the formation of concepts that can be taxonomized, > classified, and made volitionally accessible. But you can also see that > describing exactly how it happens requires a grammatical model, and not > just a set of Trump U. truisms. > > That's why Christian Matthiessen combined the original RST (which he > collaborated on with Bill Mann) with systemic functional grammar. What's > really happening here is grammatical metaphor. Just as a "tree" is a > LEXICAL metaphor for branching in dialogue, a nominalization becomes a > GRAMMATICAL metaphor for a clause. This grammatical metaphor is what > Vygotsky really means when he says that "word meaning develops". > > David Kellogg > Macquarie University > > > > > On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 3:17 AM, Edward Wall wrote: > >> David >> >> You have, perhaps, thought about this far more than I. Any comments. >> >> Ed >> >> >>> Begin forwarded messagexc >>> >>> From: David Wojick >>> Subject: [Rstlist] RST versus issue trees? >>> Date: April 12, 2017 at 11:46:09 AM CDT >>> To: rstlist@listserv.linguistlist.org >>> >>> >>> My interest in the RST list is that I have developed a method that does >> something like RST, but is different, so I want to discuss it with the RST >> group. It is called the issue tree. >>> See https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/07/10/the- >> issue-tree-structure-of-expressed-thought/ >>> >>> My impression is that RST (about which I know little) is based on a >> relatively small constructed taxonomy of relations between "spans" of text. >> See http://www.sfu.ca/rst/01intro/intro.html for a listing of these >> relations. >>> >>> Issue tree theory has no such taxonomy. It is based on the following >> fundamental observation: >>> >>> With certain important exceptions, every sentence in a text (except the >> first) is answering a specific question posed to a specific prior sentence. >>> >>> Thus the set of relations between sentences is the set of all possible >> questions. The tree structure occurs because more than one question can be >> asked of a given sentence and this frequently occurs. The questions are >> often quite simple, such as how?, why?, such as?, what evidence?, etc. >>> >>> For example consider this string of sentences: We have to go. The cops >> are coming. Use the back door. >>> >>> The second sentence is answering the question why? of the first, while >> the third sentence is answering the question how? of the first. This is a >> simple issue tree. >>> >>> Note that these are reasoning relations, not rhetorical relations. >>> >>> When there are many sentences, as in a journal article, the issue tree >> can be difficult to grasp just by reading the string of sentences. Here the >> issue tree diagram becomes useful. One can see the reasoning. One can also >> measure it in various useful ways. >>> >>> Also the RST analysis looks to be applicable only to individual >> documents, while any set of documents on a given topic will have a unique >> combined issue tree structure. Moreover, the issue tree can be scaled to >> show just the reasoning relations between documents rather than sentences. >> Let's say we have 400 recent journal articles on a given topic, which is a >> fairly typical number. An issue tree diagram of a few thousand nodes could >> show the collective reasoning that ties this corpus together. The state of >> the reasoning, as it were. The technology is pretty powerful. >>> >>> I welcome your thoughts. >>> >>> David >>> >>> David Wojick, Ph.D. >>> https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/author/dwojick/ >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Rstlist mailing list >>> Rstlist@listserv.linguistlist.org >>> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/rstlist >> >> From chronaki@uth.gr Tue Apr 18 09:37:58 2017 From: chronaki@uth.gr (Anna Chronaki) Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 19:37:58 +0300 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Kemal Okuyan: 'This country has no choice but struggle' In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1EF5C16A-E842-447F-9030-AF22AE1A6760@uth.gr> In solidarity dear Ulvi A. > On 18 Apr 2017, at 14:58, Ulvi ??il wrote: > > http://news.sol.org.tr/kemal-okuyan-country-has-no-choice-struggle-172036 From ulvi.icil@gmail.com Tue Apr 18 12:43:39 2017 From: ulvi.icil@gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?VWx2aSDEsMOnaWw=?=) Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 22:43:39 +0300 Subject: [Xmca-l] MIT expert claims latest chemical weapons attack in Syria was staged Message-ID: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/mit-expert-claims-latest-chemical-weapons-attack-syria-was-staged-1617267 From dkellogg60@gmail.com Tue Apr 18 13:14:52 2017 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 05:14:52 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Communist Party of Turkey: 'There is no legitimacy of political power anymore' In-Reply-To: <770787EC-EBD8-4512-910D-00FC63473171@gmail.com> References: <770787EC-EBD8-4512-910D-00FC63473171@gmail.com> Message-ID: Yes, it was 1982-83, well after the revolution. Boumediane had invested a lot of the oil and gas money from Sonatrach in a huge steel complex just south of Annaba called Al Hajar. At the time we thought it was the biggest in the world; Wikipedia says it was only the biggest in Africa. I can tell you: it was bigger than South Works in Chicago. Boumediane drank himself to death, and there were two men ready to replace him: Yahoui and Benjedid. Yahoui was supported by the Part de l'avant garde socialiste (which everybody, including "pagsistes" called the "pags"). The pags was technically illegal (like our teacher's union in Korea today) but it was the fuel that fired the Sonatrach union and the steel union. So when I arrived in Algeria, Yahoui had just been done away with by Chadli Benjedid. Chadli made the pags illegal for real, and that's how we ended up in restaurants run by the hashish sellers (called, inconguiously, "comistas", for the Sicilian greeting, "como ista?") I was a little faint-hearted for all this (I had just done a stint in prison in Syria and it was pretty awful), so most of the time I lived next door in Tunis. In Tunis the CP was legal, and I had a job with the Soviet Cultural Centre. Sometimes I would come and spend time with friends in the Cite Patrice Lumumba in Annaba, bringing the Tunisian paper, Attariq Al-jedid with me. They didn't like it very much. I think I only taught one class to the steelworkers, and I really doubt if they learned very much. I remember thinking that Capital would be too hard, so I prepared a lecture on "Wage, Price, and Profit", and my Arabic was terrible, so I spoke in French. At the end of the lesson, one of the workers, who had a copy of Camus in his lunchbox, asked me if I thought Marx believed that existence preceded essence. I've been shy of philosophy ever since. David Kellogg Macquarie University On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 9:17 AM, Helena Worthen wrote: > Hi, guys -- I was actually interested in the history Ulvi was telling. No > one else around here is going to share that. > > And it's interesting, David, that you taught steelworkers in Algeria -- > when was that? Post-revolution, I assume. We're about the same age. > > > H > > Helena Worthen > helenaworthen@gmail.com > Vietnam blog: helenaworthen.wordpress.com > > On Apr 17, 2017, at 2:29 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > > > You didn't answer any of my four questions, Ulvi. They had nothing to do > > with TKP history, Syriza, George Soros, Abdullah Ocalan or any > connection, > > real or imaginary, between them. I don't care who owns the restaurants > > where Kurdish leaders meet. (When I taught about use value and exchange > > value to steelworkers in Algeria, we met in restaurants owned by street > > gangs and drug pushers.) > > > > My questions were about the statement which the TKP released which you > > circulated on this list. I think it's an important moment, and it's worth > > circulating a statement. But I also think that it's worth asking some > > questions about it, and getting some answers. So let's stay on topic > (YOUR > > topic) as best we can. > > > > David Kellogg > > Macquarie University > > > > On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 2:39 AM, Ulvi ??il wrote: > > > >> David, > >> We founded our first legal party in 1992 with the name Party for > Socialist > >> Turkey because we believe that seizure of the political power is at the > >> center of Marxism and Leninism, a central point I believe today and in > the > >> last 100 years after October, tens of communist parties could not > >> understand due to a very poor understanding of leninism, that "develop > >> democracy first, then socialist revolution" nonsense. I look at today's > >> communist parties for being able to see who is for a socialist > revolution, > >> in the October sense, led by urban proletariat supported by rural > >> proletariat. I can not see such a leninist party, except our party, > greek > >> communist party, to a certain extent venezuelan, russian communist > workers' > >> party but unfortunately none in Latin America, nor in Asia and Africa, > >> nowhere in the South. > >> Our first party wrote it in its program that autodetermination of > Kurdish > >> people was an absolute right and it was forbidden in 1993, we foresaw > it. > >> But we wrote it. Then we founded Party for Socialist Power in 1993. > Then we > >> took the actual name. In all three programs, it is stated that Kurdish > >> people and Turkish people are the equal founder peoples of Socialist > >> Turkey. I draw your attention to this point: equal founder peoples a a > >> future socialist Turkey. > >> > >> David, this programatic stance is well beyond that of the current > Kurdish > >> social democratic movement. We see ourselves as the communist party of > both > >> kurdish as well as turkish proletariat, urban and rural. > >> > >> Kurdish dynamics is immensely valuable. For what? For a socialist > >> revolution. We always attached great value to it and we imagined that > >> Kurdish people's struggle is very important for such a revolution as > long > >> as...it is a movement for poor peasants, workers. > >> (Now in the midst of an immensely barbaric capitalist exploitation, this > >> movement does absolutely nothing for Kurdish workers in cities like > >> Istanbul where millions of Kurdish people work). > >> > >> Then, Kurdish movement especially since 1995 preferred another path, it > got > >> closer to islamists and exploiting Kurdish bougeoisie and to > imperialist > >> European Union and United States. > >> > >> Currently, Kurdish capital Diyarbakir, is less important to this > movement > >> than Brussels and Washington. > >> > >> And why Demirtas now in jail does not make its party's press > conferences in > >> its own buildings but in businessmen's restaurants related with Mr. > Soros, > >> without having any shame to say that the votes received by its party > >> represent a victory for the toiled masses. > >> > >> The name of this businessman is osman kavala. He headed Soros' Open > Society > >> Foundation in Turkey for some years and together with Demirtas they > labeled > >> June 2013 movement in Turkey as an attempt of coup d'etat to Erdogan. > >> > >> Kurdish movement, Demirtas and Ocalan stated more than once that they > saved > >> Erdogan and this is public information. > >> > >> Everyone knows that any time Erdogan will call them they will approach > him > >> selling the people's cause. They are nit anti imperialist, they are > >> praising islamic figures together with Erdogan, they do nit defend > laicism > >> and leftist values anymore. > >> > >> Minutes of meetings between state and Ocalan are published and it is > also a > >> public information that since long time Ocalan and the state work > together > >> on a project. A project to liquidate communist > >> movement via adherence to this heroic epic Kurdish people's struggle. > >> > >> In fact, there is no more left in Turkey, except our party. It adhered > to > >> Kurdish movement who makes negotiations, bargains with AKP and with EU > and > >> USA. > >> > >> If, in the name of respecting this epic struggle, we are expected to > forget > >> our primary task, that of preparing a socialist revolution in Turkey, we > >> will not do that. Never. We are not stupid. And we have our own lessons > >> from these 100 years, of the capability of inperialism how to manage > >> leftist movements, national liberation movements etc as in the case of > >> Syriza, Spain and Portugal that I mentioned before even as in USSR. > >> > >> Kurdish movement can rely on our support as long as they are jailed, as > >> soon as they struggle for Kurdish masses. > >> > >> But if while they are giving their right hand to Graham Fuller from CIA > and > >> expect us to take their left hand. > >> > >> No. We are now clever enough after so many hard lessons. > >> > >> I would be glad to know more revolutionary movements, communist parties, > >> their existence if any, which, like us, concentrate their efforts only > and > >> only, immediately on the seizure of the political power by the > proletariat. > >> Not for "struggling" for "advanced democracy stupidities. > >> > >> > >> > >> 17 Nis 2017 00:36 tarihinde "David Kellogg" > yazd?: > >> > >>> Ulvi: > >>> > >>> I wonder how many parents have been taught to play piano by their > >> children. > >>> Makes you think that the Suzuki way really is a "Mommy Method"! > >>> > >>> When I was a kid growing up in France, we learned a parodistic version > of > >>> the Internationale before we learned the real one, and the last verse > >>> always ended with: > >>> > >>> "L'internationale sera le genre humain (The Internationale will be the > >>> human race)." > >>> > >>> And we would add: > >>> > >>> "Et le boudin! (And sausage too!)" > >>> > >>> Since we were not yet in middle school, we thought the last line, which > >> we > >>> delivered with a kind of pianistic flourish, was really part of the > song. > >>> As Lang Lang shows--we were right. (Thanks, Helena!) > >>> > >>> The "huanwei" ending of the Yellow River Concerto (originally a > Cantata) > >>> was Xian Xinghai's way of trying to convert a nationalist struggle into > >> an > >>> internationalist one. You can see that the struggle of the Kurds > against > >>> Erdogan has that potential. You can see that Erdogan's struggle against > >> the > >>> Kurds does not. From Xian Xinghai's perspective, the TKP position that > >> both > >>> struggles are somehow equivalent makes no sense at all: it is like > saying > >>> that the Chinese struggle against Japan is the same as Japan's struggle > >>> against China. > >>> > >>> And by the way.... > >>> > >>> a) In English, if you say that there is no legitimacy any more, that > >> means > >>> that there was legitimacy before. Was there? > >>> b) The TKP admits that the countryside still votes Erdogan, but says > >> there > >>> is "no chance" that his legitimacy will be accepted in the cities. How > >>> about winning over peasants? > >>> c) The statement says that AKP has lost its "capability" to rule. > >> Whistling > >>> in the graveyard! > >>> d) Nothing--nothing whatsoever--about Kurdistan. > >>> > >>> David Kellogg > >>> Macquarie University > >>> > >>> On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 6:49 AM, Ulvi ??il > wrote: > >>> > >>>> http://news.sol.org.tr/communist-party-turkey-there- > >>>> no-legitimacy-political-power-anymore-172017 > >>>> > >>> > >> > > > From dkellogg60@gmail.com Tue Apr 18 14:05:55 2017 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 07:05:55 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: [Rstlist] RST versus issue trees? In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.0.14.2.20170412123807.04946608@mail.hughes.net> Message-ID: OK, Ed. Can I ask you to edit some of my awful writing? I mean, just clear away phrases like "there are some not so well known indicators" and "our author doesn't clear away any of this" where I try to imitate what I am criticizing. I think that's not very helpful for RST people. I am not very even tempered when I write these days (I've had eighteen rejections in one year and I need acceptances in order to finish my PhD!) Note that all this is pretty elementary for people who know RST. I doubt if they will be impressed. Here is something that's rather more impressive. In Matthiessen's "systemic-functionally flavoured" RST, he has three kinds of expansion: a) elaboration: that is, "e.g., "i.e.", "in other words" (=) b) extension: "moreover", "furthermore", "in addition" (+) c) enhancement: a very large category including reason, result, manner, means, time, space: "so", "because", "in a way", "by way of", "meanwhile", "elsewhere". (x, /, etc.) Now, you might think that is a developmental order, because there seems to be more semantic distance created in c) than in a). Not a bit of it! In my data on oral presentations, the novices prefer c) and the experts do a). Not only that, but BOTH novices and experts seem to start out doing c) when they prepare and end up dong a) when they are ready. Why? David Kellogg Macquarie University On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 2:11 AM, Edward Wall wrote: > David > > I apologize in taking so long in getting back to this; my email > account has been essentially inaccessible for a week. > > Thanks for this analysis! I will pass it on. > > Ed > > > On Apr 12, 2017, at 4:48 PM, David Kellogg > wrote: > > > > Ed: > > > > What happens to an "issue tree" when a branch breaks, either because the > > wind is too strong or the branch is too long? Here are some > > non-metaphorical examples of what I mean, taken directly from the links > you > > provided: > > > > "There are some well known indicators that expressed thought has a > > branching structure. The outline, for example, and the nesting of blog > > comments are both tree structures. There are also various so-called ?mind > > mapping? techniques. My discovery is that this structure is precise, well > > defined and universal.Actually it is not quite this simple because > > sometimes a statement will refer to a body of prior statements rather > that > > a single one, but that is an advanced topic. The real question is, how is > > this useful to know?" > > > > There are some not very well known indicators that the author is being a > > sloppy thinker here. For example, an outline is actually a list. It can > be > > nested, but it isn't always. And nesting isn't always an example of > > branching structure (it's usually an example of embedding, which is > > something quite different). "Mind-mapping" can include branching > > and nesting, but the original idea was that it was supposed to include > > everything, whether connected or not, and then you clear away things that > > are not connected. > > > > Our author doesn't clear away any of this. To his credit, though, he does > > hesitate a little over the sheer audacity of "My discovery...". But then > > he provides us with the classic business-school fake-out: I know the > > answer, but it's too advanced for you; it's for my high-paying customers. > > Here's a question you Art of the Deal 101 types really WILL care about: > how > > can I USE this? Since we are not business school types, but academics, we > > might consider this as his answer: > > > > "For some time I have been working on a basic model of scientific > progress > > (or, since ?progress? is a value-loaded term, a model of how science > > progresses)." > > > > Now, you can see that the material in parentheses is indeed an answer to > a > > question which the imaginary interlocutor might have about the first > > clause, to wit: > > > > "What the hell do you mean, progress? You call this progress?" > > > > We shall leave aside, for the moment, the na?ve assumption that words > like > > "model", "scientific", "working", and even "for some time" are not value > > loaded in precisely the same way. You can certainly see that his idea > > that turning a noun into a verb makes it less value-loaded is risible. > > > > I think RST is a much more serious approach, Ed. The problem that David > > Wojick is TRYING to address with his sloppy thinking is a key one: it's > > Vygotsky's genetic law ""How does communication lead to > > co-generalization?"), the problem Bernstein raised ("How does the outside > > become the inside?" which is actually a NON-dualist question), and an > > essential problem of speech development in children ("How does dialogue > > become narrative, in artistic thinking, and how do verbalized perceptions > > give rise to hierarchies of invisible concepts"?). > > > > So for example: > > > > a) > > > > BEAST: "I'm ugly." > > BELLA: "Yes, you are. But you are gentle." > > > > > > b) > > > > BEAST: "I'm ugly, but I'm gentle. > > > > > > c) > > > > BEAST: "Despite my ugliness (for all ill-proportioned countenance), I am > > capable of tenderness." > > > > Now, you can see that something has turned into something else (a turn > has > > become a clause, and a clause has become a nominalization). You can see > > this is related to the formation of concepts that can be taxonomized, > > classified, and made volitionally accessible. But you can also see that > > describing exactly how it happens requires a grammatical model, and not > > just a set of Trump U. truisms. > > > > That's why Christian Matthiessen combined the original RST (which he > > collaborated on with Bill Mann) with systemic functional grammar. What's > > really happening here is grammatical metaphor. Just as a "tree" is a > > LEXICAL metaphor for branching in dialogue, a nominalization becomes a > > GRAMMATICAL metaphor for a clause. This grammatical metaphor is what > > Vygotsky really means when he says that "word meaning develops". > > > > David Kellogg > > Macquarie University > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 3:17 AM, Edward Wall wrote: > > > >> David > >> > >> You have, perhaps, thought about this far more than I. Any > comments. > >> > >> Ed > >> > >> > >>> Begin forwarded messagexc > >>> > >>> From: David Wojick > >>> Subject: [Rstlist] RST versus issue trees? > >>> Date: April 12, 2017 at 11:46:09 AM CDT > >>> To: rstlist@listserv.linguistlist.org > >>> > >>> > >>> My interest in the RST list is that I have developed a method that does > >> something like RST, but is different, so I want to discuss it with the > RST > >> group. It is called the issue tree. > >>> See https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/07/10/the- > >> issue-tree-structure-of-expressed-thought/ > >>> > >>> My impression is that RST (about which I know little) is based on a > >> relatively small constructed taxonomy of relations between "spans" of > text. > >> See http://www.sfu.ca/rst/01intro/intro.html for a listing of these > >> relations. > >>> > >>> Issue tree theory has no such taxonomy. It is based on the following > >> fundamental observation: > >>> > >>> With certain important exceptions, every sentence in a text (except the > >> first) is answering a specific question posed to a specific prior > sentence. > >>> > >>> Thus the set of relations between sentences is the set of all possible > >> questions. The tree structure occurs because more than one question can > be > >> asked of a given sentence and this frequently occurs. The questions are > >> often quite simple, such as how?, why?, such as?, what evidence?, etc. > >>> > >>> For example consider this string of sentences: We have to go. The cops > >> are coming. Use the back door. > >>> > >>> The second sentence is answering the question why? of the first, while > >> the third sentence is answering the question how? of the first. This is > a > >> simple issue tree. > >>> > >>> Note that these are reasoning relations, not rhetorical relations. > >>> > >>> When there are many sentences, as in a journal article, the issue tree > >> can be difficult to grasp just by reading the string of sentences. Here > the > >> issue tree diagram becomes useful. One can see the reasoning. One can > also > >> measure it in various useful ways. > >>> > >>> Also the RST analysis looks to be applicable only to individual > >> documents, while any set of documents on a given topic will have a > unique > >> combined issue tree structure. Moreover, the issue tree can be scaled to > >> show just the reasoning relations between documents rather than > sentences. > >> Let's say we have 400 recent journal articles on a given topic, which > is a > >> fairly typical number. An issue tree diagram of a few thousand nodes > could > >> show the collective reasoning that ties this corpus together. The state > of > >> the reasoning, as it were. The technology is pretty powerful. > >>> > >>> I welcome your thoughts. > >>> > >>> David > >>> > >>> David Wojick, Ph.D. > >>> https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/author/dwojick/ > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Rstlist mailing list > >>> Rstlist@listserv.linguistlist.org > >>> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/rstlist > >> > >> > > > From mcole@ucsd.edu Tue Apr 18 16:34:39 2017 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 16:34:39 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Fwd: [COGDEVSOC] Postdoctoral scholar opening at University of California Santa Cruz In-Reply-To: <5FB8AF71-4C4B-4772-9993-FD0A4380290F@ucsc.edu> References: <5FB8AF71-4C4B-4772-9993-FD0A4380290F@ucsc.edu> Message-ID: A post doc of probable interest to some of the participants here. mike ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Maureen Callanan Date: Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 4:16 PM Subject: [COGDEVSOC] Postdoctoral scholar opening at University of California Santa Cruz To: cogdevsoc@lists.cogdevsoc.org I am recruiting for a Postdoctoral Scholar position as part of a collaborative NSF grant doing research on families? explaining and exploring in museums. The project is in collaboration with Dave Sobel at Brown and Cristine Legare at University of Texas. Details about the position and how to apply are included in the attached flyer. Maureen Callanan Professor of Psychology UC Santa Cruz _______________________________________________ To post to the CDS listserv, send your message to: cogdevsoc@lists.cogdevsoc.org (If you belong to the listserv and have not included any large attachments, your message will be posted without moderation--so be careful!) To subscribe or unsubscribe from the listserv, visit: http://lists.cogdevsoc.org/listinfo.cgi/cogdevsoc-cogdevsoc.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: JPF00441_17T.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 44763 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20170418/47abe75f/attachment.bin From ewall@umich.edu Tue Apr 18 21:07:26 2017 From: ewall@umich.edu (Edward Wall) Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 23:07:26 -0500 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: [Rstlist] RST versus issue trees? In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.0.14.2.20170412123807.04946608@mail.hughes.net> Message-ID: <1F8833C0-A829-4AFD-96FA-0B0C6877B63A@umich.edu> David Interesting, but no one on the RST list seems to have replied to the original email. In any case, I was thinking that a slight amount of editing that slightly tempered your concerns and brought Matthiessen in (and what you write below seems ideal) might be of interest and help. So I will edit along the lines you mention. Ed > On Apr 18, 2017, at 4:05 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > > OK, Ed. Can I ask you to edit some of my awful writing? I mean, just clear > away phrases like "there are some not so well known indicators" and "our > author doesn't clear away any of this" where I try to imitate what I am > criticizing. I think that's not very helpful for RST people. I am not very > even tempered when I write these days (I've had eighteen rejections in one > year and I need acceptances in order to finish my PhD!) > > Note that all this is pretty elementary for people who know RST. I doubt if > they will be impressed. Here is something that's rather more impressive. > > In Matthiessen's "systemic-functionally flavoured" RST, he has three kinds > of expansion: > > a) elaboration: that is, "e.g., "i.e.", "in other words" (=) > b) extension: "moreover", "furthermore", "in addition" (+) > c) enhancement: a very large category including reason, result, manner, > means, time, space: "so", "because", "in a way", "by way of", "meanwhile", > "elsewhere". (x, /, etc.) > > Now, you might think that is a developmental order, because there seems to > be more semantic distance created in c) than in a). > > Not a bit of it! In my data on oral presentations, the novices prefer c) > and the experts do a). Not only that, but BOTH novices and experts seem to > start out doing c) when they prepare and end up dong a) when they are ready. > > Why? > > David Kellogg > Macquarie University > > On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 2:11 AM, Edward Wall wrote: > >> David >> >> I apologize in taking so long in getting back to this; my email >> account has been essentially inaccessible for a week. >> >> Thanks for this analysis! I will pass it on. >> >> Ed >> >>> On Apr 12, 2017, at 4:48 PM, David Kellogg >> wrote: >>> >>> Ed: >>> >>> What happens to an "issue tree" when a branch breaks, either because the >>> wind is too strong or the branch is too long? Here are some >>> non-metaphorical examples of what I mean, taken directly from the links >> you >>> provided: >>> >>> "There are some well known indicators that expressed thought has a >>> branching structure. The outline, for example, and the nesting of blog >>> comments are both tree structures. There are also various so-called ?mind >>> mapping? techniques. My discovery is that this structure is precise, well >>> defined and universal.Actually it is not quite this simple because >>> sometimes a statement will refer to a body of prior statements rather >> that >>> a single one, but that is an advanced topic. The real question is, how is >>> this useful to know?" >>> >>> There are some not very well known indicators that the author is being a >>> sloppy thinker here. For example, an outline is actually a list. It can >> be >>> nested, but it isn't always. And nesting isn't always an example of >>> branching structure (it's usually an example of embedding, which is >>> something quite different). "Mind-mapping" can include branching >>> and nesting, but the original idea was that it was supposed to include >>> everything, whether connected or not, and then you clear away things that >>> are not connected. >>> >>> Our author doesn't clear away any of this. To his credit, though, he does >>> hesitate a little over the sheer audacity of "My discovery...". But then >>> he provides us with the classic business-school fake-out: I know the >>> answer, but it's too advanced for you; it's for my high-paying customers. >>> Here's a question you Art of the Deal 101 types really WILL care about: >> how >>> can I USE this? Since we are not business school types, but academics, we >>> might consider this as his answer: >>> >>> "For some time I have been working on a basic model of scientific >> progress >>> (or, since ?progress? is a value-loaded term, a model of how science >>> progresses)." >>> >>> Now, you can see that the material in parentheses is indeed an answer to >> a >>> question which the imaginary interlocutor might have about the first >>> clause, to wit: >>> >>> "What the hell do you mean, progress? You call this progress?" >>> >>> We shall leave aside, for the moment, the na?ve assumption that words >> like >>> "model", "scientific", "working", and even "for some time" are not value >>> loaded in precisely the same way. You can certainly see that his idea >>> that turning a noun into a verb makes it less value-loaded is risible. >>> >>> I think RST is a much more serious approach, Ed. The problem that David >>> Wojick is TRYING to address with his sloppy thinking is a key one: it's >>> Vygotsky's genetic law ""How does communication lead to >>> co-generalization?"), the problem Bernstein raised ("How does the outside >>> become the inside?" which is actually a NON-dualist question), and an >>> essential problem of speech development in children ("How does dialogue >>> become narrative, in artistic thinking, and how do verbalized perceptions >>> give rise to hierarchies of invisible concepts"?). >>> >>> So for example: >>> >>> a) >>> >>> BEAST: "I'm ugly." >>> BELLA: "Yes, you are. But you are gentle." >>> >>> >>> b) >>> >>> BEAST: "I'm ugly, but I'm gentle. >>> >>> >>> c) >>> >>> BEAST: "Despite my ugliness (for all ill-proportioned countenance), I am >>> capable of tenderness." >>> >>> Now, you can see that something has turned into something else (a turn >> has >>> become a clause, and a clause has become a nominalization). You can see >>> this is related to the formation of concepts that can be taxonomized, >>> classified, and made volitionally accessible. But you can also see that >>> describing exactly how it happens requires a grammatical model, and not >>> just a set of Trump U. truisms. >>> >>> That's why Christian Matthiessen combined the original RST (which he >>> collaborated on with Bill Mann) with systemic functional grammar. What's >>> really happening here is grammatical metaphor. Just as a "tree" is a >>> LEXICAL metaphor for branching in dialogue, a nominalization becomes a >>> GRAMMATICAL metaphor for a clause. This grammatical metaphor is what >>> Vygotsky really means when he says that "word meaning develops". >>> >>> David Kellogg >>> Macquarie University >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 3:17 AM, Edward Wall wrote: >>> >>>> David >>>> >>>> You have, perhaps, thought about this far more than I. Any >> comments. >>>> >>>> Ed >>>> >>>> >>>>> Begin forwarded messagexc >>>>> >>>>> From: David Wojick >>>>> Subject: [Rstlist] RST versus issue trees? >>>>> Date: April 12, 2017 at 11:46:09 AM CDT >>>>> To: rstlist@listserv.linguistlist.org >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> My interest in the RST list is that I have developed a method that does >>>> something like RST, but is different, so I want to discuss it with the >> RST >>>> group. It is called the issue tree. >>>>> See https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/07/10/the- >>>> issue-tree-structure-of-expressed-thought/ >>>>> >>>>> My impression is that RST (about which I know little) is based on a >>>> relatively small constructed taxonomy of relations between "spans" of >> text. >>>> See http://www.sfu.ca/rst/01intro/intro.html for a listing of these >>>> relations. >>>>> >>>>> Issue tree theory has no such taxonomy. It is based on the following >>>> fundamental observation: >>>>> >>>>> With certain important exceptions, every sentence in a text (except the >>>> first) is answering a specific question posed to a specific prior >> sentence. >>>>> >>>>> Thus the set of relations between sentences is the set of all possible >>>> questions. The tree structure occurs because more than one question can >> be >>>> asked of a given sentence and this frequently occurs. The questions are >>>> often quite simple, such as how?, why?, such as?, what evidence?, etc. >>>>> >>>>> For example consider this string of sentences: We have to go. The cops >>>> are coming. Use the back door. >>>>> >>>>> The second sentence is answering the question why? of the first, while >>>> the third sentence is answering the question how? of the first. This is >> a >>>> simple issue tree. >>>>> >>>>> Note that these are reasoning relations, not rhetorical relations. >>>>> >>>>> When there are many sentences, as in a journal article, the issue tree >>>> can be difficult to grasp just by reading the string of sentences. Here >> the >>>> issue tree diagram becomes useful. One can see the reasoning. One can >> also >>>> measure it in various useful ways. >>>>> >>>>> Also the RST analysis looks to be applicable only to individual >>>> documents, while any set of documents on a given topic will have a >> unique >>>> combined issue tree structure. Moreover, the issue tree can be scaled to >>>> show just the reasoning relations between documents rather than >> sentences. >>>> Let's say we have 400 recent journal articles on a given topic, which >> is a >>>> fairly typical number. An issue tree diagram of a few thousand nodes >> could >>>> show the collective reasoning that ties this corpus together. The state >> of >>>> the reasoning, as it were. The technology is pretty powerful. >>>>> >>>>> I welcome your thoughts. >>>>> >>>>> David >>>>> >>>>> David Wojick, Ph.D. >>>>> https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/author/dwojick/ >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Rstlist mailing list >>>>> Rstlist@listserv.linguistlist.org >>>>> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/rstlist >>>> >>>> >> >> >> From a.j.gil@iped.uio.no Wed Apr 19 07:29:12 2017 From: a.j.gil@iped.uio.no (Alfredo Jornet Gil) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 14:29:12 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] PhD Fellowship University of Oslo Message-ID: <1492612153404.76436@iped.uio.no> Hi , for those interested, a PhD position on informal learning at Dept. of Education, University of Oslo https://www.jobbnorge.no/en/available-jobs/job/137266/phd-candidate? From julian.williams@manchester.ac.uk Wed Apr 19 14:01:20 2017 From: julian.williams@manchester.ac.uk (Julian Williams) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 21:01:20 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value' In-Reply-To: References: <58f4dfe0.5a45620a.c2a11.c004@mx.google.com> <62ef71d1-672d-bf3e-cae2-87aecbd09692@mira.net> <58f61836.8e2c620a.3b9e9.7d11@mx.google.com> <0d06b705-2e34-1171-1a2e-f4be2a14503b@mira.net> Message-ID: 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" 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 > >New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of-mathematics/>* > >On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 8:18 AM, Andy Blunden wrote: > >> different trajectories, Larry. >> >> a >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> Andy Blunden >> http://home.mira.net/~andy >> http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making >> 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 >>> *Sent: *April 17, 2017 11:54 PM >>> *To: *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-making >>> >>> 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" >> >>> > 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 >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >>> >>> >> >> 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 things? 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 .. >>>'?? >>> ? ' >>> >>> >>> 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 field? 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 say?) when I have thought about this a bit more - >>>maybe in >>> >>> >>> 2018? we should pick up! :-) >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 17/04/2017 18:22, "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of >>> >>> >>> Wolff-Michael Roth" >> >>> >>> 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 >>> >>> >>>> "r?le". I am quoting from p. 178: >>> >>> >>>> >>> >>> >>>> Marx joins Hegel as regards terminology, and not Kant or Fichte, >>> >>> >>>> who tried to solve the problem of ?ideality? (i.e., activity) >>>while >>> >>> >>>> remaining ?inside >>> >>> >>>> consciousness?, 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 ?ideality? takes in the >>> whole >>> >>> >>>> range of phenomena >>> >>> >>>> within which the ?ideal?, 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 ?moment? 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 people?s eyes, the >>> >>> >>>> commodity-form of >>> >>> >>>> the product, particularly in its dazzling money-form, in the form >>>of >>> >>> >>> the >>> >>> >>>> notorious ?real >>> >>> >>>> talers?, ?real roubles?, or ?real dollars?, things which, as soon >>>as >>> we >>> >>> >>>> have the slightest >>> >>> >>>> theoretical understanding of them, immediately turn out to be not >>> >>> >>> ?real? >>> >>> >>>> at >>> >>> >>>> all, but ?ideal? >>> >>> >>>> through and through, things whose category quite unambiguously >>> includes >>> >>> >>>> words, the >>> >>> >>>> units of language, and many other ?things?. Things that, while >>>being >>> >>> >>>> wholly >>> >>> >>>> ?material?, >>> >>> >>>> palpable-corporeal formations, acquire all their ?meaning? >>>(function >>> >>> >>> and >>> >>> >>>> r?le) from ?spirit?, >>> >>> >>> >from ?thought? 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 >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>> >>> >>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >>> >>> >>>> >> >>> >>> directions-in-mat >>> >>> >>>> hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of-mathematics/>* >>> >>> >>>> >>> >>> >>>> On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 8:31 AM, wrote: >>> >>> >>>> >>> >>> >>>>> I am attempting to follow Wolff-Michael?s 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 >>>?use-value? >>> & >>> >>> >>>>> sign >>> >>> >>>>> complex ?value?. >>> >>> >>>>> His methodology is to read Marx ?substituting? the word ?SIGN? >>> >>> >>> (implying >>> >>> >>>>> sign complex) FOR ?commodity? 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: ?natural signs? such as animal footprints are >>> >>> >>>>> useful/functional to the hunter inherently; they do NOT have >>>?value? >>> >>> >>>>> (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 ?value? (exchangeable). >>> Someone >>> >>> >>>>> who >>> >>> >>>>> satisfies HER needs through her product produces ?use-value? but >>>NOT >>> >>> >>>>> ?value?. >>> >>> >>>>> b) VALUE: (exchangeable). To produce SIGNS (complexes), she has >>>to >>> >>> >>>>> produce >>> >>> >>>>> not only ?use-value? but use-value FOR others. She has to produce >>> >>> >>>>> ?societal? use-values.... To be/come (exchangeable) SIGN, the >>> product >>> >>> >>>>> HAS >>> >>> >>>>> TO BE TRANSFERRED to another, FOR whom the SIGN complex >>> ?constitutes? >>> >>> >>>>> use-value. >>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>>>> The production of signs that produce no ?value? that is >>>exchangeable >>> >>> >>> FOR >>> >>> >>>>> others leads to personal notes often having NO use-value to >>>others. >>> >>> >>> To >>> >>> >>>>> trans/form use-value to BE come ?value? 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 ?use-value? & >>> >>> >>>>> ?value? >>> >>> >>>>> (exchangeable) >>> >>> >>>>> My morning musement >>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone >>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> >> From ablunden@mira.net Wed Apr 19 17:26:26 2017 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 10:26:26 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value' In-Reply-To: References: <58f4dfe0.5a45620a.c2a11.c004@mx.google.com> <62ef71d1-672d-bf3e-cae2-87aecbd09692@mira.net> <58f61836.8e2c620a.3b9e9.7d11@mx.google.com> <0d06b705-2e34-1171-1a2e-f4be2a14503b@mira.net> Message-ID: <071e3c6a-ba4e-1de8-1dae-1d54b8879ddd@mira.net> 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" 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 >> >> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >> > hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of-mathematics/>* >> >> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 8:18 AM, Andy Blunden wrote: >> >>> different trajectories, Larry. >>> >>> a >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>> Andy Blunden >>> http://home.mira.net/~andy >>> http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making >>> 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 >>>> *Sent: *April 17, 2017 11:54 PM >>>> *To: *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-making >>>> >>>> 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" >>>> 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 >>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >>>>>> >>> 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 things? 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 .. >>>> '?? >>>> ? ' >>>> >>>>>>> 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 field? 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 say?) when I have thought about this a bit more - >>>> maybe in >>>> >>>>>>> 2018? we should pick up! :-) >>>>>>> On 17/04/2017 18:22, "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of >>>>>>> Wolff-Michael Roth" >>>>>> 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 >>>> >>>>>>>> "r?le". I am quoting from p. 178: >>>>>>>> Marx joins Hegel as regards terminology, and not Kant or Fichte, >>>>>>>> who tried to solve the problem of ?ideality? (i.e., activity) >>>> while >>>> >>>>>>>> remaining ?inside >>>>>>>> consciousness?, 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 ?ideality? takes in the >>>> whole >>>> >>>>>>>> range of phenomena >>>>>>>> within which the ?ideal?, 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 ?moment? 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 people?s eyes, the >>>>>>>> commodity-form of >>>>>>>> the product, particularly in its dazzling money-form, in the form >>>> of >>>> >>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> notorious ?real >>>>>>>> talers?, ?real roubles?, or ?real dollars?, things which, as soon >>>> as >>>> we >>>> >>>>>>>> have the slightest >>>>>>>> theoretical understanding of them, immediately turn out to be not >>>>>>> ?real? >>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>> all, but ?ideal? >>>>>>>> through and through, things whose category quite unambiguously >>>> includes >>>> >>>>>>>> words, the >>>>>>>> units of language, and many other ?things?. Things that, while >>>> being >>>> >>>>>>>> wholly >>>>>>>> ?material?, >>>>>>>> palpable-corporeal formations, acquire all their ?meaning? >>>> (function >>>> >>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> r?le) from ?spirit?, >>>>>>> >from ?thought? 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 >>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >>>>>>>> >>>>>> directions-in-mat >>>>>>>> hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of-mathematics/>* >>>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 8:31 AM, wrote: >>>>>>>>> I am attempting to follow Wolff-Michael?s 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 >>>> ?use-value? >>>> & >>>> >>>>>>>>> sign >>>>>>>>> complex ?value?. >>>>>>>>> His methodology is to read Marx ?substituting? the word ?SIGN? >>>>>>> (implying >>>>>>>>> sign complex) FOR ?commodity? 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: ?natural signs? such as animal footprints are >>>>>>>>> useful/functional to the hunter inherently; they do NOT have >>>> ?value? >>>> >>>>>>>>> (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 ?value? (exchangeable). >>>> Someone >>>> >>>>>>>>> who >>>>>>>>> satisfies HER needs through her product produces ?use-value? but >>>> NOT >>>> >>>>>>>>> ?value?. >>>>>>>>> b) VALUE: (exchangeable). To produce SIGNS (complexes), she has >>>> to >>>> >>>>>>>>> produce >>>>>>>>> not only ?use-value? but use-value FOR others. She has to produce >>>>>>>>> ?societal? use-values.... To be/come (exchangeable) SIGN, the >>>> product >>>> >>>>>>>>> HAS >>>>>>>>> TO BE TRANSFERRED to another, FOR whom the SIGN complex >>>> ?constitutes? >>>> >>>>>>>>> use-value. >>>>>>>>> The production of signs that produce no ?value? that is >>>> exchangeable >>>> >>>>>>> FOR >>>>>>>>> others leads to personal notes often having NO use-value to >>>> others. >>>> >>>>>>> To >>>>>>>>> trans/form use-value to BE come ?value? 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 ?use-value? & >>>>>>>>> ?value? >>>>>>>>> (exchangeable) >>>>>>>>> My morning musement >>>>>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone >>>> From a.j.gil@iped.uio.no Wed Apr 19 17:42:36 2017 From: a.j.gil@iped.uio.no (Alfredo Jornet Gil) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 00:42:36 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value' In-Reply-To: <071e3c6a-ba4e-1de8-1dae-1d54b8879ddd@mira.net> References: <58f4dfe0.5a45620a.c2a11.c004@mx.google.com> <62ef71d1-672d-bf3e-cae2-87aecbd09692@mira.net> <58f61836.8e2c620a.3b9e9.7d11@mx.google.com> <0d06b705-2e34-1171-1a2e-f4be2a14503b@mira.net> , <071e3c6a-ba4e-1de8-1dae-1d54b8879ddd@mira.net> Message-ID: <1492648956017.30437@iped.uio.no> Andy, could you give bit more on that distinction between word and utterance as it pertains to the ongoing discussion? I am interested. Also, I note that different participants in the thread have used the different terms, 'sign,' and 'utterance.' Alfredo ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Andy Blunden Sent: 20 April 2017 02:26 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value' 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" 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 >> >> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >> > hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of-mathematics/>* >> >> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 8:18 AM, Andy Blunden wrote: >> >>> different trajectories, Larry. >>> >>> a >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>> Andy Blunden >>> http://home.mira.net/~andy >>> http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making >>> 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 >>>> *Sent: *April 17, 2017 11:54 PM >>>> *To: *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-making >>>> >>>> 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" >>>> 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 >>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >>>>>> >>> 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 things? 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 .. >>>> '?? >>>> ? ' >>>> >>>>>>> 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 field? 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 say?) when I have thought about this a bit more - >>>> maybe in >>>> >>>>>>> 2018? we should pick up! :-) >>>>>>> On 17/04/2017 18:22, "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of >>>>>>> Wolff-Michael Roth" >>>>>> 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 >>>> >>>>>>>> "r?le". I am quoting from p. 178: >>>>>>>> Marx joins Hegel as regards terminology, and not Kant or Fichte, >>>>>>>> who tried to solve the problem of ?ideality? (i.e., activity) >>>> while >>>> >>>>>>>> remaining ?inside >>>>>>>> consciousness?, 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 ?ideality? takes in the >>>> whole >>>> >>>>>>>> range of phenomena >>>>>>>> within which the ?ideal?, 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 ?moment? 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 people?s eyes, the >>>>>>>> commodity-form of >>>>>>>> the product, particularly in its dazzling money-form, in the form >>>> of >>>> >>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> notorious ?real >>>>>>>> talers?, ?real roubles?, or ?real dollars?, things which, as soon >>>> as >>>> we >>>> >>>>>>>> have the slightest >>>>>>>> theoretical understanding of them, immediately turn out to be not >>>>>>> ?real? >>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>> all, but ?ideal? >>>>>>>> through and through, things whose category quite unambiguously >>>> includes >>>> >>>>>>>> words, the >>>>>>>> units of language, and many other ?things?. Things that, while >>>> being >>>> >>>>>>>> wholly >>>>>>>> ?material?, >>>>>>>> palpable-corporeal formations, acquire all their ?meaning? >>>> (function >>>> >>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> r?le) from ?spirit?, >>>>>>> >from ?thought? 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 >>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >>>>>>>> >>>>>> directions-in-mat >>>>>>>> hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of-mathematics/>* >>>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 8:31 AM, wrote: >>>>>>>>> I am attempting to follow Wolff-Michael?s 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 >>>> ?use-value? >>>> & >>>> >>>>>>>>> sign >>>>>>>>> complex ?value?. >>>>>>>>> His methodology is to read Marx ?substituting? the word ?SIGN? >>>>>>> (implying >>>>>>>>> sign complex) FOR ?commodity? 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: ?natural signs? such as animal footprints are >>>>>>>>> useful/functional to the hunter inherently; they do NOT have >>>> ?value? >>>> >>>>>>>>> (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 ?value? (exchangeable). >>>> Someone >>>> >>>>>>>>> who >>>>>>>>> satisfies HER needs through her product produces ?use-value? but >>>> NOT >>>> >>>>>>>>> ?value?. >>>>>>>>> b) VALUE: (exchangeable). To produce SIGNS (complexes), she has >>>> to >>>> >>>>>>>>> produce >>>>>>>>> not only ?use-value? but use-value FOR others. She has to produce >>>>>>>>> ?societal? use-values.... To be/come (exchangeable) SIGN, the >>>> product >>>> >>>>>>>>> HAS >>>>>>>>> TO BE TRANSFERRED to another, FOR whom the SIGN complex >>>> ?constitutes? >>>> >>>>>>>>> use-value. >>>>>>>>> The production of signs that produce no ?value? that is >>>> exchangeable >>>> >>>>>>> FOR >>>>>>>>> others leads to personal notes often having NO use-value to >>>> others. >>>> >>>>>>> To >>>>>>>>> trans/form use-value to BE come ?value? 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 ?use-value? & >>>>>>>>> ?value? >>>>>>>>> (exchangeable) >>>>>>>>> My morning musement >>>>>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone >>>> From mcole@ucsd.edu Wed Apr 19 17:45:13 2017 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 17:45:13 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value' In-Reply-To: <071e3c6a-ba4e-1de8-1dae-1d54b8879ddd@mira.net> References: <58f4dfe0.5a45620a.c2a11.c004@mx.google.com> <62ef71d1-672d-bf3e-cae2-87aecbd09692@mira.net> <58f61836.8e2c620a.3b9e9.7d11@mx.google.com> <0d06b705-2e34-1171-1a2e-f4be2a14503b@mira.net> <071e3c6a-ba4e-1de8-1dae-1d54b8879ddd@mira.net> Message-ID: "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 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" > 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 >>> >>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >>> >> ections-in-mat >>> hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of-mathematics/>* >>> >>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 8:18 AM, Andy Blunden wrote: >>> >>> different trajectories, Larry. >>>> >>>> a >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> Andy Blunden >>>> http://home.mira.net/~andy >>>> http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making >>>> 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 >>>>> *Sent: *April 17, 2017 11:54 PM >>>>> *To: *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-making >>>>> >>>>> 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" >>>>> 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 >>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 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 things? 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 .. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> '?? >>>>> ? ' >>>>> >>>>> 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 field? 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 say?) when I have thought about this a bit more - >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> maybe in >>>>> >>>>> 2018? we should pick up! :-) >>>>>>>> On 17/04/2017 18:22, "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of >>>>>>>> Wolff-Michael Roth" >>>>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> "r?le". I am quoting from p. 178: >>>>>>>>> Marx joins Hegel as regards terminology, and not Kant or Fichte, >>>>>>>>> who tried to solve the problem of ?ideality? (i.e., activity) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> while >>>>> >>>>> remaining ?inside >>>>>>>>> consciousness?, 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 ?ideality? takes in the >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> whole >>>>> >>>>> range of phenomena >>>>>>>>> within which the ?ideal?, 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 ?moment? 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 people?s eyes, the >>>>>>>>> commodity-form of >>>>>>>>> the product, particularly in its dazzling money-form, in the form >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> of >>>>> >>>>> the >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> notorious ?real >>>>>>>>> talers?, ?real roubles?, or ?real dollars?, things which, as soon >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> as >>>>> we >>>>> >>>>> have the slightest >>>>>>>>> theoretical understanding of them, immediately turn out to be not >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ?real? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>> all, but ?ideal? >>>>>>>>> through and through, things whose category quite unambiguously >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> includes >>>>> >>>>> words, the >>>>>>>>> units of language, and many other ?things?. Things that, while >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> being >>>>> >>>>> wholly >>>>>>>>> ?material?, >>>>>>>>> palpable-corporeal formations, acquire all their ?meaning? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> (function >>>>> >>>>> and >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> r?le) from ?spirit?, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >from ?thought? 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 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> directions-in-mat >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of-mathematics/>* >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 8:31 AM, wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I am attempting to follow Wolff-Michael?s 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 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ?use-value? >>>>> & >>>>> >>>>> sign >>>>>>>>>> complex ?value?. >>>>>>>>>> His methodology is to read Marx ?substituting? the word ?SIGN? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> (implying >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> sign complex) FOR ?commodity? 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: ?natural signs? such as animal footprints are >>>>>>>>>> useful/functional to the hunter inherently; they do NOT have >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ?value? >>>>> >>>>> (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 ?value? (exchangeable). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Someone >>>>> >>>>> who >>>>>>>>>> satisfies HER needs through her product produces ?use-value? but >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> NOT >>>>> >>>>> ?value?. >>>>>>>>>> b) VALUE: (exchangeable). To produce SIGNS (complexes), she has >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> to >>>>> >>>>> produce >>>>>>>>>> not only ?use-value? but use-value FOR others. She has to produce >>>>>>>>>> ?societal? use-values.... To be/come (exchangeable) SIGN, the >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> product >>>>> >>>>> HAS >>>>>>>>>> TO BE TRANSFERRED to another, FOR whom the SIGN complex >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ?constitutes? >>>>> >>>>> use-value. >>>>>>>>>> The production of signs that produce no ?value? that is >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> exchangeable >>>>> >>>>> FOR >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> others leads to personal notes often having NO use-value to >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> others. >>>>> >>>>> To >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> trans/form use-value to BE come ?value? 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 ?use-value? & >>>>>>>>>> ?value? >>>>>>>>>> (exchangeable) >>>>>>>>>> My morning musement >>>>>>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>> > From mcole@ucsd.edu Wed Apr 19 17:46:06 2017 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 17:46:06 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value' In-Reply-To: <1492648956017.30437@iped.uio.no> References: <58f4dfe0.5a45620a.c2a11.c004@mx.google.com> <62ef71d1-672d-bf3e-cae2-87aecbd09692@mira.net> <58f61836.8e2c620a.3b9e9.7d11@mx.google.com> <0d06b705-2e34-1171-1a2e-f4be2a14503b@mira.net> <071e3c6a-ba4e-1de8-1dae-1d54b8879ddd@mira.net> <1492648956017.30437@iped.uio.no> Message-ID: Same topic, Alfredo. Interesting synchronicity between Australia, Canada, and the US. mike On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 5:42 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > Andy, could you give bit more on that distinction between word and > utterance as it pertains to the ongoing discussion? I am interested. Also, > I note that different participants in the thread have used the different > terms, 'sign,' and 'utterance.' > > Alfredo > ________________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Andy Blunden > Sent: 20 April 2017 02:26 > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value' > > 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" > 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 > >> > >> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > >> directions-in-mat > >> hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of-mathematics/>* > >> > >> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 8:18 AM, Andy Blunden > wrote: > >> > >>> different trajectories, Larry. > >>> > >>> a > >>> > >>> ------------------------------------------------------------ > >>> Andy Blunden > >>> http://home.mira.net/~andy > >>> http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making > >>> 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 > >>>> *Sent: *April 17, 2017 11:54 PM > >>>> *To: *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-making > >>>> > >>>> 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" >>>>> 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 > > >>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > >>>>>> >>>> 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 things? 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 .. > >>>> '?? > >>>> ? ' > >>>> > >>>>>>> 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 field? 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 say?) when I have thought about this a bit more - > >>>> maybe in > >>>> > >>>>>>> 2018? we should pick up! :-) > >>>>>>> On 17/04/2017 18:22, "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of > >>>>>>> Wolff-Michael Roth" >>>>>>> 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 > >>>> > >>>>>>>> "r?le". I am quoting from p. 178: > >>>>>>>> Marx joins Hegel as regards terminology, and not Kant or Fichte, > >>>>>>>> who tried to solve the problem of ?ideality? (i.e., activity) > >>>> while > >>>> > >>>>>>>> remaining ?inside > >>>>>>>> consciousness?, 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 ?ideality? takes in the > >>>> whole > >>>> > >>>>>>>> range of phenomena > >>>>>>>> within which the ?ideal?, 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 ?moment? 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 people?s eyes, the > >>>>>>>> commodity-form of > >>>>>>>> the product, particularly in its dazzling money-form, in the form > >>>> of > >>>> > >>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>> notorious ?real > >>>>>>>> talers?, ?real roubles?, or ?real dollars?, things which, as soon > >>>> as > >>>> we > >>>> > >>>>>>>> have the slightest > >>>>>>>> theoretical understanding of them, immediately turn out to be not > >>>>>>> ?real? > >>>>>>>> at > >>>>>>>> all, but ?ideal? > >>>>>>>> through and through, things whose category quite unambiguously > >>>> includes > >>>> > >>>>>>>> words, the > >>>>>>>> units of language, and many other ?things?. Things that, while > >>>> being > >>>> > >>>>>>>> wholly > >>>>>>>> ?material?, > >>>>>>>> palpable-corporeal formations, acquire all their ?meaning? > >>>> (function > >>>> > >>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>> r?le) from ?spirit?, > >>>>>>> >from ?thought? 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 > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> directions-in-mat > >>>>>>>> hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of-mathematics/>* > >>>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 8:31 AM, wrote: > >>>>>>>>> I am attempting to follow Wolff-Michael?s 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 > >>>> ?use-value? > >>>> & > >>>> > >>>>>>>>> sign > >>>>>>>>> complex ?value?. > >>>>>>>>> His methodology is to read Marx ?substituting? the word ?SIGN? > >>>>>>> (implying > >>>>>>>>> sign complex) FOR ?commodity? 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: ?natural signs? such as animal footprints are > >>>>>>>>> useful/functional to the hunter inherently; they do NOT have > >>>> ?value? > >>>> > >>>>>>>>> (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 ?value? (exchangeable). > >>>> Someone > >>>> > >>>>>>>>> who > >>>>>>>>> satisfies HER needs through her product produces ?use-value? but > >>>> NOT > >>>> > >>>>>>>>> ?value?. > >>>>>>>>> b) VALUE: (exchangeable). To produce SIGNS (complexes), she has > >>>> to > >>>> > >>>>>>>>> produce > >>>>>>>>> not only ?use-value? but use-value FOR others. She has to produce > >>>>>>>>> ?societal? use-values.... To be/come (exchangeable) SIGN, the > >>>> product > >>>> > >>>>>>>>> HAS > >>>>>>>>> TO BE TRANSFERRED to another, FOR whom the SIGN complex > >>>> ?constitutes? > >>>> > >>>>>>>>> use-value. > >>>>>>>>> The production of signs that produce no ?value? that is > >>>> exchangeable > >>>> > >>>>>>> FOR > >>>>>>>>> others leads to personal notes often having NO use-value to > >>>> others. > >>>> > >>>>>>> To > >>>>>>>>> trans/form use-value to BE come ?value? 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 ?use-value? & > >>>>>>>>> ?value? > >>>>>>>>> (exchangeable) > >>>>>>>>> My morning musement > >>>>>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone > >>>> > > > From wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com Wed Apr 19 18:08:28 2017 From: wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com (Wolff-Michael Roth) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 18:08:28 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value' In-Reply-To: References: <58f4dfe0.5a45620a.c2a11.c004@mx.google.com> <62ef71d1-672d-bf3e-cae2-87aecbd09692@mira.net> <58f61836.8e2c620a.3b9e9.7d11@mx.google.com> <0d06b705-2e34-1171-1a2e-f4be2a14503b@mira.net> <071e3c6a-ba4e-1de8-1dae-1d54b8879ddd@mira.net> Message-ID: Mike, also, isn't ????????????? (vyskazyvanie) also well (and perhaps better) translated as statement (in place of utterance), and this is why for Bakhtin a whole book could be ?????????????? Michael -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor Applied Cognitive Science MacLaurin Building A567 University of Victoria Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics * On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 5:45 PM, mike cole wrote: > "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 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" >> 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 > >>> > >>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > >>> >>> ections-in-mat > >>> hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of-mathematics/>* > >>> > >>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 8:18 AM, Andy Blunden > wrote: > >>> > >>> different trajectories, Larry. > >>>> > >>>> a > >>>> > >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>> Andy Blunden > >>>> http://home.mira.net/~andy > >>>> http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making > >>>> 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 > >>>>> *Sent: *April 17, 2017 11:54 PM > >>>>> *To: *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-making > >>>>> > >>>>> 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" >>>>>> 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 faculty/mroth/> > >>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>> 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 things? 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 .. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> '?? > >>>>> ? ' > >>>>> > >>>>> 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 field? 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 say?) when I have thought about this a bit more - > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> maybe in > >>>>> > >>>>> 2018? we should pick up! :-) > >>>>>>>> On 17/04/2017 18:22, "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf > of > >>>>>>>> Wolff-Michael Roth" >>>>>>>> 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 > >>>>> > >>>>> "r?le". I am quoting from p. 178: > >>>>>>>>> Marx joins Hegel as regards terminology, and not Kant or Fichte, > >>>>>>>>> who tried to solve the problem of ?ideality? (i.e., activity) > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> while > >>>>> > >>>>> remaining ?inside > >>>>>>>>> consciousness?, 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 ?ideality? takes in > the > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> whole > >>>>> > >>>>> range of phenomena > >>>>>>>>> within which the ?ideal?, 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 ?moment? 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 people?s eyes, the > >>>>>>>>> commodity-form of > >>>>>>>>> the product, particularly in its dazzling money-form, in the form > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> of > >>>>> > >>>>> the > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> notorious ?real > >>>>>>>>> talers?, ?real roubles?, or ?real dollars?, things which, as soon > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> as > >>>>> we > >>>>> > >>>>> have the slightest > >>>>>>>>> theoretical understanding of them, immediately turn out to be not > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> ?real? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> at > >>>>>>>>> all, but ?ideal? > >>>>>>>>> through and through, things whose category quite unambiguously > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> includes > >>>>> > >>>>> words, the > >>>>>>>>> units of language, and many other ?things?. Things that, while > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> being > >>>>> > >>>>> wholly > >>>>>>>>> ?material?, > >>>>>>>>> palpable-corporeal formations, acquire all their ?meaning? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> (function > >>>>> > >>>>> and > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> r?le) from ?spirit?, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >from ?thought? 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 > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> directions-in-mat > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of-mathematics/>* > >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 8:31 AM, wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> I am attempting to follow Wolff-Michael?s 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 > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> ?use-value? > >>>>> & > >>>>> > >>>>> sign > >>>>>>>>>> complex ?value?. > >>>>>>>>>> His methodology is to read Marx ?substituting? the word ?SIGN? > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> (implying > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> sign complex) FOR ?commodity? 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: ?natural signs? such as animal footprints are > >>>>>>>>>> useful/functional to the hunter inherently; they do NOT have > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> ?value? > >>>>> > >>>>> (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 ?value? (exchangeable). > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Someone > >>>>> > >>>>> who > >>>>>>>>>> satisfies HER needs through her product produces ?use-value? but > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> NOT > >>>>> > >>>>> ?value?. > >>>>>>>>>> b) VALUE: (exchangeable). To produce SIGNS (complexes), she has > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> to > >>>>> > >>>>> produce > >>>>>>>>>> not only ?use-value? but use-value FOR others. She has to > produce > >>>>>>>>>> ?societal? use-values.... To be/come (exchangeable) SIGN, the > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> product > >>>>> > >>>>> HAS > >>>>>>>>>> TO BE TRANSFERRED to another, FOR whom the SIGN complex > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> ?constitutes? > >>>>> > >>>>> use-value. > >>>>>>>>>> The production of signs that produce no ?value? that is > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> exchangeable > >>>>> > >>>>> FOR > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> others leads to personal notes often having NO use-value to > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> others. > >>>>> > >>>>> To > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> trans/form use-value to BE come ?value? 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 ?use-value? > & > >>>>>>>>>> ?value? > >>>>>>>>>> (exchangeable) > >>>>>>>>>> My morning musement > >>>>>>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > > > From ablunden@mira.net Wed Apr 19 18:10:23 2017 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 11:10:23 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value' In-Reply-To: <1492648956017.30437@iped.uio.no> References: <58f4dfe0.5a45620a.c2a11.c004@mx.google.com> <62ef71d1-672d-bf3e-cae2-87aecbd09692@mira.net> <58f61836.8e2c620a.3b9e9.7d11@mx.google.com> <0d06b705-2e34-1171-1a2e-f4be2a14503b@mira.net> <071e3c6a-ba4e-1de8-1dae-1d54b8879ddd@mira.net> <1492648956017.30437@iped.uio.no> Message-ID: <3508d4d7-5699-23da-8f8d-faeac7434664@mira.net> The structure of "Thinking and Speech" is that the early chapters begin with the Word and the later chapters focus on the Concept. I take this as a guide as to what Vygotsky meant by "word", and that is not in the narrow sense. A word is the sign for a concept, and this is often 2 or 3 words, an "expression." "Utterance" is Bakhtin's unit and it is quite different from "word." An utterance is defined in terms of transactions between interlocutors. An utterance begins when someone starts speaking and ends when they hand the talking stick on to the next person. That could be an entire speech, or it could be a single exclamation. An utterance may reference a thousand concepts or none at all. Two quite different science are built on these two units. Note that Marx's "Capital" has the structure of "Thinking and Speech" in that only the first 4 chapters use the commodity as a unit, and once Marx inverts the unit (C-M-C becomes M-C-M') the unit is capital. And yet I know of no analogous structure in Bakhtin's work .... but then, I don't haven't studied Bakhtin. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://home.mira.net/~andy http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making On 20/04/2017 10:42 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > Andy, could you give bit more on that distinction between word and utterance as it pertains to the ongoing discussion? I am interested. Also, I note that different participants in the thread have used the different terms, 'sign,' and 'utterance.' > > Alfredo > ________________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Andy Blunden > Sent: 20 April 2017 02:26 > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value' > > 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" > 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 >>> >>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >>> >> hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of-mathematics/>* >>> >>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 8:18 AM, Andy Blunden wrote: >>> >>>> different trajectories, Larry. >>>> >>>> a >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> Andy Blunden >>>> http://home.mira.net/~andy >>>> http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making >>>> 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 >>>>> *Sent: *April 17, 2017 11:54 PM >>>>> *To: *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-making >>>>> >>>>> 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" >>>>> 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 >>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >>>>>>> >>>> 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 things? 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 .. >>>>> '?? >>>>> ? ' >>>>> >>>>>>>> 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 field? 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 say?) when I have thought about this a bit more - >>>>> maybe in >>>>> >>>>>>>> 2018? we should pick up! :-) >>>>>>>> On 17/04/2017 18:22, "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of >>>>>>>> Wolff-Michael Roth" >>>>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>>>>>> "r?le". I am quoting from p. 178: >>>>>>>>> Marx joins Hegel as regards terminology, and not Kant or Fichte, >>>>>>>>> who tried to solve the problem of ?ideality? (i.e., activity) >>>>> while >>>>> >>>>>>>>> remaining ?inside >>>>>>>>> consciousness?, 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 ?ideality? takes in the >>>>> whole >>>>> >>>>>>>>> range of phenomena >>>>>>>>> within which the ?ideal?, 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 ?moment? 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 people?s eyes, the >>>>>>>>> commodity-form of >>>>>>>>> the product, particularly in its dazzling money-form, in the form >>>>> of >>>>> >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> notorious ?real >>>>>>>>> talers?, ?real roubles?, or ?real dollars?, things which, as soon >>>>> as >>>>> we >>>>> >>>>>>>>> have the slightest >>>>>>>>> theoretical understanding of them, immediately turn out to be not >>>>>>>> ?real? >>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>> all, but ?ideal? >>>>>>>>> through and through, things whose category quite unambiguously >>>>> includes >>>>> >>>>>>>>> words, the >>>>>>>>> units of language, and many other ?things?. Things that, while >>>>> being >>>>> >>>>>>>>> wholly >>>>>>>>> ?material?, >>>>>>>>> palpable-corporeal formations, acquire all their ?meaning? >>>>> (function >>>>> >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> r?le) from ?spirit?, >>>>>>>> >from ?thought? 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> directions-in-mat >>>>>>>>> hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of-mathematics/>* >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 8:31 AM, wrote: >>>>>>>>>> I am attempting to follow Wolff-Michael?s 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 >>>>> ?use-value? >>>>> & >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> sign >>>>>>>>>> complex ?value?. >>>>>>>>>> His methodology is to read Marx ?substituting? the word ?SIGN? >>>>>>>> (implying >>>>>>>>>> sign complex) FOR ?commodity? 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: ?natural signs? such as animal footprints are >>>>>>>>>> useful/functional to the hunter inherently; they do NOT have >>>>> ?value? >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> (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 ?value? (exchangeable). >>>>> Someone >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> who >>>>>>>>>> satisfies HER needs through her product produces ?use-value? but >>>>> NOT >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ?value?. >>>>>>>>>> b) VALUE: (exchangeable). To produce SIGNS (complexes), she has >>>>> to >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> produce >>>>>>>>>> not only ?use-value? but use-value FOR others. She has to produce >>>>>>>>>> ?societal? use-values.... To be/come (exchangeable) SIGN, the >>>>> product >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> HAS >>>>>>>>>> TO BE TRANSFERRED to another, FOR whom the SIGN complex >>>>> ?constitutes? >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> use-value. >>>>>>>>>> The production of signs that produce no ?value? that is >>>>> exchangeable >>>>> >>>>>>>> FOR >>>>>>>>>> others leads to personal notes often having NO use-value to >>>>> others. >>>>> >>>>>>>> To >>>>>>>>>> trans/form use-value to BE come ?value? 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 ?use-value? & >>>>>>>>>> ?value? >>>>>>>>>> (exchangeable) >>>>>>>>>> My morning musement >>>>>>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > From wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com Wed Apr 19 18:15:58 2017 From: wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com (Wolff-Michael Roth) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 18:15:58 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value' In-Reply-To: <3508d4d7-5699-23da-8f8d-faeac7434664@mira.net> References: <58f4dfe0.5a45620a.c2a11.c004@mx.google.com> <62ef71d1-672d-bf3e-cae2-87aecbd09692@mira.net> <58f61836.8e2c620a.3b9e9.7d11@mx.google.com> <0d06b705-2e34-1171-1a2e-f4be2a14503b@mira.net> <071e3c6a-ba4e-1de8-1dae-1d54b8879ddd@mira.net> <1492648956017.30437@iped.uio.no> <3508d4d7-5699-23da-8f8d-faeac7434664@mira.net> Message-ID: Andy: In consciousness, the word is what ? in Feuerbach?s words ? is absolutely impossible for one person but possible for two. >From *Thinking and Speech*. Michael -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor Applied Cognitive Science MacLaurin Building A567 University of Victoria Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics * On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 6:10 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: > The structure of "Thinking and Speech" is that the early chapters begin > with the Word and the later chapters focus on the Concept. I take this as a > guide as to what Vygotsky meant by "word", and that is not in the narrow > sense. A word is the sign for a concept, and this is often 2 or 3 words, an > "expression." > > "Utterance" is Bakhtin's unit and it is quite different from "word." An > utterance is defined in terms of transactions between interlocutors. An > utterance begins when someone starts speaking and ends when they hand the > talking stick on to the next person. That could be an entire speech, or it > could be a single exclamation. An utterance may reference a thousand > concepts or none at all. > > Two quite different science are built on these two units. > > Note that Marx's "Capital" has the structure of "Thinking and Speech" in > that only the first 4 chapters use the commodity as a unit, and once Marx > inverts the unit (C-M-C becomes M-C-M') the unit is capital. And yet I know > of no analogous structure in Bakhtin's work .... but then, I don't haven't > studied Bakhtin. > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://home.mira.net/~andy > http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making > On 20/04/2017 10:42 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > >> Andy, could you give bit more on that distinction between word and >> utterance as it pertains to the ongoing discussion? I am interested. Also, >> I note that different participants in the thread have used the different >> terms, 'sign,' and 'utterance.' >> >> Alfredo >> ________________________________________ >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >> on behalf of Andy Blunden >> Sent: 20 April 2017 02:26 >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value' >> >> 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" >> 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 >>>> >>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >>>> >>> ections-in-mat >>>> hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of-mathematics/>* >>>> >>>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 8:18 AM, Andy Blunden >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> different trajectories, Larry. >>>>> >>>>> a >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>> http://home.mira.net/~andy >>>>> http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making >>>>> 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 >>>>>> *Sent: *April 17, 2017 11:54 PM >>>>>> *To: *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-making >>>>>> >>>>>> 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" >>>>>> 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 >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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 things? 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 .. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> '?? >>>>>> ? ' >>>>>> >>>>>> 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 field? 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 say?) when I have thought about this a bit more - >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> maybe in >>>>>> >>>>>> 2018? we should pick up! :-) >>>>>>>>> On 17/04/2017 18:22, "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of >>>>>>>>> Wolff-Michael Roth" >>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> "r?le". I am quoting from p. 178: >>>>>>>>>> Marx joins Hegel as regards terminology, and not Kant or Fichte, >>>>>>>>>> who tried to solve the problem of ?ideality? (i.e., activity) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> while >>>>>> >>>>>> remaining ?inside >>>>>>>>>> consciousness?, 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 ?ideality? takes in >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> whole >>>>>> >>>>>> range of phenomena >>>>>>>>>> within which the ?ideal?, 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 ?moment? 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 people?s eyes, the >>>>>>>>>> commodity-form of >>>>>>>>>> the product, particularly in its dazzling money-form, in the form >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> of >>>>>> >>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> notorious ?real >>>>>>>>>> talers?, ?real roubles?, or ?real dollars?, things which, as soon >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> as >>>>>> we >>>>>> >>>>>> have the slightest >>>>>>>>>> theoretical understanding of them, immediately turn out to be not >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ?real? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>> all, but ?ideal? >>>>>>>>>> through and through, things whose category quite unambiguously >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> includes >>>>>> >>>>>> words, the >>>>>>>>>> units of language, and many other ?things?. Things that, while >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> being >>>>>> >>>>>> wholly >>>>>>>>>> ?material?, >>>>>>>>>> palpable-corporeal formations, acquire all their ?meaning? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> (function >>>>>> >>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> r?le) from ?spirit?, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >from ?thought? 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 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> directions-in-mat >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of-mathematics/>* >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 8:31 AM, wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I am attempting to follow Wolff-Michael?s 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 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ?use-value? >>>>>> & >>>>>> >>>>>> sign >>>>>>>>>>> complex ?value?. >>>>>>>>>>> His methodology is to read Marx ?substituting? the word ?SIGN? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> (implying >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> sign complex) FOR ?commodity? 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: ?natural signs? such as animal footprints are >>>>>>>>>>> useful/functional to the hunter inherently; they do NOT have >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ?value? >>>>>> >>>>>> (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 ?value? (exchangeable). >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Someone >>>>>> >>>>>> who >>>>>>>>>>> satisfies HER needs through her product produces ?use-value? but >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> NOT >>>>>> >>>>>> ?value?. >>>>>>>>>>> b) VALUE: (exchangeable). To produce SIGNS (complexes), she has >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>> >>>>>> produce >>>>>>>>>>> not only ?use-value? but use-value FOR others. She has to produce >>>>>>>>>>> ?societal? use-values.... To be/come (exchangeable) SIGN, the >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> product >>>>>> >>>>>> HAS >>>>>>>>>>> TO BE TRANSFERRED to another, FOR whom the SIGN complex >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ?constitutes? >>>>>> >>>>>> use-value. >>>>>>>>>>> The production of signs that produce no ?value? that is >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> exchangeable >>>>>> >>>>>> FOR >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> others leads to personal notes often having NO use-value to >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> others. >>>>>> >>>>>> To >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> trans/form use-value to BE come ?value? 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 ?use-value? & >>>>>>>>>>> ?value? >>>>>>>>>>> (exchangeable) >>>>>>>>>>> My morning musement >>>>>>>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >> >> > From d.s.webster@durham.ac.uk Thu Apr 20 00:19:39 2017 From: d.s.webster@durham.ac.uk (WEBSTER, DAVID S.) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 07:19:39 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value' In-Reply-To: References: <58f4dfe0.5a45620a.c2a11.c004@mx.google.com> <62ef71d1-672d-bf3e-cae2-87aecbd09692@mira.net> <58f61836.8e2c620a.3b9e9.7d11@mx.google.com> <0d06b705-2e34-1171-1a2e-f4be2a14503b@mira.net> <071e3c6a-ba4e-1de8-1dae-1d54b8879ddd@mira.net> Message-ID: <5FCAE108E8796240B89A0E15AE182DBD1CBEF130@CISCMRMBS01.mds.ad.dur.ac.uk> 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 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" > 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 >>> >>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >>> >> ections-in-mat >>> hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of-mathematics/>* >>> >>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 8:18 AM, Andy Blunden 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 >>>>> *Sent: *April 17, 2017 11:54 PM >>>>> *To: *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" >>>>> 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 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 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 things? 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 .. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> '?? >>>>> ? ' >>>>> >>>>> 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 field? 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 say?) when I have thought about this a bit more - >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> maybe in >>>>> >>>>> 2018? we should pick up! :-) >>>>>>>> On 17/04/2017 18:22, "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf >>>>>>>> of Wolff-Michael Roth" >>>>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> "r?le". I am quoting from p. 178: >>>>>>>>> Marx joins Hegel as regards terminology, and not Kant or >>>>>>>>> Fichte, who tried to solve the problem of ?ideality? (i.e., >>>>>>>>> activity) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> while >>>>> >>>>> remaining ?inside >>>>>>>>> consciousness?, 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 ?ideality? takes in >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> whole >>>>> >>>>> range of phenomena >>>>>>>>> within which the ?ideal?, 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 ?moment? 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 people?s eyes, >>>>>>>>> the commodity-form of the product, particularly in its >>>>>>>>> dazzling money-form, in the form >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> of >>>>> >>>>> the >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> notorious ?real >>>>>>>>> talers?, ?real roubles?, or ?real dollars?, things which, as >>>>>>>>> soon >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> as >>>>> we >>>>> >>>>> have the slightest >>>>>>>>> theoretical understanding of them, immediately turn out to be >>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ?real? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>> all, but ?ideal? >>>>>>>>> through and through, things whose category quite unambiguously >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> includes >>>>> >>>>> words, the >>>>>>>>> units of language, and many other ?things?. Things that, while >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> being >>>>> >>>>> wholly >>>>>>>>> ?material?, >>>>>>>>> palpable-corporeal formations, acquire all their ?meaning? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> (function >>>>> >>>>> and >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> r?le) from ?spirit?, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >from ?thought? 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 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> directions-in-mat >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of-mathematics/ >>>>>>>>> >* On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 8:31 AM, >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I am attempting to follow Wolff-Michael?s 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 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ?use-value? >>>>> & >>>>> >>>>> sign >>>>>>>>>> complex ?value?. >>>>>>>>>> His methodology is to read Marx ?substituting? the word >>>>>>>>>> ?SIGN? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> (implying >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> sign complex) FOR ?commodity? 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: ?natural signs? such as animal footprints are >>>>>>>>>> useful/functional to the hunter inherently; they do NOT have >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ?value? >>>>> >>>>> (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 ?value? (exchangeable). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Someone >>>>> >>>>> who >>>>>>>>>> satisfies HER needs through her product produces ?use-value? >>>>>>>>>> but >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> NOT >>>>> >>>>> ?value?. >>>>>>>>>> b) VALUE: (exchangeable). To produce SIGNS (complexes), she >>>>>>>>>> has >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> to >>>>> >>>>> produce >>>>>>>>>> not only ?use-value? but use-value FOR others. She has to >>>>>>>>>> produce ?societal? use-values.... To be/come (exchangeable) >>>>>>>>>> SIGN, the >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> product >>>>> >>>>> HAS >>>>>>>>>> TO BE TRANSFERRED to another, FOR whom the SIGN complex >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ?constitutes? >>>>> >>>>> use-value. >>>>>>>>>> The production of signs that produce no ?value? that is >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> exchangeable >>>>> >>>>> FOR >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> others leads to personal notes often having NO use-value to >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> others. >>>>> >>>>> To >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> trans/form use-value to BE come ?value? 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 >>>>>>>>>> ?use-value? & ?value? >>>>>>>>>> (exchangeable) >>>>>>>>>> My morning musement >>>>>>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>> > From lpscholar2@gmail.com Thu Apr 20 05:22:14 2017 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (lpscholar2@gmail.com) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 05:22:14 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Development of Word and Punctuation Message-ID: <58f8a809.069c620a.dd089.7fd7@mx.google.com> David, I opened up a new thread on your contribution exploring ?word? and the relations of word/punctuation/ creating intervals. (three aspects). These insights are deserving of their own back/forth expression and exploration. Returning to what ?word? means for us contrasts' with Vai meaning of ?word? and with classical Greek meaning of ?word?. I hope Mike comments more. Andy indicates Vygotsky?s book (Thinking and Speech) is structured in two aspects. First ?word? and then ?concept?. Whereas Bahltin?s utterance is focused on doubling (as Wolff-Michael intends doubling) It is turn in the doubling process and utterance exists WITHIN a back/forth ?relation? as primordial. Now turning back to the trajectory of the development of punctuation as the reading process shifted accent FROM speaking/listening ?relation? towards reading as a silent process that required punctuation markers for readers silently to hearthe intervals ; to imaginatively ?hear? the intervals (without which the words are not ?heard?). Now I will return to a question? Is this trajectory one way FROM speaking aloud TO silent reading OR is the trajectory back/forth BOTH speaking=>listening & listening=>speaking. Doubling back/forth (three aspects including the gap ?/?) Back to mediation one of those tricky ?words? Sent from my Windows 10 phone From haydizulfei@rocketmail.com Thu Apr 20 05:47:58 2017 From: haydizulfei@rocketmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?=E2=80=AAHaydi_Zulfei=E2=80=AC_=E2=80=AA?=) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 12:47:58 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value' In-Reply-To: <3508d4d7-5699-23da-8f8d-faeac7434664@mira.net> References: <58f4dfe0.5a45620a.c2a11.c004@mx.google.com> <62ef71d1-672d-bf3e-cae2-87aecbd09692@mira.net> <58f61836.8e2c620a.3b9e9.7d11@mx.google.com> <0d06b705-2e34-1171-1a2e-f4be2a14503b@mira.net> <071e3c6a-ba4e-1de8-1dae-1d54b8879ddd@mira.net> <1492648956017.30437@iped.uio.no> <3508d4d7-5699-23da-8f8d-faeac7434664@mira.net> Message-ID: <537325221.4852468.1492692478829@mail.yahoo.com> Andy : Through your argument you reach : "The Unit is Capital" . Where am I mistaken ? Don't we say the 'unit' is the smallest no longer divisible part that has the properties of the whole ? And Michael as well as all of us say Marx does not , all of a sudden , say this is what the commodity is or this is what the capital is. We are told that he develops and nourishes the 'thing' he initiates his argument with and progresses , in size of a book length , toward the point he reaches , as you say , the molecular or molar entity as 'unit' . The C--M--C (commodity--money--commodity) being converted in the Money--Commodity--Money still , I suppose , does need to be developed to reach the point mentioned above . Is not that point the 'abstract labour' and therefrom the 'surplus value' ? that glitch , that tangle , that knot , that riddle that caused all complications with respect to prior economists and with respect to throwing light on the difference between barter and exchange (the push or the arrival of the trader or the capitalist into the process doing the trick of equal contract or transaction concealing the undetachable surplus 'representamen' from the total not partial wage labour 'ground' all this causing alienation ? not reducing of the glory and grandeur of Man , this noble creature of God non-relative to chimpanzees fallen from the Heaven to the wrath of the Divine fed not with morsels 'the filth of the economy' but with the versatile non-material blessings of the motley spirits 'maybe Trumpian' to the belly expansion ? Alienation-please notice this is the biggest thing for the Grand Duke Moralists- that is , causing the RELATION between things to appear as relations between men as involving in equal partnership thus preserving the 'dignity' of Man BUT IN FACT SACRIFICING ALL MORES AND ETHOS AND EIDOS AND LOGOS AT THE FOOT OF THE FILTHIEST LIE OF THE PAST HISTORY OF NOT MAN ALONE BUT ALL BEAUTIFUL ANIMATE OF THE UNIVERSE dehumanizing him and robbing him of his essence and true identity ? This is where the actual metamorphasis and conversion is really done ! That is , where there what is hidden within the material process of production , itself also live material , arises as some ideal of falsification and lying imposed on man . Once we had the good fortune of a collapse!! Since then , we are incessantly eulogizing over the trodden path of deviation , alleviations , mistracing trying to inculcate mores and monads and vital units into the deadening Universe assumingly re-incarnating the fleeing fleeting enlightening soul into this corpse of once eating from the forbidden fruit or tracking the misguiding path not yet showing the actual path of blocking the way to the trick but attempting to discover the analogies which yield but (apologetically) the rotten fruit. (This paragraph maybe all paragraphs are in fact a consult) If what I say is not the unit , then , with 'capital' we are meaning the accumulation of that initial unnoticeable stolen amountof surplus in such a size and magnitude that since its stage of 'imperialism' has gone so far off as to create its peak point of 'GLOBALIZATION' which for the transnationals would mean 'utter prosperity and the utmost freedom disguised as the so-called democracy felt as the daily genocide and slaughter , tyranny , threats , peril , intimidation and destruction. We are now supposedly following Marx of the modernest brand . The old brands enunciated and proclaimed 'liberation' . First what is the actual point of the surplus sign/discourse/utterance , etc. At what point is theft carried out ? Is the accumulation beneficial or detrimental as is with Marx? Where's the 'globalization' and what destiny awaits mankind with mere discourse and ideal exchanges as depicted ? Between North Korea and America ideal and material is now openly in progress and exchange . America "says" THE SWORD IS READY ; NORTH KOREA WILL "LAUNCH" ANOTHER ROCKET . That is , the outcome of 'matter in motion dissolved and incarnated into sign' as declared by one colleague not paying attention to this one-way of 'moving' alien to dialectics and of the analogy partially discovered leading to signification prior to all other ontologies. Even Ilyenko at one point rejects development as the self-moving of the matter with the thinking attribute as said by Spinoza and Vygotsky has limits to Spinozist doctrine. And last : signification ==> all other ontologies ? Marx : Being==>consciousness Marx against Marx! Best Haydi From: Andy Blunden To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Sent: Thursday, 20 April 2017, 5:42:35 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value' The structure of "Thinking and Speech" is that the early chapters begin with the Word and the later chapters focus on the Concept. I take this as a guide as to what Vygotsky meant by "word", and that is not in the narrow sense. A word is the sign for a concept, and this is often 2 or 3 words, an "expression." "Utterance" is Bakhtin's unit and it is quite different from "word." An utterance is defined in terms of transactions between interlocutors. An utterance begins when someone starts speaking and ends when they hand the talking stick on to the next person. That could be an entire speech, or it could be a single exclamation. An utterance may reference a thousand concepts or none at all. Two quite different science are built on these two units. Note that Marx's "Capital" has the structure of "Thinking and Speech" in that only the first 4 chapters use the commodity as a unit, and once Marx inverts the unit (C-M-C becomes M-C-M') the unit is capital. And yet I know of no analogous structure in Bakhtin's work .... but then, I don't haven't studied Bakhtin. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://home.mira.net/~andy http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making On 20/04/2017 10:42 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > Andy, could you give bit more on that distinction between word and utterance as it pertains to the ongoing discussion? I am interested. Also, I note that different participants in the thread have used the different terms, 'sign,' and 'utterance.' > > Alfredo > ________________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Andy Blunden > Sent: 20 April 2017 02:26 > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value' > > 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" > 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 >>> >>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >>> >> hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of-mathematics/>* >>> >>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 8:18 AM, Andy Blunden wrote: >>> >>>> different trajectories, Larry. >>>> >>>> a >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> Andy Blunden >>>> http://home.mira.net/~andy >>>> http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making >>>> 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 >>>>> *Sent: *April 17, 2017 11:54 PM >>>>> *To: *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-making >>>>> >>>>> 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" >>>>> 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 >>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >>>>>>> >>>> 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 things? 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 .. >>>>> '?? >>>>> ? ' >>>>> >>>>>>>> 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 field? 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 say?) when I have thought about this a bit more - >>>>> maybe in >>>>> >>>>>>>> 2018? we should pick up!? :-) >>>>>>>> On 17/04/2017 18:22, "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of >>>>>>>> Wolff-Michael Roth" >>>>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>>>>>> "r?le". I am quoting from p. 178: >>>>>>>>> Marx joins Hegel as regards terminology, and not Kant or Fichte, >>>>>>>>> who tried to solve the problem of ?ideality? (i.e., activity) >>>>> while >>>>> >>>>>>>>> remaining ?inside >>>>>>>>> consciousness?, 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 ?ideality? takes in the >>>>> whole >>>>> >>>>>>>>> range of phenomena >>>>>>>>> within which the ?ideal?, 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 ?moment? 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 people?s eyes, the >>>>>>>>> commodity-form of >>>>>>>>> the product, particularly in its dazzling money-form, in the form >>>>> of >>>>> >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> notorious ?real >>>>>>>>> talers?, ?real roubles?, or ?real dollars?, things which, as soon >>>>> as >>>>> we >>>>> >>>>>>>>> have the slightest >>>>>>>>> theoretical understanding of them, immediately turn out to be not >>>>>>>> ?real? >>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>> all, but ?ideal? >>>>>>>>> through and through, things whose category quite unambiguously >>>>> includes >>>>> >>>>>>>>> words, the >>>>>>>>> units of language, and many other ?things?. Things that, while >>>>> being >>>>> >>>>>>>>> wholly >>>>>>>>> ?material?, >>>>>>>>> palpable-corporeal formations, acquire all their ?meaning? >>>>> (function >>>>> >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> r?le) from ?spirit?, >>>>>>>> >from ?thought? 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> directions-in-mat >>>>>>>>> hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of-mathematics/>* >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 8:31 AM, wrote: >>>>>>>>>> I am attempting to follow Wolff-Michael?s 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 >>>>> ?use-value? >>>>> & >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> sign >>>>>>>>>> complex ?value?. >>>>>>>>>> His methodology is to read Marx ?substituting? the word ?SIGN? >>>>>>>> (implying >>>>>>>>>> sign complex) FOR ?commodity? 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: ?natural signs? such as animal footprints are >>>>>>>>>> useful/functional to the hunter inherently; they do NOT have >>>>> ?value? >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> (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 ?value? (exchangeable). >>>>> Someone >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> who >>>>>>>>>> satisfies HER needs through her product produces ?use-value? but >>>>> NOT >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ?value?. >>>>>>>>>> b) VALUE: (exchangeable). To produce SIGNS (complexes), she has >>>>> to >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> produce >>>>>>>>>> not only ?use-value? but use-value FOR others. She has to produce >>>>>>>>>> ?societal? use-values.... To be/come (exchangeable) SIGN, the >>>>> product >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> HAS >>>>>>>>>> TO BE TRANSFERRED to another, FOR whom the SIGN complex >>>>> ?constitutes? >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> use-value. >>>>>>>>>> The production of signs that produce no ?value? that is >>>>> exchangeable >>>>> >>>>>>>> FOR >>>>>>>>>> others leads to personal notes often having NO use-value to >>>>> others. >>>>> >>>>>>>> To >>>>>>>>>> trans/form use-value to BE come ?value? 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 ?use-value? & >>>>>>>>>> ?value? >>>>>>>>>> (exchangeable) >>>>>>>>>> My morning musement >>>>>>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > From haydizulfei@rocketmail.com Thu Apr 20 05:47:58 2017 From: haydizulfei@rocketmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?=E2=80=AAHaydi_Zulfei=E2=80=AC_=E2=80=AA?=) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 12:47:58 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value' In-Reply-To: <3508d4d7-5699-23da-8f8d-faeac7434664@mira.net> References: <58f4dfe0.5a45620a.c2a11.c004@mx.google.com> <62ef71d1-672d-bf3e-cae2-87aecbd09692@mira.net> <58f61836.8e2c620a.3b9e9.7d11@mx.google.com> <0d06b705-2e34-1171-1a2e-f4be2a14503b@mira.net> <071e3c6a-ba4e-1de8-1dae-1d54b8879ddd@mira.net> <1492648956017.30437@iped.uio.no> <3508d4d7-5699-23da-8f8d-faeac7434664@mira.net> Message-ID: <537325221.4852468.1492692478829@mail.yahoo.com> Andy : Through your argument you reach : "The Unit is Capital" . Where am I mistaken ? Don't we say the 'unit' is the smallest no longer divisible part that has the properties of the whole ? And Michael as well as all of us say Marx does not , all of a sudden , say this is what the commodity is or this is what the capital is. We are told that he develops and nourishes the 'thing' he initiates his argument with and progresses , in size of a book length , toward the point he reaches , as you say , the molecular or molar entity as 'unit' . The C--M--C (commodity--money--commodity) being converted in the Money--Commodity--Money still , I suppose , does need to be developed to reach the point mentioned above . Is not that point the 'abstract labour' and therefrom the 'surplus value' ? that glitch , that tangle , that knot , that riddle that caused all complications with respect to prior economists and with respect to throwing light on the difference between barter and exchange (the push or the arrival of the trader or the capitalist into the process doing the trick of equal contract or transaction concealing the undetachable surplus 'representamen' from the total not partial wage labour 'ground' all this causing alienation ? not reducing of the glory and grandeur of Man , this noble creature of God non-relative to chimpanzees fallen from the Heaven to the wrath of the Divine fed not with morsels 'the filth of the economy' but with the versatile non-material blessings of the motley spirits 'maybe Trumpian' to the belly expansion ? Alienation-please notice this is the biggest thing for the Grand Duke Moralists- that is , causing the RELATION between things to appear as relations between men as involving in equal partnership thus preserving the 'dignity' of Man BUT IN FACT SACRIFICING ALL MORES AND ETHOS AND EIDOS AND LOGOS AT THE FOOT OF THE FILTHIEST LIE OF THE PAST HISTORY OF NOT MAN ALONE BUT ALL BEAUTIFUL ANIMATE OF THE UNIVERSE dehumanizing him and robbing him of his essence and true identity ? This is where the actual metamorphasis and conversion is really done ! That is , where there what is hidden within the material process of production , itself also live material , arises as some ideal of falsification and lying imposed on man . Once we had the good fortune of a collapse!! Since then , we are incessantly eulogizing over the trodden path of deviation , alleviations , mistracing trying to inculcate mores and monads and vital units into the deadening Universe assumingly re-incarnating the fleeing fleeting enlightening soul into this corpse of once eating from the forbidden fruit or tracking the misguiding path not yet showing the actual path of blocking the way to the trick but attempting to discover the analogies which yield but (apologetically) the rotten fruit. (This paragraph maybe all paragraphs are in fact a consult) If what I say is not the unit , then , with 'capital' we are meaning the accumulation of that initial unnoticeable stolen amountof surplus in such a size and magnitude that since its stage of 'imperialism' has gone so far off as to create its peak point of 'GLOBALIZATION' which for the transnationals would mean 'utter prosperity and the utmost freedom disguised as the so-called democracy felt as the daily genocide and slaughter , tyranny , threats , peril , intimidation and destruction. We are now supposedly following Marx of the modernest brand . The old brands enunciated and proclaimed 'liberation' . First what is the actual point of the surplus sign/discourse/utterance , etc. At what point is theft carried out ? Is the accumulation beneficial or detrimental as is with Marx? Where's the 'globalization' and what destiny awaits mankind with mere discourse and ideal exchanges as depicted ? Between North Korea and America ideal and material is now openly in progress and exchange . America "says" THE SWORD IS READY ; NORTH KOREA WILL "LAUNCH" ANOTHER ROCKET . That is , the outcome of 'matter in motion dissolved and incarnated into sign' as declared by one colleague not paying attention to this one-way of 'moving' alien to dialectics and of the analogy partially discovered leading to signification prior to all other ontologies. Even Ilyenko at one point rejects development as the self-moving of the matter with the thinking attribute as said by Spinoza and Vygotsky has limits to Spinozist doctrine. And last : signification ==> all other ontologies ? Marx : Being==>consciousness Marx against Marx! Best Haydi From: Andy Blunden To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Sent: Thursday, 20 April 2017, 5:42:35 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value' The structure of "Thinking and Speech" is that the early chapters begin with the Word and the later chapters focus on the Concept. I take this as a guide as to what Vygotsky meant by "word", and that is not in the narrow sense. A word is the sign for a concept, and this is often 2 or 3 words, an "expression." "Utterance" is Bakhtin's unit and it is quite different from "word." An utterance is defined in terms of transactions between interlocutors. An utterance begins when someone starts speaking and ends when they hand the talking stick on to the next person. That could be an entire speech, or it could be a single exclamation. An utterance may reference a thousand concepts or none at all. Two quite different science are built on these two units. Note that Marx's "Capital" has the structure of "Thinking and Speech" in that only the first 4 chapters use the commodity as a unit, and once Marx inverts the unit (C-M-C becomes M-C-M') the unit is capital. And yet I know of no analogous structure in Bakhtin's work .... but then, I don't haven't studied Bakhtin. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://home.mira.net/~andy http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making On 20/04/2017 10:42 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > Andy, could you give bit more on that distinction between word and utterance as it pertains to the ongoing discussion? I am interested. Also, I note that different participants in the thread have used the different terms, 'sign,' and 'utterance.' > > Alfredo > ________________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Andy Blunden > Sent: 20 April 2017 02:26 > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value' > > 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" > 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 >>> >>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >>> >> hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of-mathematics/>* >>> >>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 8:18 AM, Andy Blunden wrote: >>> >>>> different trajectories, Larry. >>>> >>>> a >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> Andy Blunden >>>> http://home.mira.net/~andy >>>> http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making >>>> 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 >>>>> *Sent: *April 17, 2017 11:54 PM >>>>> *To: *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-making >>>>> >>>>> 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" >>>>> 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 >>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >>>>>>> >>>> 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 things? 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 .. >>>>> '?? >>>>> ? ' >>>>> >>>>>>>> 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 field? 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 say?) when I have thought about this a bit more - >>>>> maybe in >>>>> >>>>>>>> 2018? we should pick up!? :-) >>>>>>>> On 17/04/2017 18:22, "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of >>>>>>>> Wolff-Michael Roth" >>>>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>>>>>> "r?le". I am quoting from p. 178: >>>>>>>>> Marx joins Hegel as regards terminology, and not Kant or Fichte, >>>>>>>>> who tried to solve the problem of ?ideality? (i.e., activity) >>>>> while >>>>> >>>>>>>>> remaining ?inside >>>>>>>>> consciousness?, 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 ?ideality? takes in the >>>>> whole >>>>> >>>>>>>>> range of phenomena >>>>>>>>> within which the ?ideal?, 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 ?moment? 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 people?s eyes, the >>>>>>>>> commodity-form of >>>>>>>>> the product, particularly in its dazzling money-form, in the form >>>>> of >>>>> >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> notorious ?real >>>>>>>>> talers?, ?real roubles?, or ?real dollars?, things which, as soon >>>>> as >>>>> we >>>>> >>>>>>>>> have the slightest >>>>>>>>> theoretical understanding of them, immediately turn out to be not >>>>>>>> ?real? >>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>> all, but ?ideal? >>>>>>>>> through and through, things whose category quite unambiguously >>>>> includes >>>>> >>>>>>>>> words, the >>>>>>>>> units of language, and many other ?things?. Things that, while >>>>> being >>>>> >>>>>>>>> wholly >>>>>>>>> ?material?, >>>>>>>>> palpable-corporeal formations, acquire all their ?meaning? >>>>> (function >>>>> >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> r?le) from ?spirit?, >>>>>>>> >from ?thought? 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> directions-in-mat >>>>>>>>> hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of-mathematics/>* >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 8:31 AM, wrote: >>>>>>>>>> I am attempting to follow Wolff-Michael?s 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 >>>>> ?use-value? >>>>> & >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> sign >>>>>>>>>> complex ?value?. >>>>>>>>>> His methodology is to read Marx ?substituting? the word ?SIGN? >>>>>>>> (implying >>>>>>>>>> sign complex) FOR ?commodity? 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: ?natural signs? such as animal footprints are >>>>>>>>>> useful/functional to the hunter inherently; they do NOT have >>>>> ?value? >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> (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 ?value? (exchangeable). >>>>> Someone >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> who >>>>>>>>>> satisfies HER needs through her product produces ?use-value? but >>>>> NOT >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ?value?. >>>>>>>>>> b) VALUE: (exchangeable). To produce SIGNS (complexes), she has >>>>> to >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> produce >>>>>>>>>> not only ?use-value? but use-value FOR others. She has to produce >>>>>>>>>> ?societal? use-values.... To be/come (exchangeable) SIGN, the >>>>> product >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> HAS >>>>>>>>>> TO BE TRANSFERRED to another, FOR whom the SIGN complex >>>>> ?constitutes? >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> use-value. >>>>>>>>>> The production of signs that produce no ?value? that is >>>>> exchangeable >>>>> >>>>>>>> FOR >>>>>>>>>> others leads to personal notes often having NO use-value to >>>>> others. >>>>> >>>>>>>> To >>>>>>>>>> trans/form use-value to BE come ?value? 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 ?use-value? & >>>>>>>>>> ?value? >>>>>>>>>> (exchangeable) >>>>>>>>>> My morning musement >>>>>>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > From ablunden@mira.net Thu Apr 20 06:26:01 2017 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 23:26:01 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value' In-Reply-To: <537325221.4852468.1492692478829@mail.yahoo.com> References: <58f4dfe0.5a45620a.c2a11.c004@mx.google.com> <62ef71d1-672d-bf3e-cae2-87aecbd09692@mira.net> <58f61836.8e2c620a.3b9e9.7d11@mx.google.com> <0d06b705-2e34-1171-1a2e-f4be2a14503b@mira.net> <071e3c6a-ba4e-1de8-1dae-1d54b8879ddd@mira.net> <1492648956017.30437@iped.uio.no> <3508d4d7-5699-23da-8f8d-faeac7434664@mira.net> <537325221.4852468.1492692478829@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6473fe51-c72a-a653-6235-b6ee1a67cb69@mira.net> Haydi, the title of Marx's book is "Capital" so obviously it is a book about capital, not a book about simple commodity production. And yet his starting point (and the first 3 chapters) are about commodity production. But in chapter 4, Marx makes an inversion. The unit was C-M-C and it now becomes M-C-M'. The first unit is a commodity, the second unit is a capital. It is to the great credit of A N Leontyev that for all his many faults he saw this two-level character of social formations. Vygotsky had it too, but he did not make it so explicit, with the result that ANL did not see that Vygotsky had already prefigured his discovery. Anyway, it's all in this paper: https://www.academia.edu/14013616/Goethe_Hegel_and_Marx - It's pretty easy to see how Vygotsky fits into this schema. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://home.mira.net/~andy http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making On 20/04/2017 10:47 PM, ?Haydi Zulfei? ? wrote: > Andy : > > Through your argument you reach : "The Unit is Capital" . > Where am I mistaken ? > > Don't we say the 'unit' is the smallest no longer > divisible part that has the properties of the whole ? And > Michael as well as all of us say Marx does not , all of a > sudden , say this is what the commodity is or this is what > the capital is. We are told that he develops and nourishes > the 'thing' he initiates his argument with and progresses > , in size of a book length , toward the point he reaches , > as you say , the molecular or molar entity as 'unit' . > > The C--M--C (commodity--money--commodity) being converted > in the Money--Commodity--Money still , I suppose , does > need to be developed to reach the point mentioned above . > > Is not that point the 'abstract labour' and therefrom the > 'surplus value' ? that glitch , that tangle , that knot , > that riddle that caused all complications with respect to > prior economists and with respect to throwing light on the > difference between barter and exchange (the push or the > arrival of the trader or the capitalist into the process > doing the trick of equal contract or transaction > concealing the undetachable surplus 'representamen' from > the total not partial wage labour 'ground' all this > causing alienation ? not reducing of the glory and > grandeur of Man , this noble creature of God non-relative > to chimpanzees fallen from the Heaven to the wrath of the > Divine fed not with morsels 'the filth of the economy' but > with the versatile non-material blessings of the motley > spirits 'maybe Trumpian' to the belly expansion ? > Alienation-please notice this is the biggest thing for the > Grand Duke Moralists- that is , causing the RELATION > between things to appear as relations between men as > involving in equal partnership thus preserving the > 'dignity' of Man BUT IN FACT SACRIFICING ALL MORES AND > ETHOS AND EIDOS AND LOGOS AT THE FOOT OF THE FILTHIEST LIE > OF THE PAST HISTORY OF NOT MAN ALONE BUT ALL BEAUTIFUL > ANIMATE OF THE UNIVERSE dehumanizing him and robbing him > of his essence and true identity ? This is where the > actual metamorphasis and conversion is really done ! That > is , where there what is hidden within the material > process of production , itself also live material , arises > as some ideal of falsification and lying imposed on man . > Once we had the good fortune of a collapse!! Since then , > we are incessantly eulogizing over the trodden path of > deviation , alleviations , mistracing trying to inculcate > mores and monads and vital units into the deadening > Universe assumingly re-incarnating the fleeing fleeting > enlightening soul into this corpse of once eating from the > forbidden fruit or tracking the misguiding path not yet > showing the actual path of blocking the way to the trick > but attempting to discover the analogies which yield but > (apologetically) the rotten fruit. (This paragraph maybe > all paragraphs are in fact a consult) > > If what I say is not the unit , then , with 'capital' we > are meaning the accumulation of that initial unnoticeable > stolen amount > of surplus in such a size and magnitude that since its > stage of 'imperialism' has gone so far off as to create > its peak point of 'GLOBALIZATION' which for the > transnationals would mean 'utter prosperity and the utmost > freedom disguised as the so-called democracy felt as the > daily genocide and slaughter , tyranny , threats , peril , > intimidation and destruction. We are now supposedly > following Marx of the modernest brand . The old brands > enunciated and proclaimed 'liberation' . First what is the > actual point of the surplus sign/discourse/utterance , > etc. At what point is theft carried out ? Is the > accumulation beneficial or detrimental as is with Marx? > Where's the 'globalization' and what destiny awaits > mankind with mere discourse and ideal exchanges as > depicted ? Between North Korea and America ideal and > material is now openly in progress and exchange . America > "says" THE SWORD IS READY ; NORTH KOREA WILL "LAUNCH" > ANOTHER ROCKET . That is , the outcome of 'matter in > motion dissolved and incarnated into sign' as declared by > one colleague not paying attention to this one-way of > 'moving' alien to dialectics and of the analogy partially > discovered leading to signification prior to all other > ontologies. Even Ilyenko at one point rejects development > as the self-moving of the matter with the thinking > attribute as said by Spinoza and Vygotsky has limits to > Spinozist doctrine. And last : signification ==> all other > ontologies Marx : Being==>consciousness > > Marx against Marx! > > Best > > Haydi > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* Andy Blunden > *To:* "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > > *Sent:* Thursday, 20 April 2017, 5:42:35 > *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value' > > The structure of "Thinking and Speech" is that the early > chapters begin with the Word and the later chapters focus on > the Concept. I take this as a guide as to what Vygotsky > meant by "word", and that is not in the narrow sense. A word > is the sign for a concept, and this is often 2 or 3 words, > an "expression." > > "Utterance" is Bakhtin's unit and it is quite different from > "word." An utterance is defined in terms of transactions > between interlocutors. An utterance begins when someone > starts speaking and ends when they hand the talking stick on > to the next person. That could be an entire speech, or it > could be a single exclamation. An utterance may reference a > thousand concepts or none at all. > > Two quite different science are built on these two units. > > Note that Marx's "Capital" has the structure of "Thinking > and Speech" in that only the first 4 chapters use the > commodity as a unit, and once Marx inverts the unit (C-M-C > becomes M-C-M') the unit is capital. And yet I know of no > analogous structure in Bakhtin's work .... but then, I don't > haven't studied Bakhtin. > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://home.mira.net/~andy > http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making > > > On 20/04/2017 10:42 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > > Andy, could you give bit more on that distinction > between word and utterance as it pertains to the ongoing > discussion? I am interested. Also, I note that different > participants in the thread have used the different terms, > 'sign,' and 'utterance.' > > > > Alfredo > > ________________________________________ > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > on behalf of > Andy Blunden > > > Sent: 20 April 2017 02:26 > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value' > > > > 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" 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 > > >>> > >>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > >>> > >>> > hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of-mathematics/>* > >>> > >>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 8:18 AM, Andy Blunden > > wrote: > >>> > >>>> different trajectories, Larry. > >>>> > >>>> a > >>>> > >>>> > ------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>> Andy Blunden > >>>> http://home.mira.net/~andy > >>>> > http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making > >>>> 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 > > >>>>> *Sent: *April 17, 2017 11:54 PM > >>>>> *To: *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-making > >>>>> > >>>>> 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" > 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 > > >>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > >>>>>>> > >>>>> 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 things? 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 .. > >>>>> '?? > >>>>> ? ' > >>>>> > >>>>>>>> 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 field? 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 say?) when I have thought about this > a bit more - > >>>>> maybe in > >>>>> > >>>>>>>> 2018? we should pick up! :-) > >>>>>>>> On 17/04/2017 18:22, > "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of > >>>>>>>> Wolff-Michael Roth" > 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 > >>>>> > >>>>>>>>> "r?le". I am quoting from p. 178: > >>>>>>>>> Marx joins Hegel as regards terminology, and not > Kant or Fichte, > >>>>>>>>> who tried to solve the problem of ?ideality? > (i.e., activity) > >>>>> while > >>>>> > >>>>>>>>> remaining ?inside > >>>>>>>>> consciousness?, 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 > ?ideality? takes in the > >>>>> whole > >>>>> > >>>>>>>>> range of phenomena > >>>>>>>>> within which the ?ideal?, 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 ?moment? 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 > people?s eyes, the > >>>>>>>>> commodity-form of > >>>>>>>>> the product, particularly in its dazzling > money-form, in the form > >>>>> of > >>>>> > >>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>> notorious ?real > >>>>>>>>> talers?, ?real roubles?, or ?real dollars?, > things which, as soon > >>>>> as > >>>>> we > >>>>> > >>>>>>>>> have the slightest > >>>>>>>>> theoretical understanding of them, immediately > turn out to be not > >>>>>>>> ?real? > >>>>>>>>> at > >>>>>>>>> all, but ?ideal? > >>>>>>>>> through and through, things whose category quite > unambiguously > >>>>> includes > >>>>> > >>>>>>>>> words, the > >>>>>>>>> units of language, and many other ?things?. > Things that, while > >>>>> being > >>>>> > >>>>>>>>> wholly > >>>>>>>>> ?material?, > >>>>>>>>> palpable-corporeal formations, acquire all their > ?meaning? > >>>>> (function > >>>>> > >>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>> r?le) from ?spirit?, > >>>>>>>> >from ?thought? 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 > > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> directions-in-mat > >>>>>>>>> > hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of-mathematics/>* > >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 8:31 AM, > > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> I am attempting to follow Wolff-Michael?s > 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 > >>>>> ?use-value? > >>>>> & > >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> sign > >>>>>>>>>> complex ?value?. > >>>>>>>>>> His methodology is to read Marx ?substituting? > the word ?SIGN? > >>>>>>>> (implying > >>>>>>>>>> sign complex) FOR ?commodity? 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: ?natural signs? such as animal > footprints are > >>>>>>>>>> useful/functional to the hunter inherently; > they do NOT have > >>>>> ?value? > >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> (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 ?value? > (exchangeable). > >>>>> Someone > >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> who > >>>>>>>>>> satisfies HER needs through her product > produces ?use-value? but > >>>>> NOT > >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> ?value?. > >>>>>>>>>> b) VALUE: (exchangeable). To produce SIGNS > (complexes), she has > >>>>> to > >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> produce > >>>>>>>>>> not only ?use-value? but use-value FOR others. > She has to produce > >>>>>>>>>> ?societal? use-values.... To be/come > (exchangeable) SIGN, the > >>>>> product > >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> HAS > >>>>>>>>>> TO BE TRANSFERRED to another, FOR whom the SIGN > complex > >>>>> ?constitutes? > >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> use-value. > >>>>>>>>>> The production of signs that produce no ?value? > that is > >>>>> exchangeable > >>>>> > >>>>>>>> FOR > >>>>>>>>>> others leads to personal notes often having NO > use-value to > >>>>> others. > >>>>> > >>>>>>>> To > >>>>>>>>>> trans/form use-value to BE come ?value? > 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 ?use-value? & > >>>>>>>>>> ?value? > >>>>>>>>>> (exchangeable) > >>>>>>>>>> My morning musement > >>>>>>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > > > > > > From haydizulfei@rocketmail.com Thu Apr 20 14:38:30 2017 From: haydizulfei@rocketmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?=E2=80=AAHaydi_Zulfei=E2=80=AC_=E2=80=AA?=) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 21:38:30 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value' In-Reply-To: <6473fe51-c72a-a653-6235-b6ee1a67cb69@mira.net> References: <58f4dfe0.5a45620a.c2a11.c004@mx.google.com> <62ef71d1-672d-bf3e-cae2-87aecbd09692@mira.net> <58f61836.8e2c620a.3b9e9.7d11@mx.google.com> <0d06b705-2e34-1171-1a2e-f4be2a14503b@mira.net> <071e3c6a-ba4e-1de8-1dae-1d54b8879ddd@mira.net> <1492648956017.30437@iped.uio.no> <3508d4d7-5699-23da-8f8d-faeac7434664@mira.net> <537325221.4852468.1492692478829@mail.yahoo.com> <6473fe51-c72a-a653-6235-b6ee1a67cb69@mira.net> Message-ID: <854177174.5379828.1492724310312@mail.yahoo.com> Thanks Andy as always ! But if I may , first it's not a necessity that the title of a book expresses the unit the more so that with Vygotsky we have the title as 'Thinking and Speech' but the 'word meaning' as the 'unit' . Second , with capital as the focus of the book and with the method and the way Marx advances his argument , we notice that he aims at penetrating the genesis and development of this concept not as the point of departure but as the ultimate whole and the route it traversed to reach this point because with capital as indicated here we have to take it as the global universal and such a whole as a universality ordinarily cannot be the smallest indivisible unit of analysis. However , I should , of fairness and the inaccessibility of deeper understanding , accept the logic you use to justify the point. One more point , though Ilyenko confirmed both Leontiev and Rubinshtein with admiration , he had critiques on both of them realized in one paper maybe presented in Jreep. Therefore , I'd like to rely on Ilyenko when some controversial matter occurs. And to this day no one of authority has cleared to me what was behind the fact that Ilyenko remained silent about Vygotsky to the end of his life . Is there any document left about this puzzle? You know I have all of your papers and even books including the one referenced ; I'll read it again more carefully.Thanks!BestHaydi? From: Andy Blunden To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Sent: Thursday, 20 April 2017, 17:57:26 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value' Haydi, the title of Marx's book is "Capital" so obviously it is a book about capital, not a book about simple commodity production. And yet his starting point (and the first 3 chapters) are about commodity production. But in chapter 4, Marx makes an inversion. The unit was C-M-C and it now becomes M-C-M'. The first unit is a commodity, the second unit is a capital. It is to the great credit of A N Leontyev that for all his many faults he saw this two-level character of social formations. Vygotsky had it too, but he did not make it so explicit, with the result that ANL did not see that Vygotsky had already prefigured his discovery. Anyway, it's all in this paper: https://www.academia.edu/14013616/Goethe_Hegel_and_Marx - It's pretty easy to see how Vygotsky fits into this schema. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://home.mira.net/~andy http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making On 20/04/2017 10:47 PM, ?Haydi Zulfei? ? wrote: > Andy : > > Through your argument you reach : "The Unit is Capital" . > Where am I mistaken ? > > Don't we say the 'unit' is the smallest no longer > divisible part that has the properties of the whole ? And > Michael as well as all of us say Marx does not , all of a > sudden , say this is what the commodity is or this is what > the capital is. We are told that he develops and nourishes > the 'thing' he initiates his argument with and progresses > , in size of a book length , toward the point he reaches , > as you say , the molecular or molar entity as 'unit' . > > The C--M--C (commodity--money--commodity) being converted > in the Money--Commodity--Money still , I suppose , does > need to be developed to reach the point mentioned above . > > Is not that point the 'abstract labour' and therefrom the > 'surplus value' ? that glitch , that tangle , that knot , > that riddle that caused all complications with respect to > prior economists and with respect to throwing light on the > difference between barter and exchange (the push or the > arrival of the trader or the capitalist into the process > doing the trick of equal contract or transaction > concealing the undetachable surplus 'representamen' from > the total not partial wage labour 'ground' all this > causing alienation ? not reducing of the glory and > grandeur of Man , this noble creature of God non-relative > to chimpanzees fallen from the Heaven to the wrath of the > Divine fed not with morsels 'the filth of the economy' but > with the versatile non-material blessings of the motley > spirits 'maybe Trumpian' to the belly expansion ? > Alienation-please notice this is the biggest thing for the > Grand Duke Moralists- that is , causing the RELATION > between things to appear as relations between men as > involving in equal partnership thus preserving the > 'dignity' of Man BUT IN FACT SACRIFICING ALL MORES AND > ETHOS AND EIDOS AND LOGOS AT THE FOOT OF THE FILTHIEST LIE > OF THE PAST HISTORY OF NOT MAN ALONE BUT ALL BEAUTIFUL > ANIMATE OF THE UNIVERSE dehumanizing him and robbing him > of his essence and true identity ? This is where the > actual metamorphasis and conversion is really done ! That > is , where there what is hidden within the material > process of production , itself also live material , arises > as some ideal of falsification and lying imposed on man . > Once we had the good fortune of a collapse!! Since then , > we are incessantly eulogizing over the trodden path of > deviation , alleviations , mistracing trying to inculcate > mores and monads and vital units into the deadening > Universe assumingly re-incarnating the fleeing fleeting > enlightening soul into this corpse of once eating from the > forbidden fruit or tracking the misguiding path not yet > showing the actual path of blocking the way to the trick > but attempting to discover the analogies which yield but > (apologetically) the rotten fruit. (This paragraph maybe > all paragraphs are in fact a consult) > > If what I say is not the unit , then , with 'capital' we > are meaning the accumulation of that initial unnoticeable > stolen amount > of surplus in such a size and magnitude that since its > stage of 'imperialism' has gone so far off as to create > its peak point of 'GLOBALIZATION' which for the > transnationals would mean 'utter prosperity and the utmost > freedom disguised as the so-called democracy felt as the > daily genocide and slaughter , tyranny , threats , peril , > intimidation and destruction. We are now supposedly > following Marx of the modernest brand . The old brands > enunciated and proclaimed 'liberation' . First what is the > actual point of the surplus sign/discourse/utterance , > etc. At what point is theft carried out ? Is the > accumulation beneficial or detrimental as is with Marx? > Where's the 'globalization' and what destiny awaits > mankind with mere discourse and ideal exchanges as > depicted ? Between North Korea and America ideal and > material is now openly in progress and exchange . America > "says" THE SWORD IS READY ; NORTH KOREA WILL "LAUNCH" > ANOTHER ROCKET . That is , the outcome of 'matter in > motion dissolved and incarnated into sign' as declared by > one colleague not paying attention to this one-way of > 'moving' alien to dialectics and of the analogy partially > discovered leading to signification prior to all other > ontologies. Even Ilyenko at one point rejects development > as the self-moving of the matter with the thinking > attribute as said by Spinoza and Vygotsky has limits to > Spinozist doctrine. And last : signification ==> all other > ontologies? Marx : Being==>consciousness > > Marx against Marx! > > Best > > Haydi > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* Andy Blunden > *To:* "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > > *Sent:* Thursday, 20 April 2017, 5:42:35 > *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value' > > The structure of "Thinking and Speech" is that the early > chapters begin with the Word and the later chapters focus on > the Concept. I take this as a guide as to what Vygotsky > meant by "word", and that is not in the narrow sense. A word > is the sign for a concept, and this is often 2 or 3 words, > an "expression." > > "Utterance" is Bakhtin's unit and it is quite different from > "word." An utterance is defined in terms of transactions > between interlocutors. An utterance begins when someone > starts speaking and ends when they hand the talking stick on > to the next person. That could be an entire speech, or it > could be a single exclamation. An utterance may reference a > thousand concepts or none at all. > > Two quite different science are built on these two units. > > Note that Marx's "Capital" has the structure of "Thinking > and Speech" in that only the first 4 chapters use the > commodity as a unit, and once Marx inverts the unit (C-M-C > becomes M-C-M') the unit is capital. And yet I know of no > analogous structure in Bakhtin's work .... but then, I don't > haven't studied Bakhtin. > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://home.mira.net/~andy > http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making > > > On 20/04/2017 10:42 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > > Andy, could you give bit more on that distinction > between word and utterance as it pertains to the ongoing > discussion? I am interested. Also, I note that different > participants in the thread have used the different terms, > 'sign,' and 'utterance.' > > > > Alfredo > > ________________________________________ > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > on behalf of > Andy Blunden > > > Sent: 20 April 2017 02:26 > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value' > > > > 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" 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 > > >>> > >>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > >>> > >>> > hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of-mathematics/>* > >>> > >>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 8:18 AM, Andy Blunden > > wrote: > >>> > >>>> different trajectories, Larry. > >>>> > >>>> a > >>>> > >>>> > ------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>> Andy Blunden > >>>> http://home.mira.net/~andy > >>>> > http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making > >>>> 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 > > >>>>> *Sent: *April 17, 2017 11:54 PM > >>>>> *To: *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-making > >>>>> > >>>>> 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" > 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 > > >>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > >>>>>>> > >>>>> 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 things? 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 .. > >>>>> '?? > >>>>> ? ' > >>>>> > >>>>>>>> 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 field? 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 say?) when I have thought about this > a bit more - > >>>>> maybe in > >>>>> > >>>>>>>> 2018? we should pick up!? :-) > >>>>>>>> On 17/04/2017 18:22, > "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of > >>>>>>>> Wolff-Michael Roth" > 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 > >>>>> > >>>>>>>>> "r?le". I am quoting from p. 178: > >>>>>>>>> Marx joins Hegel as regards terminology, and not > Kant or Fichte, > >>>>>>>>> who tried to solve the problem of ?ideality? > (i.e., activity) > >>>>> while > >>>>> > >>>>>>>>> remaining ?inside > >>>>>>>>> consciousness?, 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 > ?ideality? takes in the > >>>>> whole > >>>>> > >>>>>>>>> range of phenomena > >>>>>>>>> within which the ?ideal?, 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 ?moment? 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 > people?s eyes, the > >>>>>>>>> commodity-form of > >>>>>>>>> the product, particularly in its dazzling > money-form, in the form > >>>>> of > >>>>> > >>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>> notorious ?real > >>>>>>>>> talers?, ?real roubles?, or ?real dollars?, > things which, as soon > >>>>> as > >>>>> we > >>>>> > >>>>>>>>> have the slightest > >>>>>>>>> theoretical understanding of them, immediately > turn out to be not > >>>>>>>> ?real? > >>>>>>>>> at > >>>>>>>>> all, but ?ideal? > >>>>>>>>> through and through, things whose category quite > unambiguously > >>>>> includes > >>>>> > >>>>>>>>> words, the > >>>>>>>>> units of language, and many other ?things?. > Things that, while > >>>>> being > >>>>> > >>>>>>>>> wholly > >>>>>>>>> ?material?, > >>>>>>>>> palpable-corporeal formations, acquire all their > ?meaning? > >>>>> (function > >>>>> > >>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>> r?le) from ?spirit?, > >>>>>>>> >from ?thought? 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 > > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> directions-in-mat > >>>>>>>>> > hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of-mathematics/>* > >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 8:31 AM, > > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> I am attempting to follow Wolff-Michael?s > 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 > >>>>> ?use-value? > >>>>> & > >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> sign > >>>>>>>>>> complex ?value?. > >>>>>>>>>> His methodology is to read Marx ?substituting? > the word ?SIGN? > >>>>>>>> (implying > >>>>>>>>>> sign complex) FOR ?commodity? 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: ?natural signs? such as animal > footprints are > >>>>>>>>>> useful/functional to the hunter inherently; > they do NOT have > >>>>> ?value? > >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> (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 ?value? > (exchangeable). > >>>>> Someone > >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> who > >>>>>>>>>> satisfies HER needs through her product > produces ?use-value? but > >>>>> NOT > >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> ?value?. > >>>>>>>>>> b) VALUE: (exchangeable). To produce SIGNS > (complexes), she has > >>>>> to > >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> produce > >>>>>>>>>> not only ?use-value? but use-value FOR others. > She has to produce > >>>>>>>>>> ?societal? use-values.... To be/come > (exchangeable) SIGN, the > >>>>> product > >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> HAS > >>>>>>>>>> TO BE TRANSFERRED to another, FOR whom the SIGN > complex > >>>>> ?constitutes? > >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> use-value. > >>>>>>>>>> The production of signs that produce no ?value? > that is > >>>>> exchangeable > >>>>> > >>>>>>>> FOR > >>>>>>>>>> others leads to personal notes often having NO > use-value to > >>>>> others. > >>>>> > >>>>>>>> To > >>>>>>>>>> trans/form use-value to BE come ?value? > 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 ?use-value? & > >>>>>>>>>> ?value? > >>>>>>>>>> (exchangeable) > >>>>>>>>>> My morning musement > >>>>>>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > > > > > > From haydizulfei@rocketmail.com Thu Apr 20 14:38:30 2017 From: haydizulfei@rocketmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?=E2=80=AAHaydi_Zulfei=E2=80=AC_=E2=80=AA?=) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 21:38:30 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value' In-Reply-To: <6473fe51-c72a-a653-6235-b6ee1a67cb69@mira.net> References: <58f4dfe0.5a45620a.c2a11.c004@mx.google.com> <62ef71d1-672d-bf3e-cae2-87aecbd09692@mira.net> <58f61836.8e2c620a.3b9e9.7d11@mx.google.com> <0d06b705-2e34-1171-1a2e-f4be2a14503b@mira.net> <071e3c6a-ba4e-1de8-1dae-1d54b8879ddd@mira.net> <1492648956017.30437@iped.uio.no> <3508d4d7-5699-23da-8f8d-faeac7434664@mira.net> <537325221.4852468.1492692478829@mail.yahoo.com> <6473fe51-c72a-a653-6235-b6ee1a67cb69@mira.net> Message-ID: <854177174.5379828.1492724310312@mail.yahoo.com> Thanks Andy as always ! But if I may , first it's not a necessity that the title of a book expresses the unit the more so that with Vygotsky we have the title as 'Thinking and Speech' but the 'word meaning' as the 'unit' . Second , with capital as the focus of the book and with the method and the way Marx advances his argument , we notice that he aims at penetrating the genesis and development of this concept not as the point of departure but as the ultimate whole and the route it traversed to reach this point because with capital as indicated here we have to take it as the global universal and such a whole as a universality ordinarily cannot be the smallest indivisible unit of analysis. However , I should , of fairness and the inaccessibility of deeper understanding , accept the logic you use to justify the point. One more point , though Ilyenko confirmed both Leontiev and Rubinshtein with admiration , he had critiques on both of them realized in one paper maybe presented in Jreep. Therefore , I'd like to rely on Ilyenko when some controversial matter occurs. And to this day no one of authority has cleared to me what was behind the fact that Ilyenko remained silent about Vygotsky to the end of his life . Is there any document left about this puzzle? You know I have all of your papers and even books including the one referenced ; I'll read it again more carefully.Thanks!BestHaydi? From: Andy Blunden To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Sent: Thursday, 20 April 2017, 17:57:26 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value' Haydi, the title of Marx's book is "Capital" so obviously it is a book about capital, not a book about simple commodity production. And yet his starting point (and the first 3 chapters) are about commodity production. But in chapter 4, Marx makes an inversion. The unit was C-M-C and it now becomes M-C-M'. The first unit is a commodity, the second unit is a capital. It is to the great credit of A N Leontyev that for all his many faults he saw this two-level character of social formations. Vygotsky had it too, but he did not make it so explicit, with the result that ANL did not see that Vygotsky had already prefigured his discovery. Anyway, it's all in this paper: https://www.academia.edu/14013616/Goethe_Hegel_and_Marx - It's pretty easy to see how Vygotsky fits into this schema. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://home.mira.net/~andy http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making On 20/04/2017 10:47 PM, ?Haydi Zulfei? ? wrote: > Andy : > > Through your argument you reach : "The Unit is Capital" . > Where am I mistaken ? > > Don't we say the 'unit' is the smallest no longer > divisible part that has the properties of the whole ? And > Michael as well as all of us say Marx does not , all of a > sudden , say this is what the commodity is or this is what > the capital is. We are told that he develops and nourishes > the 'thing' he initiates his argument with and progresses > , in size of a book length , toward the point he reaches , > as you say , the molecular or molar entity as 'unit' . > > The C--M--C (commodity--money--commodity) being converted > in the Money--Commodity--Money still , I suppose , does > need to be developed to reach the point mentioned above . > > Is not that point the 'abstract labour' and therefrom the > 'surplus value' ? that glitch , that tangle , that knot , > that riddle that caused all complications with respect to > prior economists and with respect to throwing light on the > difference between barter and exchange (the push or the > arrival of the trader or the capitalist into the process > doing the trick of equal contract or transaction > concealing the undetachable surplus 'representamen' from > the total not partial wage labour 'ground' all this > causing alienation ? not reducing of the glory and > grandeur of Man , this noble creature of God non-relative > to chimpanzees fallen from the Heaven to the wrath of the > Divine fed not with morsels 'the filth of the economy' but > with the versatile non-material blessings of the motley > spirits 'maybe Trumpian' to the belly expansion ? > Alienation-please notice this is the biggest thing for the > Grand Duke Moralists- that is , causing the RELATION > between things to appear as relations between men as > involving in equal partnership thus preserving the > 'dignity' of Man BUT IN FACT SACRIFICING ALL MORES AND > ETHOS AND EIDOS AND LOGOS AT THE FOOT OF THE FILTHIEST LIE > OF THE PAST HISTORY OF NOT MAN ALONE BUT ALL BEAUTIFUL > ANIMATE OF THE UNIVERSE dehumanizing him and robbing him > of his essence and true identity ? This is where the > actual metamorphasis and conversion is really done ! That > is , where there what is hidden within the material > process of production , itself also live material , arises > as some ideal of falsification and lying imposed on man . > Once we had the good fortune of a collapse!! Since then , > we are incessantly eulogizing over the trodden path of > deviation , alleviations , mistracing trying to inculcate > mores and monads and vital units into the deadening > Universe assumingly re-incarnating the fleeing fleeting > enlightening soul into this corpse of once eating from the > forbidden fruit or tracking the misguiding path not yet > showing the actual path of blocking the way to the trick > but attempting to discover the analogies which yield but > (apologetically) the rotten fruit. (This paragraph maybe > all paragraphs are in fact a consult) > > If what I say is not the unit , then , with 'capital' we > are meaning the accumulation of that initial unnoticeable > stolen amount > of surplus in such a size and magnitude that since its > stage of 'imperialism' has gone so far off as to create > its peak point of 'GLOBALIZATION' which for the > transnationals would mean 'utter prosperity and the utmost > freedom disguised as the so-called democracy felt as the > daily genocide and slaughter , tyranny , threats , peril , > intimidation and destruction. We are now supposedly > following Marx of the modernest brand . The old brands > enunciated and proclaimed 'liberation' . First what is the > actual point of the surplus sign/discourse/utterance , > etc. At what point is theft carried out ? Is the > accumulation beneficial or detrimental as is with Marx? > Where's the 'globalization' and what destiny awaits > mankind with mere discourse and ideal exchanges as > depicted ? Between North Korea and America ideal and > material is now openly in progress and exchange . America > "says" THE SWORD IS READY ; NORTH KOREA WILL "LAUNCH" > ANOTHER ROCKET . That is , the outcome of 'matter in > motion dissolved and incarnated into sign' as declared by > one colleague not paying attention to this one-way of > 'moving' alien to dialectics and of the analogy partially > discovered leading to signification prior to all other > ontologies. Even Ilyenko at one point rejects development > as the self-moving of the matter with the thinking > attribute as said by Spinoza and Vygotsky has limits to > Spinozist doctrine. And last : signification ==> all other > ontologies? Marx : Being==>consciousness > > Marx against Marx! > > Best > > Haydi > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* Andy Blunden > *To:* "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > > *Sent:* Thursday, 20 April 2017, 5:42:35 > *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value' > > The structure of "Thinking and Speech" is that the early > chapters begin with the Word and the later chapters focus on > the Concept. I take this as a guide as to what Vygotsky > meant by "word", and that is not in the narrow sense. A word > is the sign for a concept, and this is often 2 or 3 words, > an "expression." > > "Utterance" is Bakhtin's unit and it is quite different from > "word." An utterance is defined in terms of transactions > between interlocutors. An utterance begins when someone > starts speaking and ends when they hand the talking stick on > to the next person. That could be an entire speech, or it > could be a single exclamation. An utterance may reference a > thousand concepts or none at all. > > Two quite different science are built on these two units. > > Note that Marx's "Capital" has the structure of "Thinking > and Speech" in that only the first 4 chapters use the > commodity as a unit, and once Marx inverts the unit (C-M-C > becomes M-C-M') the unit is capital. And yet I know of no > analogous structure in Bakhtin's work .... but then, I don't > haven't studied Bakhtin. > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://home.mira.net/~andy > http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making > > > On 20/04/2017 10:42 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > > Andy, could you give bit more on that distinction > between word and utterance as it pertains to the ongoing > discussion? I am interested. Also, I note that different > participants in the thread have used the different terms, > 'sign,' and 'utterance.' > > > > Alfredo > > ________________________________________ > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > on behalf of > Andy Blunden > > > Sent: 20 April 2017 02:26 > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value' > > > > 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" 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 > > >>> > >>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > >>> > >>> > hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of-mathematics/>* > >>> > >>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 8:18 AM, Andy Blunden > > wrote: > >>> > >>>> different trajectories, Larry. > >>>> > >>>> a > >>>> > >>>> > ------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>> Andy Blunden > >>>> http://home.mira.net/~andy > >>>> > http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making > >>>> 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 > > >>>>> *Sent: *April 17, 2017 11:54 PM > >>>>> *To: *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-making > >>>>> > >>>>> 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" > 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 > > >>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > >>>>>>> > >>>>> 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 things? 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 .. > >>>>> '?? > >>>>> ? ' > >>>>> > >>>>>>>> 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 field? 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 say?) when I have thought about this > a bit more - > >>>>> maybe in > >>>>> > >>>>>>>> 2018? we should pick up!? :-) > >>>>>>>> On 17/04/2017 18:22, > "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of > >>>>>>>> Wolff-Michael Roth" > 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 > >>>>> > >>>>>>>>> "r?le". I am quoting from p. 178: > >>>>>>>>> Marx joins Hegel as regards terminology, and not > Kant or Fichte, > >>>>>>>>> who tried to solve the problem of ?ideality? > (i.e., activity) > >>>>> while > >>>>> > >>>>>>>>> remaining ?inside > >>>>>>>>> consciousness?, 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 > ?ideality? takes in the > >>>>> whole > >>>>> > >>>>>>>>> range of phenomena > >>>>>>>>> within which the ?ideal?, 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 ?moment? 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 > people?s eyes, the > >>>>>>>>> commodity-form of > >>>>>>>>> the product, particularly in its dazzling > money-form, in the form > >>>>> of > >>>>> > >>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>> notorious ?real > >>>>>>>>> talers?, ?real roubles?, or ?real dollars?, > things which, as soon > >>>>> as > >>>>> we > >>>>> > >>>>>>>>> have the slightest > >>>>>>>>> theoretical understanding of them, immediately > turn out to be not > >>>>>>>> ?real? > >>>>>>>>> at > >>>>>>>>> all, but ?ideal? > >>>>>>>>> through and through, things whose category quite > unambiguously > >>>>> includes > >>>>> > >>>>>>>>> words, the > >>>>>>>>> units of language, and many other ?things?. > Things that, while > >>>>> being > >>>>> > >>>>>>>>> wholly > >>>>>>>>> ?material?, > >>>>>>>>> palpable-corporeal formations, acquire all their > ?meaning? > >>>>> (function > >>>>> > >>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>> r?le) from ?spirit?, > >>>>>>>> >from ?thought? 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 > > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> directions-in-mat > >>>>>>>>> > hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of-mathematics/>* > >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 8:31 AM, > > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> I am attempting to follow Wolff-Michael?s > 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 > >>>>> ?use-value? > >>>>> & > >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> sign > >>>>>>>>>> complex ?value?. > >>>>>>>>>> His methodology is to read Marx ?substituting? > the word ?SIGN? > >>>>>>>> (implying > >>>>>>>>>> sign complex) FOR ?commodity? 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: ?natural signs? such as animal > footprints are > >>>>>>>>>> useful/functional to the hunter inherently; > they do NOT have > >>>>> ?value? > >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> (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 ?value? > (exchangeable). > >>>>> Someone > >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> who > >>>>>>>>>> satisfies HER needs through her product > produces ?use-value? but > >>>>> NOT > >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> ?value?. > >>>>>>>>>> b) VALUE: (exchangeable). To produce SIGNS > (complexes), she has > >>>>> to > >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> produce > >>>>>>>>>> not only ?use-value? but use-value FOR others. > She has to produce > >>>>>>>>>> ?societal? use-values.... To be/come > (exchangeable) SIGN, the > >>>>> product > >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> HAS > >>>>>>>>>> TO BE TRANSFERRED to another, FOR whom the SIGN > complex > >>>>> ?constitutes? > >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> use-value. > >>>>>>>>>> The production of signs that produce no ?value? > that is > >>>>> exchangeable > >>>>> > >>>>>>>> FOR > >>>>>>>>>> others leads to personal notes often having NO > use-value to > >>>>> others. > >>>>> > >>>>>>>> To > >>>>>>>>>> trans/form use-value to BE come ?value? > 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 ?use-value? & > >>>>>>>>>> ?value? > >>>>>>>>>> (exchangeable) > >>>>>>>>>> My morning musement > >>>>>>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > > > > > > From dkellogg60@gmail.com Thu Apr 20 16:33:29 2017 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 09:33:29 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value' In-Reply-To: <5FCAE108E8796240B89A0E15AE182DBD1CBEF130@CISCMRMBS01.mds.ad.dur.ac.uk> References: <58f4dfe0.5a45620a.c2a11.c004@mx.google.com> <62ef71d1-672d-bf3e-cae2-87aecbd09692@mira.net> <58f61836.8e2c620a.3b9e9.7d11@mx.google.com> <0d06b705-2e34-1171-1a2e-f4be2a14503b@mira.net> <071e3c6a-ba4e-1de8-1dae-1d54b8879ddd@mira.net> <5FCAE108E8796240B89A0E15AE182DBD1CBEF130@CISCMRMBS01.mds.ad.dur.ac.uk> Message-ID: 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. 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 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" >> 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 > >>> > >>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > >>> >>> ections-in-mat > >>> hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of-mathematics/>* > >>> > >>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 8:18 AM, Andy Blunden > 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 > >>>>> *Sent: *April 17, 2017 11:54 PM > >>>>> *To: *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" >>>>>> 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 > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>> 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 things? 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 .. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> '?? > >>>>> ? ' > >>>>> > >>>>> 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 field? 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 say?) when I have thought about this a bit more - > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> maybe in > >>>>> > >>>>> 2018? we should pick up! :-) > >>>>>>>> On 17/04/2017 18:22, "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf > >>>>>>>> of Wolff-Michael Roth" >>>>>>>> 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 > >>>>> > >>>>> "r?le". I am quoting from p. 178: > >>>>>>>>> Marx joins Hegel as regards terminology, and not Kant or > >>>>>>>>> Fichte, who tried to solve the problem of ?ideality? (i.e., > >>>>>>>>> activity) > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> while > >>>>> > >>>>> remaining ?inside > >>>>>>>>> consciousness?, 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 ?ideality? takes in > >>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> whole > >>>>> > >>>>> range of phenomena > >>>>>>>>> within which the ?ideal?, 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 ?moment? 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 people?s eyes, > >>>>>>>>> the commodity-form of the product, particularly in its > >>>>>>>>> dazzling money-form, in the form > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> of > >>>>> > >>>>> the > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> notorious ?real > >>>>>>>>> talers?, ?real roubles?, or ?real dollars?, things which, as > >>>>>>>>> soon > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> as > >>>>> we > >>>>> > >>>>> have the slightest > >>>>>>>>> theoretical understanding of them, immediately turn out to be > >>>>>>>>> not > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> ?real? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> at > >>>>>>>>> all, but ?ideal? > >>>>>>>>> through and through, things whose category quite unambiguously > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> includes > >>>>> > >>>>> words, the > >>>>>>>>> units of language, and many other ?things?. Things that, while > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> being > >>>>> > >>>>> wholly > >>>>>>>>> ?material?, > >>>>>>>>> palpable-corporeal formations, acquire all their ?meaning? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> (function > >>>>> > >>>>> and > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> r?le) from ?spirit?, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >from ?thought? 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 > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> directions-in-mat > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of-mathematics/ > >>>>>>>>> >* On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 8:31 AM, > >>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> I am attempting to follow Wolff-Michael?s 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 > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> ?use-value? > >>>>> & > >>>>> > >>>>> sign > >>>>>>>>>> complex ?value?. > >>>>>>>>>> His methodology is to read Marx ?substituting? the word > >>>>>>>>>> ?SIGN? > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> (implying > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> sign complex) FOR ?commodity? 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: ?natural signs? such as animal footprints are > >>>>>>>>>> useful/functional to the hunter inherently; they do NOT have > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> ?value? > >>>>> > >>>>> (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 ?value? (exchangeable). > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Someone > >>>>> > >>>>> who > >>>>>>>>>> satisfies HER needs through her product produces ?use-value? > >>>>>>>>>> but > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> NOT > >>>>> > >>>>> ?value?. > >>>>>>>>>> b) VALUE: (exchangeable). To produce SIGNS (complexes), she > >>>>>>>>>> has > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> to > >>>>> > >>>>> produce > >>>>>>>>>> not only ?use-value? but use-value FOR others. She has to > >>>>>>>>>> produce ?societal? use-values.... To be/come (exchangeable) > >>>>>>>>>> SIGN, the > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> product > >>>>> > >>>>> HAS > >>>>>>>>>> TO BE TRANSFERRED to another, FOR whom the SIGN complex > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> ?constitutes? > >>>>> > >>>>> use-value. > >>>>>>>>>> The production of signs that produce no ?value? that is > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> exchangeable > >>>>> > >>>>> FOR > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> others leads to personal notes often having NO use-value to > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> others. > >>>>> > >>>>> To > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> trans/form use-value to BE come ?value? 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 > >>>>>>>>>> ?use-value? & ?value? > >>>>>>>>>> (exchangeable) > >>>>>>>>>> My morning musement > >>>>>>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > > > > From mcole@ucsd.edu Thu Apr 20 17:47:13 2017 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 17:47:13 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value' In-Reply-To: References: <58f4dfe0.5a45620a.c2a11.c004@mx.google.com> <62ef71d1-672d-bf3e-cae2-87aecbd09692@mira.net> <58f61836.8e2c620a.3b9e9.7d11@mx.google.com> <0d06b705-2e34-1171-1a2e-f4be2a14503b@mira.net> <071e3c6a-ba4e-1de8-1dae-1d54b8879ddd@mira.net> <5FCAE108E8796240B89A0E15AE182DBD1CBEF130@CISCMRMBS01.mds.ad.dur.ac.uk> Message-ID: 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 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 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" > >> 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 > > >>> > > >>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > >>> > >>> ections-in-mat > > >>> hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of-mathematics/>* > > >>> > > >>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 8:18 AM, Andy Blunden > > 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 > > >>>>> *Sent: *April 17, 2017 11:54 PM > > >>>>> *To: *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" > >>>>>> 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 > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> 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 things? 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 .. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> '?? > > >>>>> ? ' > > >>>>> > > >>>>> 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 field? 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 say?) when I have thought about this a bit more - > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> maybe in > > >>>>> > > >>>>> 2018? we should pick up! :-) > > >>>>>>>> On 17/04/2017 18:22, "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf > > >>>>>>>> of Wolff-Michael Roth" > >>>>>>>> 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 > > >>>>> > > >>>>> "r?le". I am quoting from p. 178: > > >>>>>>>>> Marx joins Hegel as regards terminology, and not Kant or > > >>>>>>>>> Fichte, who tried to solve the problem of ?ideality? (i.e., > > >>>>>>>>> activity) > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> while > > >>>>> > > >>>>> remaining ?inside > > >>>>>>>>> consciousness?, 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 ?ideality? takes in > > >>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> whole > > >>>>> > > >>>>> range of phenomena > > >>>>>>>>> within which the ?ideal?, 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 ?moment? 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 people?s eyes, > > >>>>>>>>> the commodity-form of the product, particularly in its > > >>>>>>>>> dazzling money-form, in the form > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> of > > >>>>> > > >>>>> the > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> notorious ?real > > >>>>>>>>> talers?, ?real roubles?, or ?real dollars?, things which, as > > >>>>>>>>> soon > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> as > > >>>>> we > > >>>>> > > >>>>> have the slightest > > >>>>>>>>> theoretical understanding of them, immediately turn out to be > > >>>>>>>>> not > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> ?real? > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> at > > >>>>>>>>> all, but ?ideal? > > >>>>>>>>> through and through, things whose category quite unambiguously > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> includes > > >>>>> > > >>>>> words, the > > >>>>>>>>> units of language, and many other ?things?. Things that, while > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> being > > >>>>> > > >>>>> wholly > > >>>>>>>>> ?material?, > > >>>>>>>>> palpable-corporeal formations, acquire all their ?meaning? > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> (function > > >>>>> > > >>>>> and > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> r?le) from ?spirit?, > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> >from ?thought? 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 > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> directions-in-mat > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of-mathematics/ > > >>>>>>>>> >* On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 8:31 AM, > > >>>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> I am attempting to follow Wolff-Michael?s 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 > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> ?use-value? > > >>>>> & > > >>>>> > > >>>>> sign > > >>>>>>>>>> complex ?value?. > > >>>>>>>>>> His methodology is to read Marx ?substituting? the word > > >>>>>>>>>> ?SIGN? > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> (implying > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> sign complex) FOR ?commodity? 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: ?natural signs? such as animal footprints are > > >>>>>>>>>> useful/functional to the hunter inherently; they do NOT have > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> ?value? > > >>>>> > > >>>>> (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 ?value? (exchangeable). > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> Someone > > >>>>> > > >>>>> who > > >>>>>>>>>> satisfies HER needs through her product produces ?use-value? > > >>>>>>>>>> but > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> NOT > > >>>>> > > >>>>> ?value?. > > >>>>>>>>>> b) VALUE: (exchangeable). To produce SIGNS (complexes), she > > >>>>>>>>>> has > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> to > > >>>>> > > >>>>> produce > > >>>>>>>>>> not only ?use-value? but use-value FOR others. She has to > > >>>>>>>>>> produce ?societal? use-values.... To be/come (exchangeable) > > >>>>>>>>>> SIGN, the > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> product > > >>>>> > > >>>>> HAS > > >>>>>>>>>> TO BE TRANSFERRED to another, FOR whom the SIGN complex > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> ?constitutes? > > >>>>> > > >>>>> use-value. > > >>>>>>>>>> The production of signs that produce no ?value? that is > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> exchangeable > > >>>>> > > >>>>> FOR > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> others leads to personal notes often having NO use-value to > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> others. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> To > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> trans/form use-value to BE come ?value? 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 > > >>>>>>>>>> ?use-value? & ?value? > > >>>>>>>>>> (exchangeable) > > >>>>>>>>>> My morning musement > > >>>>>>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > From dkellogg60@gmail.com Thu Apr 20 22:38:45 2017 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 15:38:45 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value' In-Reply-To: References: <58f4dfe0.5a45620a.c2a11.c004@mx.google.com> <62ef71d1-672d-bf3e-cae2-87aecbd09692@mira.net> <58f61836.8e2c620a.3b9e9.7d11@mx.google.com> <0d06b705-2e34-1171-1a2e-f4be2a14503b@mira.net> <071e3c6a-ba4e-1de8-1dae-1d54b8879ddd@mira.net> <5FCAE108E8796240B89A0E15AE182DBD1CBEF130@CISCMRMBS01.mds.ad.dur.ac.uk> Message-ID: 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 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 > 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 > 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" > > >> 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 faculty/mroth/> > > > >>> > > > >>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > > >>> > > >>> ections-in-mat > > > >>> hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of-mathematics/>* > > > >>> > > > >>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 8:18 AM, Andy Blunden > > > 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 > > > >>>>> *Sent: *April 17, 2017 11:54 PM > > > >>>>> *To: *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" 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 > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> 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 things? 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 > .. > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> '?? > > > >>>>> ? ' > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> 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 field? 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 say?) when I have thought about this a bit more - > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> maybe in > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> 2018? we should pick up! :-) > > > >>>>>>>> On 17/04/2017 18:22, "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on > behalf > > > >>>>>>>> of Wolff-Michael Roth" > > >>>>>>>> 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 > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> "r?le". I am quoting from p. 178: > > > >>>>>>>>> Marx joins Hegel as regards terminology, and not Kant or > > > >>>>>>>>> Fichte, who tried to solve the problem of ?ideality? (i.e., > > > >>>>>>>>> activity) > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> while > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> remaining ?inside > > > >>>>>>>>> consciousness?, 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 ?ideality? takes > in > > > >>>>>>>>> the > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> whole > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> range of phenomena > > > >>>>>>>>> within which the ?ideal?, 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 ?moment? 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 people?s eyes, > > > >>>>>>>>> the commodity-form of the product, particularly in its > > > >>>>>>>>> dazzling money-form, in the form > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> of > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> the > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> notorious ?real > > > >>>>>>>>> talers?, ?real roubles?, or ?real dollars?, things which, as > > > >>>>>>>>> soon > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> as > > > >>>>> we > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> have the slightest > > > >>>>>>>>> theoretical understanding of them, immediately turn out to be > > > >>>>>>>>> not > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> ?real? > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> at > > > >>>>>>>>> all, but ?ideal? > > > >>>>>>>>> through and through, things whose category quite > unambiguously > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> includes > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> words, the > > > >>>>>>>>> units of language, and many other ?things?. Things that, > while > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> being > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> wholly > > > >>>>>>>>> ?material?, > > > >>>>>>>>> palpable-corporeal formations, acquire all their ?meaning? > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> (function > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> and > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> r?le) from ?spirit?, > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> >from ?thought? 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 > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> directions-in-mat > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of- > mathematics/ > > > >>>>>>>>> >* On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 8:31 AM, > > > >>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> I am attempting to follow Wolff-Michael?s 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 > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> ?use-value? > > > >>>>> & > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> sign > > > >>>>>>>>>> complex ?value?. > > > >>>>>>>>>> His methodology is to read Marx ?substituting? the word > > > >>>>>>>>>> ?SIGN? > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> (implying > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> sign complex) FOR ?commodity? 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: ?natural signs? such as animal footprints are > > > >>>>>>>>>> useful/functional to the hunter inherently; they do NOT have > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> ?value? > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> (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 ?value? (exchangeable). > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> Someone > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> who > > > >>>>>>>>>> satisfies HER needs through her product produces ?use-value? > > > >>>>>>>>>> but > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> NOT > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> ?value?. > > > >>>>>>>>>> b) VALUE: (exchangeable). To produce SIGNS (complexes), she > > > >>>>>>>>>> has > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> to > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> produce > > > >>>>>>>>>> not only ?use-value? but use-value FOR others. She has to > > > >>>>>>>>>> produce ?societal? use-values.... To be/come (exchangeable) > > > >>>>>>>>>> SIGN, the > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> product > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> HAS > > > >>>>>>>>>> TO BE TRANSFERRED to another, FOR whom the SIGN complex > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> ?constitutes? > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> use-value. > > > >>>>>>>>>> The production of signs that produce no ?value? that is > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> exchangeable > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> FOR > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> others leads to personal notes often having NO use-value to > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> others. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> To > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> trans/form use-value to BE come ?value? 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 > > > >>>>>>>>>> ?use-value? & ?value? > > > >>>>>>>>>> (exchangeable) > > > >>>>>>>>>> My morning musement > > > >>>>>>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > From ablunden@mira.net Thu Apr 20 22:44:52 2017 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 15:44:52 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value' In-Reply-To: References: <58f4dfe0.5a45620a.c2a11.c004@mx.google.com> <62ef71d1-672d-bf3e-cae2-87aecbd09692@mira.net> <58f61836.8e2c620a.3b9e9.7d11@mx.google.com> <0d06b705-2e34-1171-1a2e-f4be2a14503b@mira.net> <071e3c6a-ba4e-1de8-1dae-1d54b8879ddd@mira.net> <5FCAE108E8796240B89A0E15AE182DBD1CBEF130@CISCMRMBS01.mds.ad.dur.ac.uk> Message-ID: Marx did die in the middle of writing Capital, David, and it was finished by Engels thirty years later. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://home.mira.net/~andy http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making On 21/04/2017 3:38 PM, David Kellogg 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 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 >> 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 >> 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" >>>>> 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 > faculty/mroth/> >>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >>>>>>> >>>>>> ections-in-mat >>>>>>> hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of-mathematics/>* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 8:18 AM, Andy Blunden >>>> 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 >>>>>>>>> *Sent: *April 17, 2017 11:54 PM >>>>>>>>> *To: *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" > 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 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 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 things? 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 >> .. >>>>>>>>>>> '?? >>>>>>>>> ? ' >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 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 field? 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 say?) when I have thought about this a bit more - >>>>>>>>>>> maybe in >>>>>>>>> 2018? we should pick up! :-) >>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/04/2017 18:22, "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on >> behalf >>>>>>>>>>>> of Wolff-Michael Roth" >>>>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>> "r?le". I am quoting from p. 178: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Marx joins Hegel as regards terminology, and not Kant or >>>>>>>>>>>>> Fichte, who tried to solve the problem of ?ideality? (i.e., >>>>>>>>>>>>> activity) >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> while >>>>>>>>> remaining ?inside >>>>>>>>>>>>> consciousness?, 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 ?ideality? takes >> in >>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> whole >>>>>>>>> range of phenomena >>>>>>>>>>>>> within which the ?ideal?, 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 ?moment? 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 people?s eyes, >>>>>>>>>>>>> the commodity-form of the product, particularly in its >>>>>>>>>>>>> dazzling money-form, in the form >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>> notorious ?real >>>>>>>>>>>>> talers?, ?real roubles?, or ?real dollars?, things which, as >>>>>>>>>>>>> soon >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>> we >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> have the slightest >>>>>>>>>>>>> theoretical understanding of them, immediately turn out to be >>>>>>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> ?real? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>>>>> all, but ?ideal? >>>>>>>>>>>>> through and through, things whose category quite >> unambiguously >>>>>>>>>>>> includes >>>>>>>>> words, the >>>>>>>>>>>>> units of language, and many other ?things?. Things that, >> while >>>>>>>>>>>> being >>>>>>>>> wholly >>>>>>>>>>>>> ?material?, >>>>>>>>>>>>> palpable-corporeal formations, acquire all their ?meaning? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> (function >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>> r?le) from ?spirit?, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >from ?thought? 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> directions-in-mat >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of- >> mathematics/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>> * On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 8:31 AM, >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am attempting to follow Wolff-Michael?s 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>> ?use-value? >>>>>>>>> & >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> sign >>>>>>>>>>>>>> complex ?value?. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> His methodology is to read Marx ?substituting? the word >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?SIGN? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> (implying >>>>>>>>>>>>> sign complex) FOR ?commodity? 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: ?natural signs? such as animal footprints are >>>>>>>>>>>>>> useful/functional to the hunter inherently; they do NOT have >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ?value? >>>>>>>>> (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 ?value? (exchangeable). >>>>>>>>>>>>> Someone >>>>>>>>> who >>>>>>>>>>>>>> satisfies HER needs through her product produces ?use-value? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> but >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> NOT >>>>>>>>> ?value?. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> b) VALUE: (exchangeable). To produce SIGNS (complexes), she >>>>>>>>>>>>>> has >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>> produce >>>>>>>>>>>>>> not only ?use-value? but use-value FOR others. She has to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> produce ?societal? use-values.... To be/come (exchangeable) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> SIGN, the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> product >>>>>>>>> HAS >>>>>>>>>>>>>> TO BE TRANSFERRED to another, FOR whom the SIGN complex >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ?constitutes? >>>>>>>>> use-value. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The production of signs that produce no ?value? that is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> exchangeable >>>>>>>>> FOR >>>>>>>>>>>>> others leads to personal notes often having NO use-value to >>>>>>>>>>>>> others. >>>>>>>>> To >>>>>>>>>>>>> trans/form use-value to BE come ?value? 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?use-value? & ?value? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (exchangeable) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> My morning musement >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > From dkellogg60@gmail.com Thu Apr 20 22:57:43 2017 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 15:57:43 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value' In-Reply-To: References: <58f4dfe0.5a45620a.c2a11.c004@mx.google.com> <62ef71d1-672d-bf3e-cae2-87aecbd09692@mira.net> <58f61836.8e2c620a.3b9e9.7d11@mx.google.com> <0d06b705-2e34-1171-1a2e-f4be2a14503b@mira.net> <071e3c6a-ba4e-1de8-1dae-1d54b8879ddd@mira.net> <5FCAE108E8796240B89A0E15AE182DBD1CBEF130@CISCMRMBS01.mds.ad.dur.ac.uk> Message-ID: Not the first volume, Andy. And it's the first volume which has the structure you are talking about. David Kellogg Macquarie University On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 3:44 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: > Marx did die in the middle of writing Capital, David, and it was finished > by Engels thirty years later. > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://home.mira.net/~andy > http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making > On 21/04/2017 3:38 PM, David Kellogg 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 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 >>> 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 >>>>> >>>> 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" >>>>>> 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 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> faculty/mroth/> >>> >>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> ections-in-mat >>>>>>>> hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of-mathematics/>* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 8:18 AM, Andy Blunden >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>> *Sent: *April 17, 2017 11:54 PM >>>>>>>>>> *To: *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" >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 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 things? 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> .. >>> >>>> '?? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ? ' >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 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 field? 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 say?) when I have thought about this a bit more - >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> maybe in >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 2018? we should pick up! :-) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 17/04/2017 18:22, "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> behalf >>> >>>> of Wolff-Michael Roth" >>>>>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> "r?le". I am quoting from p. 178: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Marx joins Hegel as regards terminology, and not Kant or >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fichte, who tried to solve the problem of ?ideality? (i.e., >>>>>>>>>>>>>> activity) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> while >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> remaining ?inside >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> consciousness?, 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 ?ideality? takes >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> in >>> >>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> whole >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> range of phenomena >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> within which the ?ideal?, 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 ?moment? 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 people?s eyes, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the commodity-form of the product, particularly in its >>>>>>>>>>>>>> dazzling money-form, in the form >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> notorious ?real >>>>>>>>>>>>>> talers?, ?real roubles?, or ?real dollars?, things which, as >>>>>>>>>>>>>> soon >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> we >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> have the slightest >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> theoretical understanding of them, immediately turn out to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?real? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>>>>>> all, but ?ideal? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> through and through, things whose category quite >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> unambiguously >>> >>>> includes >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> words, the >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> units of language, and many other ?things?. Things that, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> while >>> >>>> being >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> wholly >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ?material?, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> palpable-corporeal formations, acquire all their ?meaning? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (function >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> r?le) from ?spirit?, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >from ?thought? 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> directions-in-mat >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> mathematics/ >>> >>>> * On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 8:31 AM, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am attempting to follow Wolff-Michael?s 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?use-value? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> & >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> sign >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> complex ?value?. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> His methodology is to read Marx ?substituting? the word >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?SIGN? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (implying >>>>>>>>>>>>>> sign complex) FOR ?commodity? 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: ?natural signs? such as animal footprints are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> useful/functional to the hunter inherently; they do NOT have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?value? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> (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 ?value? (exchangeable). >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Someone >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> who >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> satisfies HER needs through her product produces ?use-value? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NOT >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ?value?. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> b) VALUE: (exchangeable). To produce SIGNS (complexes), she >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> produce >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> not only ?use-value? but use-value FOR others. She has to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> produce ?societal? use-values.... To be/come (exchangeable) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SIGN, the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> product >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> HAS >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> TO BE TRANSFERRED to another, FOR whom the SIGN complex >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?constitutes? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> use-value. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The production of signs that produce no ?value? that is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exchangeable >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> FOR >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> others leads to personal notes often having NO use-value to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> others. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> To >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> trans/form use-value to BE come ?value? 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?use-value? & ?value? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (exchangeable) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My morning musement >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >> > From d.s.webster@durham.ac.uk Fri Apr 21 00:10:46 2017 From: d.s.webster@durham.ac.uk (WEBSTER, DAVID S.) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 07:10:46 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value' In-Reply-To: References: <58f4dfe0.5a45620a.c2a11.c004@mx.google.com> <62ef71d1-672d-bf3e-cae2-87aecbd09692@mira.net> <58f61836.8e2c620a.3b9e9.7d11@mx.google.com> <0d06b705-2e34-1171-1a2e-f4be2a14503b@mira.net> <071e3c6a-ba4e-1de8-1dae-1d54b8879ddd@mira.net> <5FCAE108E8796240B89A0E15AE182DBD1CBEF130@CISCMRMBS01.mds.ad.dur.ac.uk> Message-ID: <5FCAE108E8796240B89A0E15AE182DBD1CBEF1C4@CISCMRMBS01.mds.ad.dur.ac.uk> 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 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 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" > >> 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 > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > >>> > >>> ections-in-mat > > >>> hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of-mathematics/>* > > >>> > > >>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 8:18 AM, Andy Blunden > > >>> > > 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 > > >>>>> *Sent: *April 17, 2017 11:54 PM > > >>>>> *To: *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" > > >>>>>> 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 > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> 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 things? 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 .. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> '?? > > >>>>> ? ' > > >>>>> > > >>>>> 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 field? 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 say?) when I have thought about this a bit more - > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> maybe in > > >>>>> > > >>>>> 2018? we should pick up! :-) > > >>>>>>>> On 17/04/2017 18:22, "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on > > >>>>>>>> behalf of Wolff-Michael Roth" > > >>>>>>>> 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 > > >>>>> > > >>>>> "r?le". I am quoting from p. 178: > > >>>>>>>>> Marx joins Hegel as regards terminology, and not Kant or > > >>>>>>>>> Fichte, who tried to solve the problem of ?ideality? > > >>>>>>>>> (i.e., > > >>>>>>>>> activity) > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> while > > >>>>> > > >>>>> remaining ?inside > > >>>>>>>>> consciousness?, 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 ?ideality? > > >>>>>>>>> takes in the > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> whole > > >>>>> > > >>>>> range of phenomena > > >>>>>>>>> within which the ?ideal?, 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 ?moment? 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 people?s > > >>>>>>>>> eyes, the commodity-form of the product, particularly in > > >>>>>>>>> its dazzling money-form, in the form > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> of > > >>>>> > > >>>>> the > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> notorious ?real > > >>>>>>>>> talers?, ?real roubles?, or ?real dollars?, things which, > > >>>>>>>>> as soon > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> as > > >>>>> we > > >>>>> > > >>>>> have the slightest > > >>>>>>>>> theoretical understanding of them, immediately turn out to > > >>>>>>>>> be not > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> ?real? > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> at > > >>>>>>>>> all, but ?ideal? > > >>>>>>>>> through and through, things whose category quite > > >>>>>>>>> unambiguously > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> includes > > >>>>> > > >>>>> words, the > > >>>>>>>>> units of language, and many other ?things?. Things that, > > >>>>>>>>> while > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> being > > >>>>> > > >>>>> wholly > > >>>>>>>>> ?material?, > > >>>>>>>>> palpable-corporeal formations, acquire all their ?meaning? > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> (function > > >>>>> > > >>>>> and > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> r?le) from ?spirit?, > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> >from ?thought? 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 > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> directions-in-mat > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of-mathemat > > >>>>>>>>> ics/ > > >>>>>>>>> >* On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 8:31 AM, > > >>>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> I am attempting to follow Wolff-Michael?s 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 > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> ?use-value? > > >>>>> & > > >>>>> > > >>>>> sign > > >>>>>>>>>> complex ?value?. > > >>>>>>>>>> His methodology is to read Marx ?substituting? the word > > >>>>>>>>>> ?SIGN? > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> (implying > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> sign complex) FOR ?commodity? 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: ?natural signs? such as animal footprints > > >>>>>>>>>> are useful/functional to the hunter inherently; they do > > >>>>>>>>>> NOT have > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> ?value? > > >>>>> > > >>>>> (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 ?value? (exchangeable). > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> Someone > > >>>>> > > >>>>> who > > >>>>>>>>>> satisfies HER needs through her product produces > > >>>>>>>>>> ?use-value? but > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> NOT > > >>>>> > > >>>>> ?value?. > > >>>>>>>>>> b) VALUE: (exchangeable). To produce SIGNS (complexes), > > >>>>>>>>>> she has > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> to > > >>>>> > > >>>>> produce > > >>>>>>>>>> not only ?use-value? but use-value FOR others. She has to > > >>>>>>>>>> produce ?societal? use-values.... To be/come > > >>>>>>>>>> (exchangeable) SIGN, the > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> product > > >>>>> > > >>>>> HAS > > >>>>>>>>>> TO BE TRANSFERRED to another, FOR whom the SIGN complex > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> ?constitutes? > > >>>>> > > >>>>> use-value. > > >>>>>>>>>> The production of signs that produce no ?value? that is > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> exchangeable > > >>>>> > > >>>>> FOR > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> others leads to personal notes often having NO use-value > > >>>>>>>>> to > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> others. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> To > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> trans/form use-value to BE come ?value? 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 > > >>>>>>>>>> ?use-value? & ?value? > > >>>>>>>>>> (exchangeable) > > >>>>>>>>>> My morning musement > > >>>>>>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > From hworthen@illinois.edu Fri Apr 21 08:35:48 2017 From: hworthen@illinois.edu (Worthen, Helena Harlow) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 15:35:48 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Fwd: [Marx_and_movements] defend labour and trade union studies at Ruskin College Oxford References: Message-ID: Apologies for cross-posting. Incredible that this working class college would be threatened with closure right now. Helena Worthen hworthen@illinois.edu Blog about US and Viet Nam: helenaworthen.wordpress.com *Apologies for cross-posting* Dear colleagues, comrades and friends - The management of Ruskin College Oxford, historically central to working-class and labour education in the UK, have decided to effectively close its BA and MA in International Labour and Trade Union Studies by making all academic staff in the department redundant, meaning that there is now no institution providing labour and trade union studies in the UK. Please sign the petition to support Ruskin College Oxford here https://friendsofruskin.wordpress.com/2017/03/24/defend-ruskins-ba-and-ma-courses/ and circulate this on any lists where you think people may be interested / supportive. In solidarity, Laurence --- Senior lecturer in sociology, National University of Ireland Maynooth Directeur d??tudes associ?, Fondation Maison des Sciences de l?Homme, Paris Research consultant, The Field Centre, Gloucestershire We Make Our Own History: Marxism and Social Movements in the Twilight of Neoliberalism Interface 8(2): social movement auto/biographies Activism MA at Maynooth; @ceesa_ma The Dhammaloka Project: early western Buddhists, anti-colonialism and Ireland Learning from each other's struggles personal website "...cercare e saper riconoscere chi e cosa, in mezzo all'inferno, non e' inferno, e farlo durare, e dargli spazio." __._,_.___ ________________________________ Posted by: Laurence Cox > ________________________________ Reply via web post ? Reply to sender ? Reply to group ? Start a New Topic ? Messages in this topic (1) ________________________________ [https://s.yimg.com/ru/static/images/yg/img/megaphone/1464031581_phpFA8bON] Have you tried the highest rated email app? With 4.5 stars in iTunes, the Yahoo Mail app is the highest rated email app on the market. What are you waiting for? Now you can access all your inboxes (Gmail, Outlook, AOL and more) in one place. Never delete an email again with 1000GB of free cloud storage. ________________________________ Visit Your Group [Yahoo! Groups] ? Privacy ? Unsubscribe ? Terms of Use . __,_._,___ From wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com Fri Apr 21 08:53:25 2017 From: wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com (Wolff-Michael Roth) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 08:53:25 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value' In-Reply-To: References: <58f4dfe0.5a45620a.c2a11.c004@mx.google.com> <62ef71d1-672d-bf3e-cae2-87aecbd09692@mira.net> <58f61836.8e2c620a.3b9e9.7d11@mx.google.com> <0d06b705-2e34-1171-1a2e-f4be2a14503b@mira.net> <071e3c6a-ba4e-1de8-1dae-1d54b8879ddd@mira.net> <5FCAE108E8796240B89A0E15AE182DBD1CBEF130@CISCMRMBS01.mds.ad.dur.ac.uk> Message-ID: Ric?ur (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 [*?nociation*] and statement [ *?nonc?*]." 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 Ric?ur 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 New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics * On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 10:38 PM, David Kellogg 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 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 > > 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 > > 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" > > > >> 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 > faculty/mroth/> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > > > >>> > > > >>> ections-in-mat > > > > >>> hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of-mathematics/>* > > > > >>> > > > > >>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 8:18 AM, Andy Blunden > > > > > 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 > > > > >>>>> *Sent: *April 17, 2017 11:54 PM > > > > >>>>> *To: *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" > 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 > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> 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 things? 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 > > .. > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> '?? > > > > >>>>> ? ' > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> 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 field? 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 say?) when I have thought about this a bit more - > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> maybe in > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> 2018? we should pick up! :-) > > > > >>>>>>>> On 17/04/2017 18:22, "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on > > behalf > > > > >>>>>>>> of Wolff-Michael Roth" > > > >>>>>>>> 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 > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> "r?le". I am quoting from p. 178: > > > > >>>>>>>>> Marx joins Hegel as regards terminology, and not Kant or > > > > >>>>>>>>> Fichte, who tried to solve the problem of ?ideality? (i.e., > > > > >>>>>>>>> activity) > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> while > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> remaining ?inside > > > > >>>>>>>>> consciousness?, 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 ?ideality? takes > > in > > > > >>>>>>>>> the > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> whole > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> range of phenomena > > > > >>>>>>>>> within which the ?ideal?, 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 ?moment? 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 people?s > eyes, > > > > >>>>>>>>> the commodity-form of the product, particularly in its > > > > >>>>>>>>> dazzling money-form, in the form > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> of > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> the > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> notorious ?real > > > > >>>>>>>>> talers?, ?real roubles?, or ?real dollars?, things which, > as > > > > >>>>>>>>> soon > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> as > > > > >>>>> we > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> have the slightest > > > > >>>>>>>>> theoretical understanding of them, immediately turn out to > be > > > > >>>>>>>>> not > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> ?real? > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> at > > > > >>>>>>>>> all, but ?ideal? > > > > >>>>>>>>> through and through, things whose category quite > > unambiguously > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> includes > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> words, the > > > > >>>>>>>>> units of language, and many other ?things?. Things that, > > while > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> being > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> wholly > > > > >>>>>>>>> ?material?, > > > > >>>>>>>>> palpable-corporeal formations, acquire all their ?meaning? > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> (function > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> and > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> r?le) from ?spirit?, > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> >from ?thought? 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 > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> directions-in-mat > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of- > > mathematics/ > > > > >>>>>>>>> >* On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 8:31 AM, > > > > >>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> I am attempting to follow Wolff-Michael?s 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 > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> ?use-value? > > > > >>>>> & > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> sign > > > > >>>>>>>>>> complex ?value?. > > > > >>>>>>>>>> His methodology is to read Marx ?substituting? the word > > > > >>>>>>>>>> ?SIGN? > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> (implying > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> sign complex) FOR ?commodity? 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: ?natural signs? such as animal footprints > are > > > > >>>>>>>>>> useful/functional to the hunter inherently; they do NOT > have > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> ?value? > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> (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 ?value? > (exchangeable). > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Someone > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> who > > > > >>>>>>>>>> satisfies HER needs through her product produces > ?use-value? > > > > >>>>>>>>>> but > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> NOT > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> ?value?. > > > > >>>>>>>>>> b) VALUE: (exchangeable). To produce SIGNS (complexes), > she > > > > >>>>>>>>>> has > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> to > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> produce > > > > >>>>>>>>>> not only ?use-value? but use-value FOR others. She has to > > > > >>>>>>>>>> produce ?societal? use-values.... To be/come > (exchangeable) > > > > >>>>>>>>>> SIGN, the > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> product > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> HAS > > > > >>>>>>>>>> TO BE TRANSFERRED to another, FOR whom the SIGN complex > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> ?constitutes? > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> use-value. > > > > >>>>>>>>>> The production of signs that produce no ?value? that is > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> exchangeable > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> FOR > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> others leads to personal notes often having NO use-value to > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> others. > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> To > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> trans/form use-value to BE come ?value? 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 > > > > >>>>>>>>>> ?use-value? & ?value? > > > > >>>>>>>>>> (exchangeable) > > > > >>>>>>>>>> My morning musement > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From ulvi.icil@gmail.com Fri Apr 21 09:22:39 2017 From: ulvi.icil@gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?VWx2aSDEsMOnaWw=?=) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 19:22:39 +0300 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: [Marx_and_movements] defend labour and trade union studies at Ruskin College Oxford In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I am very sad for this. Any response from the trade unions and of the leftist parties in Britain? 21 Nis 2017 18:37 tarihinde "Worthen, Helena Harlow" yazd?: > Apologies for cross-posting. > > Incredible that this working class college would be threatened with > closure right now. > > > Helena Worthen > hworthen@illinois.edu > Blog about US and Viet Nam: helenaworthen.wordpress.com tp://helenaworthen.wordpress.com> > > > > *Apologies for cross-posting* > > Dear colleagues, comrades and friends - > > The management of Ruskin College Oxford, historically central to > working-class and labour education in the UK, have decided to effectively > close its BA and MA in International Labour and Trade Union Studies by > making all academic staff in the department redundant, meaning that there > is now no institution providing labour and trade union studies in the UK. > > Please sign the petition to support Ruskin College Oxford here > > https://friendsofruskin.wordpress.com/2017/03/24/defend-ruskins-ba-and-ma- > courses/ > > and circulate this on any lists where you think people may be interested / > supportive. > > In solidarity, > > Laurence > --- > Senior lecturer in sociology, National University of Ireland Maynooth > Directeur d??tudes associ?, Fondation Maison des Sciences de l?Homme, Paris > Research consultant, The Field Centre, Gloucestershire > > We Make Our Own History: Marxism and Social Movements in the Twilight of > Neoliberalism > Interface 8(2): social movement > auto/biographies > Activism MA at Maynooth; @ceesa_ma > The Dhammaloka Project: early > western Buddhists, anti-colonialism and Ireland > Learning from each other's struggles > personal website > > "...cercare e saper riconoscere chi e cosa, in mezzo all'inferno, non e' > inferno, e farlo durare, e dargli spazio." > > > __._,_.___ > ________________________________ > Posted by: Laurence Cox >> > ________________________________ > Reply via web post conversations/messages/170;_ylc=X3oDMTJwbHF1bWNvBF9TAzk3MzU5Nz > E0BGdycElkAzI2MzE0NTk5BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTY3Njk2NARtc2dJZAMxNz > AEc2VjA2Z0cgRzbGsDcnBseQRzdGltZQMxNDkyNzczOTQz?act=reply&messageNum=170> > ? Reply to sender subject=Re%3A%20defend%20labour%20and%20trade%20union%20studies%20at%20Ruskin%20College%20Oxford> > ? Reply to group ?subject=Re%3A%20defend%20labour%20and%20trade%20union%20studies% > 20at%20Ruskin%20College%20Oxford> ? Start a New Topic< > https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/Marx_and_movements/conversations/ > newtopic;_ylc=X3oDMTJmMzY3aTdlBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzI2MzE0NTk5BGdycHNw > SWQDMTcwNTY3Njk2NARzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNudHBjBHN0aW1lAzE0OTI3NzM5NDM-> ? > Messages in this topic movements/conversations/topics/170;_ylc=X3oDMTMzYjExaWdpBF9TAzk3MzU5Nz > E0BGdycElkAzI2MzE0NTk5BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTY3Njk2NARtc2dJZAMxNz > AEc2VjA2Z0cgRzbGsDdnRwYwRzdGltZQMxNDkyNzczOTQzBHRwY0lkAzE3MA--> (1) > ________________________________ > [https://s.yimg.com/ru/static/images/yg/img/megaphone/1464031581_phpFA8bON > ] > Have you tried the highest rated email app? > With 4.5 stars in iTunes, the Yahoo Mail app is the highest rated email > app on the market. What are you waiting for? Now you can access all your > inboxes (Gmail, Outlook, AOL and more) in one place. Never delete an email > again with 1000GB of free cloud storage. > ________________________________ > Visit Your Group movements/info;_ylc=X3oDMTJmdWpwbXRwBF9TAzk3MzU5Nz > E0BGdycElkAzI2MzE0NTk5BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTY3Njk2NARzZWMDdnRsBH > NsawN2Z2hwBHN0aW1lAzE0OTI3NzM5NDM-> > > [Yahoo! Groups] X3oDMTJlaG1pdnVwBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzI2MzE0NTk5BGdycHNw > SWQDMTcwNTY3Njk2NARzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNnZnAEc3RpbWUDMTQ5Mjc3Mzk0Mw--> > ? Privacy ? > Unsubscribe > ? Terms of Use > > . > > > __,_._,___ > > From mcole@ucsd.edu Sat Apr 22 09:03:04 2017 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2017 09:03:04 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value' In-Reply-To: References: <58f4dfe0.5a45620a.c2a11.c004@mx.google.com> <62ef71d1-672d-bf3e-cae2-87aecbd09692@mira.net> <58f61836.8e2c620a.3b9e9.7d11@mx.google.com> <0d06b705-2e34-1171-1a2e-f4be2a14503b@mira.net> <071e3c6a-ba4e-1de8-1dae-1d54b8879ddd@mira.net> <5FCAE108E8796240B89A0E15AE182DBD1CBEF130@CISCMRMBS01.mds.ad.dur.ac.uk> Message-ID: I didn't understand all of that David, but I gather that wording is somewhere "in between" statement and utterance. I see that others have chipped in to the discussion, so will follow along as best I can. Thanks for taking the time to respond. mike On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 10:38 PM, David Kellogg 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 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 > > 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 > > 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" > > > >> 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 > faculty/mroth/> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > > > >>> > > > >>> ections-in-mat > > > > >>> hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of-mathematics/>* > > > > >>> > > > > >>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 8:18 AM, Andy Blunden > > > > > 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 > > > > >>>>> *Sent: *April 17, 2017 11:54 PM > > > > >>>>> *To: *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" > 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 > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> 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 things? 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 > > .. > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> '?? > > > > >>>>> ? ' > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> 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 field? 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 say?) when I have thought about this a bit more - > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> maybe in > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> 2018? we should pick up! :-) > > > > >>>>>>>> On 17/04/2017 18:22, "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on > > behalf > > > > >>>>>>>> of Wolff-Michael Roth" > > > >>>>>>>> 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 > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> "r?le". I am quoting from p. 178: > > > > >>>>>>>>> Marx joins Hegel as regards terminology, and not Kant or > > > > >>>>>>>>> Fichte, who tried to solve the problem of ?ideality? (i.e., > > > > >>>>>>>>> activity) > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> while > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> remaining ?inside > > > > >>>>>>>>> consciousness?, 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 ?ideality? takes > > in > > > > >>>>>>>>> the > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> whole > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> range of phenomena > > > > >>>>>>>>> within which the ?ideal?, 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 ?moment? 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 people?s > eyes, > > > > >>>>>>>>> the commodity-form of the product, particularly in its > > > > >>>>>>>>> dazzling money-form, in the form > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> of > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> the > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> notorious ?real > > > > >>>>>>>>> talers?, ?real roubles?, or ?real dollars?, things which, > as > > > > >>>>>>>>> soon > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> as > > > > >>>>> we > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> have the slightest > > > > >>>>>>>>> theoretical understanding of them, immediately turn out to > be > > > > >>>>>>>>> not > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> ?real? > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> at > > > > >>>>>>>>> all, but ?ideal? > > > > >>>>>>>>> through and through, things whose category quite > > unambiguously > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> includes > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> words, the > > > > >>>>>>>>> units of language, and many other ?things?. Things that, > > while > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> being > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> wholly > > > > >>>>>>>>> ?material?, > > > > >>>>>>>>> palpable-corporeal formations, acquire all their ?meaning? > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> (function > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> and > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> r?le) from ?spirit?, > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> >from ?thought? 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 > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> directions-in-mat > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of- > > mathematics/ > > > > >>>>>>>>> >* On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 8:31 AM, > > > > >>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> I am attempting to follow Wolff-Michael?s 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 > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> ?use-value? > > > > >>>>> & > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> sign > > > > >>>>>>>>>> complex ?value?. > > > > >>>>>>>>>> His methodology is to read Marx ?substituting? the word > > > > >>>>>>>>>> ?SIGN? > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> (implying > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> sign complex) FOR ?commodity? 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: ?natural signs? such as animal footprints > are > > > > >>>>>>>>>> useful/functional to the hunter inherently; they do NOT > have > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> ?value? > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> (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 ?value? > (exchangeable). > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Someone > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> who > > > > >>>>>>>>>> satisfies HER needs through her product produces > ?use-value? > > > > >>>>>>>>>> but > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> NOT > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> ?value?. > > > > >>>>>>>>>> b) VALUE: (exchangeable). To produce SIGNS (complexes), > she > > > > >>>>>>>>>> has > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> to > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> produce > > > > >>>>>>>>>> not only ?use-value? but use-value FOR others. She has to > > > > >>>>>>>>>> produce ?societal? use-values.... To be/come > (exchangeable) > > > > >>>>>>>>>> SIGN, the > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> product > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> HAS > > > > >>>>>>>>>> TO BE TRANSFERRED to another, FOR whom the SIGN complex > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> ?constitutes? > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> use-value. > > > > >>>>>>>>>> The production of signs that produce no ?value? that is > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> exchangeable > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> FOR > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> others leads to personal notes often having NO use-value to > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> others. > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> To > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> trans/form use-value to BE come ?value? 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 > > > > >>>>>>>>>> ?use-value? & ?value? > > > > >>>>>>>>>> (exchangeable) > > > > >>>>>>>>>> My morning musement > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From mcole@ucsd.edu Sat Apr 22 09:05:27 2017 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2017 09:05:27 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value' In-Reply-To: <5FCAE108E8796240B89A0E15AE182DBD1CBEF1C4@CISCMRMBS01.mds.ad.dur.ac.uk> References: <58f4dfe0.5a45620a.c2a11.c004@mx.google.com> <62ef71d1-672d-bf3e-cae2-87aecbd09692@mira.net> <58f61836.8e2c620a.3b9e9.7d11@mx.google.com> <0d06b705-2e34-1171-1a2e-f4be2a14503b@mira.net> <071e3c6a-ba4e-1de8-1dae-1d54b8879ddd@mira.net> <5FCAE108E8796240B89A0E15AE182DBD1CBEF130@CISCMRMBS01.mds.ad.dur.ac.uk> <5FCAE108E8796240B89A0E15AE182DBD1CBEF1C4@CISCMRMBS01.mds.ad.dur.ac.uk> Message-ID: 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 > 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 > 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" > > >> 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 > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > > >>> > > >>> ections-in-mat > > > >>> hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of-mathematics/>* > > > >>> > > > >>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 8:18 AM, Andy Blunden > > > >>> > > > 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 > > > >>>>> *Sent: *April 17, 2017 11:54 PM > > > >>>>> *To: *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" > > > >>>>>> 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 > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> 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 things? 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 > .. > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> '?? > > > >>>>> ? ' > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> 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 field? 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 say?) when I have thought about this a bit more - > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> maybe in > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> 2018? we should pick up! :-) > > > >>>>>>>> On 17/04/2017 18:22, "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on > > > >>>>>>>> behalf of Wolff-Michael Roth" > > > >>>>>>>> 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 > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> "r?le". I am quoting from p. 178: > > > >>>>>>>>> Marx joins Hegel as regards terminology, and not Kant or > > > >>>>>>>>> Fichte, who tried to solve the problem of ?ideality? > > > >>>>>>>>> (i.e., > > > >>>>>>>>> activity) > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> while > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> remaining ?inside > > > >>>>>>>>> consciousness?, 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 ?ideality? > > > >>>>>>>>> takes in the > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> whole > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> range of phenomena > > > >>>>>>>>> within which the ?ideal?, 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 ?moment? 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 people?s > > > >>>>>>>>> eyes, the commodity-form of the product, particularly in > > > >>>>>>>>> its dazzling money-form, in the form > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> of > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> the > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> notorious ?real > > > >>>>>>>>> talers?, ?real roubles?, or ?real dollars?, things which, > > > >>>>>>>>> as soon > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> as > > > >>>>> we > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> have the slightest > > > >>>>>>>>> theoretical understanding of them, immediately turn out to > > > >>>>>>>>> be not > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> ?real? > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> at > > > >>>>>>>>> all, but ?ideal? > > > >>>>>>>>> through and through, things whose category quite > > > >>>>>>>>> unambiguously > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> includes > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> words, the > > > >>>>>>>>> units of language, and many other ?things?. Things that, > > > >>>>>>>>> while > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> being > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> wholly > > > >>>>>>>>> ?material?, > > > >>>>>>>>> palpable-corporeal formations, acquire all their ?meaning? > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> (function > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> and > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> r?le) from ?spirit?, > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> >from ?thought? 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 > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> directions-in-mat > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of-mathemat > > > >>>>>>>>> ics/ > > > >>>>>>>>> >* On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 8:31 AM, > > > >>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> I am attempting to follow Wolff-Michael?s 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 > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> ?use-value? > > > >>>>> & > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> sign > > > >>>>>>>>>> complex ?value?. > > > >>>>>>>>>> His methodology is to read Marx ?substituting? the word > > > >>>>>>>>>> ?SIGN? > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> (implying > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> sign complex) FOR ?commodity? 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: ?natural signs? such as animal footprints > > > >>>>>>>>>> are useful/functional to the hunter inherently; they do > > > >>>>>>>>>> NOT have > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> ?value? > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> (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 ?value? (exchangeable). > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> Someone > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> who > > > >>>>>>>>>> satisfies HER needs through her product produces > > > >>>>>>>>>> ?use-value? but > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> NOT > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> ?value?. > > > >>>>>>>>>> b) VALUE: (exchangeable). To produce SIGNS (complexes), > > > >>>>>>>>>> she has > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> to > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> produce > > > >>>>>>>>>> not only ?use-value? but use-value FOR others. She has to > > > >>>>>>>>>> produce ?societal? use-values.... To be/come > > > >>>>>>>>>> (exchangeable) SIGN, the > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> product > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> HAS > > > >>>>>>>>>> TO BE TRANSFERRED to another, FOR whom the SIGN complex > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> ?constitutes? > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> use-value. > > > >>>>>>>>>> The production of signs that produce no ?value? that is > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> exchangeable > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> FOR > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> others leads to personal notes often having NO use-value > > > >>>>>>>>> to > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> others. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> To > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> trans/form use-value to BE come ?value? 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 > > > >>>>>>>>>> ?use-value? & ?value? > > > >>>>>>>>>> (exchangeable) > > > >>>>>>>>>> My morning musement > > > >>>>>>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From mcole@ucsd.edu Sat Apr 22 09:16:05 2017 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2017 09:16:05 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value' In-Reply-To: References: <58f4dfe0.5a45620a.c2a11.c004@mx.google.com> <62ef71d1-672d-bf3e-cae2-87aecbd09692@mira.net> <58f61836.8e2c620a.3b9e9.7d11@mx.google.com> <0d06b705-2e34-1171-1a2e-f4be2a14503b@mira.net> <071e3c6a-ba4e-1de8-1dae-1d54b8879ddd@mira.net> <5FCAE108E8796240B89A0E15AE182DBD1CBEF130@CISCMRMBS01.mds.ad.dur.ac.uk> Message-ID: Hi Michael -- I am happy to defer to Ricouer, Kellog, Roth, et al in this matter, but I did not fully understand your note. In particular, I did not fully understand the following: To introduce this distinction, it suffices to recall that the configurating act presiding over emplotment is a judicative act [an act of judging? MC], involving a "grasping together." [?????-mc] .More precisely, this act belongs to the family of reflective judgments. Does relfective judgement apply to 2 1/2 year olds making statements/utterances of the sort "Mama" in a context that adults interpret as "Mama, pick me up"? mike On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 8:53 AM, Wolff-Michael Roth < wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote: > Ric?ur (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 [*?nociation*] and statement [ > *?nonc?*]." > 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 Ric?ur 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 > > New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the- > mathematics-of-mathematics/>* > > On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 10:38 PM, David Kellogg > 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 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 > > > 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 > > > 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" 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 > > faculty/mroth/> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > > > > >>> > > > > >>> 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 > > > > > >>>>> *Sent: *April 17, 2017 11:54 PM > > > > > >>>>> *To: *xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu 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" > > 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 > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > > > > >>>>>>> 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 things? 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 > > > .. > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> '?? > > > > > >>>>> ? ' > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> 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 field? 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 say?) when I have thought about this a bit more - > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> maybe in > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> 2018? we should pick up! :-) > > > > > >>>>>>>> On 17/04/2017 18:22, "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on > > > behalf > > > > > >>>>>>>> of Wolff-Michael Roth" 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 > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> "r?le". I am quoting from p. 178: > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Marx joins Hegel as regards terminology, and not Kant or > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Fichte, who tried to solve the problem of ?ideality? > (i.e., > > > > > >>>>>>>>> activity) > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> while > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> remaining ?inside > > > > > >>>>>>>>> consciousness?, 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 ?ideality? > takes > > > in > > > > > >>>>>>>>> the > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> whole > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> range of phenomena > > > > > >>>>>>>>> within which the ?ideal?, 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 ?moment? 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 people?s > > eyes, > > > > > >>>>>>>>> the commodity-form of the product, particularly in its > > > > > >>>>>>>>> dazzling money-form, in the form > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> of > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> the > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> notorious ?real > > > > > >>>>>>>>> talers?, ?real roubles?, or ?real dollars?, things which, > > as > > > > > >>>>>>>>> soon > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> as > > > > > >>>>> we > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> have the slightest > > > > > >>>>>>>>> theoretical understanding of them, immediately turn out > to > > be > > > > > >>>>>>>>> not > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> ?real? > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> at > > > > > >>>>>>>>> all, but ?ideal? > > > > > >>>>>>>>> through and through, things whose category quite > > > unambiguously > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> includes > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> words, the > > > > > >>>>>>>>> units of language, and many other ?things?. Things that, > > > while > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> being > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> wholly > > > > > >>>>>>>>> ?material?, > > > > > >>>>>>>>> palpable-corporeal formations, acquire all their > ?meaning? > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> (function > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> and > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> r?le) from ?spirit?, > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> >from ?thought? 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 > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > > > > >>>>>>>>> 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-Michael?s 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 > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> ?use-value? > > > > > >>>>> & > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> sign > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> complex ?value?. > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> His methodology is to read Marx ?substituting? the word > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> ?SIGN? > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> (implying > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> sign complex) FOR ?commodity? 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: ?natural signs? such as animal footprints > > are > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> useful/functional to the hunter inherently; they do NOT > > have > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> ?value? > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> (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 ?value? > > (exchangeable). > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Someone > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> who > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> satisfies HER needs through her product produces > > ?use-value? > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> but > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> NOT > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> ?value?. > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> b) VALUE: (exchangeable). To produce SIGNS (complexes), > > she > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> has > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> to > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> produce > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> not only ?use-value? but use-value FOR others. She has > to > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> produce ?societal? use-values.... To be/come > > (exchangeable) > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> SIGN, the > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> product > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> HAS > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> TO BE TRANSFERRED to another, FOR whom the SIGN complex > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> ?constitutes? > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> use-value. > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> The production of signs that produce no ?value? that is > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> exchangeable > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> FOR > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> others leads to personal notes often having NO use-value > to > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> others. > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> To > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> trans/form use-value to BE come ?value? 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 > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> ?use-value? & ?value? > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> (exchangeable) > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> My morning musement > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com Sat Apr 22 10:02:45 2017 From: wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com (Wolff-Michael Roth) Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2017 10:02:45 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value' In-Reply-To: References: <58f4dfe0.5a45620a.c2a11.c004@mx.google.com> <62ef71d1-672d-bf3e-cae2-87aecbd09692@mira.net> <58f61836.8e2c620a.3b9e9.7d11@mx.google.com> <0d06b705-2e34-1171-1a2e-f4be2a14503b@mira.net> <071e3c6a-ba4e-1de8-1dae-1d54b8879ddd@mira.net> <5FCAE108E8796240B89A0E15AE182DBD1CBEF130@CISCMRMBS01.mds.ad.dur.ac.uk> Message-ID: Mike, the Ric?ur quotation refers to the difference between the act of speaking and the content of the speech act. In the (Anglo) literature, as on this list, a lot is made about "meaning." Those with some background in speech act theory, also point out (occasionally) that humans do things by speaking, such as posing a question, begging, giving an order etc. The situation you refer to shows how the dictionary sense of "mama" is less important (may be), and the act is one of requesting "pick me up." Whether the dictionary sense matters might be decidable in a situation where there are several individuals so that saying "mama" rather than "daddy" makes a difference. Indeed, your case is exactly of the kind that Wittgenstein discusses in the opening pages of *Philosophical Investigations*, where he has the workman say, "slab," which is followed by the helper leave and return with an object ?slab?. At the time Vygotsky labored over the issue of "znachenie slova" in *Thinking and Speech*, someone else was actually advancing the issue of speaking much further than Vygotsky: Alfred Sch?tz. He is concerned with sense, which is where Vygotsky was moving only during the final days of his life (see Mikhailov, El'konin, and Zavershneva on this, all of whim emphasize that LSV moved away from znachenie and toward smysl). Sch?tz identifies 6 sense-constitutive contextures, only one of which is signification ("meaning"). A second is the formal language into which a word (sign) is bound. Others pertain to (3) the act , (4) to the act as being an act of speaking (an expressive act), (5) the act as a specific address to receive something specific in return (e.g., someone is asked to supply a desired reply), and (6) to the fact of the *here, thus, *and *now* of the speaking. (Unfortunately, again, I can ascertain that the English translation I have of Sch?tz often does not render what you can read in German; and this, in my view, has affected what Garfinkel could get out of the book. And some of the things Lucy Suchman wrote about in *Plans and Situated Action* can be found explicitly articulated in the original.) Michael -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor Applied Cognitive Science MacLaurin Building A567 University of Victoria Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics * On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 9:16 AM, mike cole wrote: > Hi Michael -- > > I am happy to defer to Ricouer, Kellog, Roth, et al in this matter, but I > did not fully understand your note. In particular, I did not fully > understand the following: > To introduce this distinction, it suffices to recall that the configurating > act presiding over emplotment is a judicative act [an act of judging? MC], > involving a "grasping together." [?????-mc] .More precisely, this act > belongs to the family of reflective judgments. > > Does relfective judgement apply to 2 1/2 year olds making > statements/utterances of the sort "Mama" in a context that adults interpret > as "Mama, pick me up"? > > mike > > > On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 8:53 AM, Wolff-Michael Roth < > wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Ric?ur (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 [*?nociation*] and statement [ > > *?nonc?*]." > > 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 Ric?ur 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 > > > > New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > > directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the- > > mathematics-of-mathematics/>* > > > > On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 10:38 PM, David Kellogg > > 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 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 > > > > > 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 > > > > > 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" 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 > > > faculty/mroth/> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> 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 > > > > > > >>>>> *Sent: *April 17, 2017 11:54 PM > > > > > > >>>>> *To: *xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > 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" 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 > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > > > > > >>>>>>> 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 things? 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 > > > > .. > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> '?? > > > > > > >>>>> ? ' > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> 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 field? 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 say?) when I have thought about this a bit > more - > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> maybe in > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> 2018? we should pick up! :-) > > > > > > >>>>>>>> On 17/04/2017 18:22, "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on > > > > behalf > > > > > > >>>>>>>> of Wolff-Michael Roth" > 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 > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> "r?le". I am quoting from p. 178: > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Marx joins Hegel as regards terminology, and not Kant > or > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Fichte, who tried to solve the problem of ?ideality? > > (i.e., > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> activity) > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> while > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> remaining ?inside > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> consciousness?, 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 ?ideality? > > takes > > > > in > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> the > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> whole > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> range of phenomena > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> within which the ?ideal?, 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 ?moment? 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 people?s > > > eyes, > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> the commodity-form of the product, particularly in its > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> dazzling money-form, in the form > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> of > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> the > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> notorious ?real > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> talers?, ?real roubles?, or ?real dollars?, things > which, > > > as > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> soon > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> as > > > > > > >>>>> we > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> have the slightest > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> theoretical understanding of them, immediately turn out > > to > > > be > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> not > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> ?real? > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> at > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> all, but ?ideal? > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> through and through, things whose category quite > > > > unambiguously > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> includes > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> words, the > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> units of language, and many other ?things?. Things > that, > > > > while > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> being > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> wholly > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> ?material?, > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> palpable-corporeal formations, acquire all their > > ?meaning? > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> (function > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> and > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> r?le) from ?spirit?, > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> >from ?thought? 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 > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > 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-Michael?s 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 > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> ?use-value? > > > > > > >>>>> & > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> sign > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> complex ?value?. > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> His methodology is to read Marx ?substituting? the > word > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> ?SIGN? > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> (implying > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> sign complex) FOR ?commodity? 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: ?natural signs? such as animal > footprints > > > are > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> useful/functional to the hunter inherently; they do > NOT > > > have > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> ?value? > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> (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 ?value? > > > (exchangeable). > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Someone > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> who > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> satisfies HER needs through her product produces > > > ?use-value? > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> but > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> NOT > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> ?value?. > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> b) VALUE: (exchangeable). To produce SIGNS > (complexes), > > > she > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> has > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> to > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> produce > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> not only ?use-value? but use-value FOR others. She has > > to > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> produce ?societal? use-values.... To be/come > > > (exchangeable) > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> SIGN, the > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> product > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> HAS > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> TO BE TRANSFERRED to another, FOR whom the SIGN > complex > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> ?constitutes? > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> use-value. > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> The production of signs that produce no ?value? that > is > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> exchangeable > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> FOR > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> others leads to personal notes often having NO > use-value > > to > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> others. > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> To > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> trans/form use-value to BE come ?value? 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 > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> ?use-value? & ?value? > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> (exchangeable) > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> My morning musement > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From julian.williams@manchester.ac.uk Sat Apr 22 10:24:48 2017 From: julian.williams@manchester.ac.uk (Julian Williams) Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2017 17:24:48 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value' In-Reply-To: References: <58f4dfe0.5a45620a.c2a11.c004@mx.google.com> <62ef71d1-672d-bf3e-cae2-87aecbd09692@mira.net> <58f61836.8e2c620a.3b9e9.7d11@mx.google.com> <0d06b705-2e34-1171-1a2e-f4be2a14503b@mira.net> <071e3c6a-ba4e-1de8-1dae-1d54b8879ddd@mira.net> <5FCAE108E8796240B89A0E15AE182DBD1CBEF130@CISCMRMBS01.mds.ad.dur.ac.uk> Message-ID: 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 Ric?ur 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" wrote: >Ric?ur (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 [*?nociation*] and statement [ >*?nonc?*]." >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 Ric?ur 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 > >New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of-mathematics/>* > >On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 10:38 PM, David Kellogg >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 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 >> > 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 >> > 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" >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 > > faculty/mroth/> >> > > > >>> >> > > > >>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >> > > > >>> > > > > >>> ections-in-mat >> > > > >>> >>hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of-mathematics/>* >> > > > >>> >> > > > >>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 8:18 AM, Andy Blunden >>> > >> > > > 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 >> > > > >>>>> *Sent: *April 17, 2017 11:54 PM >> > > > >>>>> *To: *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" > > 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 >> > > > >>>>>>> >> > > > >>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >> > > > >>>>>>> >>> > > > >>>>>>> >> > > > >>>>>> 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 things? 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 >> > .. >> > > > >>>>>>>> >> > > > >>>>>>> '?? >> > > > >>>>> ? ' >> > > > >>>>> >> > > > >>>>> 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 field? 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 say?) when I have thought about this a bit more >>- >> > > > >>>>>>>> >> > > > >>>>>>> maybe in >> > > > >>>>> >> > > > >>>>> 2018? we should pick up! :-) >> > > > >>>>>>>> On 17/04/2017 18:22, "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on >> > behalf >> > > > >>>>>>>> of Wolff-Michael Roth" >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 >> > > > >>>>> >> > > > >>>>> "r?le". I am quoting from p. 178: >> > > > >>>>>>>>> Marx joins Hegel as regards terminology, and not Kant or >> > > > >>>>>>>>> Fichte, who tried to solve the problem of ?ideality? >>(i.e., >> > > > >>>>>>>>> activity) >> > > > >>>>>>>>> >> > > > >>>>>>>> while >> > > > >>>>> >> > > > >>>>> remaining ?inside >> > > > >>>>>>>>> consciousness?, 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 ?ideality? >>takes >> > in >> > > > >>>>>>>>> the >> > > > >>>>>>>>> >> > > > >>>>>>>> whole >> > > > >>>>> >> > > > >>>>> range of phenomena >> > > > >>>>>>>>> within which the ?ideal?, 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 ?moment? 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 people?s >> eyes, >> > > > >>>>>>>>> the commodity-form of the product, particularly in its >> > > > >>>>>>>>> dazzling money-form, in the form >> > > > >>>>>>>>> >> > > > >>>>>>>> of >> > > > >>>>> >> > > > >>>>> the >> > > > >>>>>>>> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> notorious ?real >> > > > >>>>>>>>> talers?, ?real roubles?, or ?real dollars?, things >>which, >> as >> > > > >>>>>>>>> soon >> > > > >>>>>>>>> >> > > > >>>>>>>> as >> > > > >>>>> we >> > > > >>>>> >> > > > >>>>> have the slightest >> > > > >>>>>>>>> theoretical understanding of them, immediately turn out >>to >> be >> > > > >>>>>>>>> not >> > > > >>>>>>>>> >> > > > >>>>>>>> ?real? >> > > > >>>>>>>> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> at >> > > > >>>>>>>>> all, but ?ideal? >> > > > >>>>>>>>> through and through, things whose category quite >> > unambiguously >> > > > >>>>>>>>> >> > > > >>>>>>>> includes >> > > > >>>>> >> > > > >>>>> words, the >> > > > >>>>>>>>> units of language, and many other ?things?. Things that, >> > while >> > > > >>>>>>>>> >> > > > >>>>>>>> being >> > > > >>>>> >> > > > >>>>> wholly >> > > > >>>>>>>>> ?material?, >> > > > >>>>>>>>> palpable-corporeal formations, acquire all their >>?meaning? >> > > > >>>>>>>>> >> > > > >>>>>>>> (function >> > > > >>>>> >> > > > >>>>> and >> > > > >>>>>>>> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> r?le) from ?spirit?, >> > > > >>>>>>>>> >> > > > >>>>>>>> >from ?thought? 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 >> > > > >>>>>>>>> >> > > > >>>>>>>> >> > > > >>>>> >> > > > >>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >> > > > >>>>>>>>> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>> >> > > > >>>>>>>> directions-in-mat >> > > > >>>>>>>> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of- >> > mathematics/ >> > > > >>>>>>>>> >* On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 8:31 AM, >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> wrote: >> > > > >>>>>>>>> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> I am attempting to follow Wolff-Michael?s 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 >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> ?use-value? >> > > > >>>>> & >> > > > >>>>> >> > > > >>>>> sign >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> complex ?value?. >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> His methodology is to read Marx ?substituting? the word >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> ?SIGN? >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> (implying >> > > > >>>>>>>> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> sign complex) FOR ?commodity? 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: ?natural signs? such as animal footprints >> are >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> useful/functional to the hunter inherently; they do NOT >> have >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> ?value? >> > > > >>>>> >> > > > >>>>> (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 ?value? >> (exchangeable). >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> Someone >> > > > >>>>> >> > > > >>>>> who >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> satisfies HER needs through her product produces >> ?use-value? >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> but >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> NOT >> > > > >>>>> >> > > > >>>>> ?value?. >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> b) VALUE: (exchangeable). To produce SIGNS (complexes), >> she >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> has >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> to >> > > > >>>>> >> > > > >>>>> produce >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> not only ?use-value? but use-value FOR others. She has >>to >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> produce ?societal? use-values.... To be/come >> (exchangeable) >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> SIGN, the >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> product >> > > > >>>>> >> > > > >>>>> HAS >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> TO BE TRANSFERRED to another, FOR whom the SIGN complex >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> ?constitutes? >> > > > >>>>> >> > > > >>>>> use-value. >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> The production of signs that produce no ?value? that is >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> exchangeable >> > > > >>>>> >> > > > >>>>> FOR >> > > > >>>>>>>> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> others leads to personal notes often having NO >>use-value to >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> others. >> > > > >>>>> >> > > > >>>>> To >> > > > >>>>>>>> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> trans/form use-value to BE come ?value? 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 >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> ?use-value? & ?value? >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> (exchangeable) >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> My morning musement >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> >> > > > >>>>> >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> From mcole@ucsd.edu Sat Apr 22 11:06:13 2017 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2017 11:06:13 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value' In-Reply-To: References: <58f4dfe0.5a45620a.c2a11.c004@mx.google.com> <62ef71d1-672d-bf3e-cae2-87aecbd09692@mira.net> <58f61836.8e2c620a.3b9e9.7d11@mx.google.com> <0d06b705-2e34-1171-1a2e-f4be2a14503b@mira.net> <071e3c6a-ba4e-1de8-1dae-1d54b8879ddd@mira.net> <5FCAE108E8796240B89A0E15AE182DBD1CBEF130@CISCMRMBS01.mds.ad.dur.ac.uk> Message-ID: Thanks for the clarification, Michael. The connection to Shutz is interesting. My knowledge of his work is slight but I have always found interesting what I read there. I associate his work, which i learned about through Bud Mehan, a sociologist who has written on ethnomethodology here at UCSD, with the notion of "retrospective construction of meaning." As David has noted, Vygotsky was in contact with, took classes from, or shared a common intellectual mileu with, a number of important phenomenologists. Zinchenko's writings on Shpet ought to be of interest in this regard, mike On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 10:02 AM, Wolff-Michael Roth < wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote: > Mike, > the Ric?ur quotation refers to the difference between the act of speaking > and the content of the speech act. In the (Anglo) literature, as on this > list, a lot is made about "meaning." Those with some background in speech > act theory, also point out (occasionally) that humans do things by > speaking, such as posing a question, begging, giving an order etc. > > The situation you refer to shows how the dictionary sense of "mama" is less > important (may be), and the act is one of requesting "pick me up." Whether > the dictionary sense matters might be decidable in a situation where there > are several individuals so that saying "mama" rather than "daddy" makes a > difference. > > Indeed, your case is exactly of the kind that Wittgenstein discusses in the > opening pages of *Philosophical Investigations*, where he has the workman > say, "slab," which is followed by the helper leave and return with an > object ?slab?. > > At the time Vygotsky labored over the issue of "znachenie slova" in > *Thinking > and Speech*, someone else was actually advancing the issue of speaking much > further than Vygotsky: Alfred Sch?tz. He is concerned with sense, which is > where Vygotsky was moving only during the final days of his life (see > Mikhailov, El'konin, and Zavershneva on this, all of whim emphasize that > LSV moved away from znachenie and toward smysl). > > Sch?tz identifies 6 sense-constitutive contextures, only one of which is > signification ("meaning"). A second is the formal language into which a > word (sign) is bound. Others pertain to (3) the act , (4) to the act as > being an act of speaking (an expressive act), (5) the act as a specific > address to receive something specific in return (e.g., someone is asked to > supply a desired reply), and (6) to the fact of the *here, thus, *and > *now* of > the speaking. > > (Unfortunately, again, I can ascertain that the English translation I have > of Sch?tz often does not render what you can read in German; and this, in > my view, has affected what Garfinkel could get out of the book. And some of > the things Lucy Suchman wrote about in *Plans and Situated Action* can be > found explicitly articulated in the original.) > > Michael > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > -------------------- > Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor > Applied Cognitive Science > MacLaurin Building A567 > University of Victoria > Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 > http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth > > New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the- > mathematics-of-mathematics/>* > > On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 9:16 AM, mike cole wrote: > > > Hi Michael -- > > > > I am happy to defer to Ricouer, Kellog, Roth, et al in this matter, but I > > did not fully understand your note. In particular, I did not fully > > understand the following: > > To introduce this distinction, it suffices to recall that the > configurating > > act presiding over emplotment is a judicative act [an act of judging? > MC], > > involving a "grasping together." [?????-mc] .More precisely, this act > > belongs to the family of reflective judgments. > > > > Does relfective judgement apply to 2 1/2 year olds making > > statements/utterances of the sort "Mama" in a context that adults > interpret > > as "Mama, pick me up"? > > > > mike > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 8:53 AM, Wolff-Michael Roth < > > wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Ric?ur (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 [*?nociation*] and statement [ > > > *?nonc?*]." > > > 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 Ric?ur 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 > > > > > > New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > > > > directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the- > > > mathematics-of-mathematics/>* > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 10:38 PM, David Kellogg > > > 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 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" > 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 > > > > faculty/mroth/> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > > > > > > >>> 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 > > > > > > > >>>>> *Sent: *April 17, 2017 11:54 PM > > > > > > > >>>>> *To: *xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu 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" > 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 > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > 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 things? 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 > > > > > .. > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> '?? > > > > > > > >>>>> ? ' > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>> 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 field? 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 say?) when I have thought about this a bit > > more - > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> maybe in > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>> 2018? we should pick up! :-) > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> On 17/04/2017 18:22, "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > on > > > > > behalf > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> of Wolff-Michael Roth" 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 > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>> "r?le". I am quoting from p. 178: > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Marx joins Hegel as regards terminology, and not Kant > > or > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Fichte, who tried to solve the problem of ?ideality? > > > (i.e., > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> activity) > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> while > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>> remaining ?inside > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> consciousness?, 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 ?ideality? > > > takes > > > > > in > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> the > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> whole > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>> range of phenomena > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> within which the ?ideal?, 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 ?moment? 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 > people?s > > > > eyes, > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> the commodity-form of the product, particularly in > its > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> dazzling money-form, in the form > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> of > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>> the > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> notorious ?real > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> talers?, ?real roubles?, or ?real dollars?, things > > which, > > > > as > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> soon > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> as > > > > > > > >>>>> we > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>> have the slightest > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> theoretical understanding of them, immediately turn > out > > > to > > > > be > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> not > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> ?real? > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> at > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> all, but ?ideal? > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> through and through, things whose category quite > > > > > unambiguously > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> includes > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>> words, the > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> units of language, and many other ?things?. Things > > that, > > > > > while > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> being > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>> wholly > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> ?material?, > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> palpable-corporeal formations, acquire all their > > > ?meaning? > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> (function > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>> and > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> r?le) from ?spirit?, > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> >from ?thought? 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 > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > 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-Michael?s 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 > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> ?use-value? > > > > > > > >>>>> & > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>> sign > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> complex ?value?. > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> His methodology is to read Marx ?substituting? the > > word > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> ?SIGN? > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> (implying > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> sign complex) FOR ?commodity? 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: ?natural signs? such as animal > > footprints > > > > are > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> useful/functional to the hunter inherently; they do > > NOT > > > > have > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> ?value? > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>> (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 ?value? > > > > (exchangeable). > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Someone > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>> who > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> satisfies HER needs through her product produces > > > > ?use-value? > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> but > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> NOT > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>> ?value?. > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> b) VALUE: (exchangeable). To produce SIGNS > > (complexes), > > > > she > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> has > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> to > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>> produce > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> not only ?use-value? but use-value FOR others. She > has > > > to > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> produce ?societal? use-values.... To be/come > > > > (exchangeable) > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> SIGN, the > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> product > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>> HAS > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> TO BE TRANSFERRED to another, FOR whom the SIGN > > complex > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> ?constitutes? > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>> use-value. > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> The production of signs that produce no ?value? that > > is > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> exchangeable > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>> FOR > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> others leads to personal notes often having NO > > use-value > > > to > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> others. > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>> To > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> trans/form use-value to BE come ?value? 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 > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> ?use-value? & ?value? > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> (exchangeable) > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> My morning musement > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com Sat Apr 22 11:15:33 2017 From: wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com (Wolff-Michael Roth) Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2017 11:15:33 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value' In-Reply-To: References: <58f4dfe0.5a45620a.c2a11.c004@mx.google.com> <62ef71d1-672d-bf3e-cae2-87aecbd09692@mira.net> <58f61836.8e2c620a.3b9e9.7d11@mx.google.com> <0d06b705-2e34-1171-1a2e-f4be2a14503b@mira.net> <071e3c6a-ba4e-1de8-1dae-1d54b8879ddd@mira.net> <5FCAE108E8796240B89A0E15AE182DBD1CBEF130@CISCMRMBS01.mds.ad.dur.ac.uk> Message-ID: 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 New book: *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 Ric?ur 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" wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote: > > >Ric?ur (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 [*?nociation*] and statement [ > >*?nonc?*]." > >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 Ric?ur 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 > > > >New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > directions-in-mat > >hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of-mathematics/>* > > > >On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 10:38 PM, David Kellogg > >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 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 > >> > 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 > >> > 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" >>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 >> > faculty/mroth/> > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > >>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > >> > > > >>> >> > > > >>> ections-in-mat > >> > > > >>> > >>hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of-mathematics/>* > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > >>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 8:18 AM, Andy Blunden > >> >> > > >> > > > 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 > >> > > > >>>>> *Sent: *April 17, 2017 11:54 PM > >> > > > >>>>> *To: *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" >> > 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 > >> > > > >>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > >> > > > >>>>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>>>> 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 things? 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 > >> > .. > >> > > > >>>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>>>>> '?? > >> > > > >>>>> ? ' > >> > > > >>>>> > >> > > > >>>>> 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 field? 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 say?) when I have thought about this a bit more > >>- > >> > > > >>>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>>>>> maybe in > >> > > > >>>>> > >> > > > >>>>> 2018? we should pick up! :-) > >> > > > >>>>>>>> On 17/04/2017 18:22, "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on > >> > behalf > >> > > > >>>>>>>> of Wolff-Michael Roth" >>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 > >> > > > >>>>> > >> > > > >>>>> "r?le". I am quoting from p. 178: > >> > > > >>>>>>>>> Marx joins Hegel as regards terminology, and not Kant or > >> > > > >>>>>>>>> Fichte, who tried to solve the problem of ?ideality? > >>(i.e., > >> > > > >>>>>>>>> activity) > >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>>>>>> while > >> > > > >>>>> > >> > > > >>>>> remaining ?inside > >> > > > >>>>>>>>> consciousness?, 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 ?ideality? > >>takes > >> > in > >> > > > >>>>>>>>> the > >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>>>>>> whole > >> > > > >>>>> > >> > > > >>>>> range of phenomena > >> > > > >>>>>>>>> within which the ?ideal?, 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 ?moment? 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 people?s > >> eyes, > >> > > > >>>>>>>>> the commodity-form of the product, particularly in its > >> > > > >>>>>>>>> dazzling money-form, in the form > >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>>>>>> of > >> > > > >>>>> > >> > > > >>>>> the > >> > > > >>>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>>>>>>> notorious ?real > >> > > > >>>>>>>>> talers?, ?real roubles?, or ?real dollars?, things > >>which, > >> as > >> > > > >>>>>>>>> soon > >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>>>>>> as > >> > > > >>>>> we > >> > > > >>>>> > >> > > > >>>>> have the slightest > >> > > > >>>>>>>>> theoretical understanding of them, immediately turn out > >>to > >> be > >> > > > >>>>>>>>> not > >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>>>>>> ?real? > >> > > > >>>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>>>>>>> at > >> > > > >>>>>>>>> all, but ?ideal? > >> > > > >>>>>>>>> through and through, things whose category quite > >> > unambiguously > >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>>>>>> includes > >> > > > >>>>> > >> > > > >>>>> words, the > >> > > > >>>>>>>>> units of language, and many other ?things?. Things that, > >> > while > >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>>>>>> being > >> > > > >>>>> > >> > > > >>>>> wholly > >> > > > >>>>>>>>> ?material?, > >> > > > >>>>>>>>> palpable-corporeal formations, acquire all their > >>?meaning? > >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>>>>>> (function > >> > > > >>>>> > >> > > > >>>>> and > >> > > > >>>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>>>>>>> r?le) from ?spirit?, > >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>>>>>> >from ?thought? 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 > >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>>> > >> > > > >>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>>>>>> directions-in-mat > >> > > > >>>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>>>>>>> hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of- > >> > mathematics/ > >> > > > >>>>>>>>> >* On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 8:31 AM, > >> > >> > > > >>>>>>>>> wrote: > >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> I am attempting to follow Wolff-Michael?s 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 > >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>>>>>>> ?use-value? > >> > > > >>>>> & > >> > > > >>>>> > >> > > > >>>>> sign > >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> complex ?value?. > >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> His methodology is to read Marx ?substituting? the word > >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> ?SIGN? > >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>>>>>>> (implying > >> > > > >>>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>>>>>>> sign complex) FOR ?commodity? 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: ?natural signs? such as animal footprints > >> are > >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> useful/functional to the hunter inherently; they do NOT > >> have > >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>>>>>>> ?value? > >> > > > >>>>> > >> > > > >>>>> (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 ?value? > >> (exchangeable). > >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>>>>>>> Someone > >> > > > >>>>> > >> > > > >>>>> who > >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> satisfies HER needs through her product produces > >> ?use-value? > >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> but > >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>>>>>>> NOT > >> > > > >>>>> > >> > > > >>>>> ?value?. > >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> b) VALUE: (exchangeable). To produce SIGNS (complexes), > >> she > >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> has > >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>>>>>>> to > >> > > > >>>>> > >> > > > >>>>> produce > >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> not only ?use-value? but use-value FOR others. She has > >>to > >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> produce ?societal? use-values.... To be/come > >> (exchangeable) > >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> SIGN, the > >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>>>>>>> product > >> > > > >>>>> > >> > > > >>>>> HAS > >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> TO BE TRANSFERRED to another, FOR whom the SIGN complex > >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>>>>>>> ?constitutes? > >> > > > >>>>> > >> > > > >>>>> use-value. > >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> The production of signs that produce no ?value? that is > >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>>>>>>> exchangeable > >> > > > >>>>> > >> > > > >>>>> FOR > >> > > > >>>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>>>>>>> others leads to personal notes often having NO > >>use-value to > >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>>>>>>> others. > >> > > > >>>>> > >> > > > >>>>> To > >> > > > >>>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>>>>>>> trans/form use-value to BE come ?value? 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 > >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> ?use-value? & ?value? > >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> (exchangeable) > >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> My morning musement > >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone > >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>>> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > From julian.williams@manchester.ac.uk Sat Apr 22 11:38:09 2017 From: julian.williams@manchester.ac.uk (Julian Williams) Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2017 18:38:09 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value' In-Reply-To: References: <58f4dfe0.5a45620a.c2a11.c004@mx.google.com> <62ef71d1-672d-bf3e-cae2-87aecbd09692@mira.net> <58f61836.8e2c620a.3b9e9.7d11@mx.google.com> <0d06b705-2e34-1171-1a2e-f4be2a14503b@mira.net> <071e3c6a-ba4e-1de8-1dae-1d54b8879ddd@mira.net> <5FCAE108E8796240B89A0E15AE182DBD1CBEF130@CISCMRMBS01.mds.ad.dur.ac.uk> Message-ID: 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" 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 > >New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >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 Ric?ur 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" > wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >Ric?ur (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 [*?nociation*] and statement [ >> >*?nonc?*]." >> >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 Ric?ur 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 >> > >> >New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >> >> directions-in-mat >> >hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of-mathematics/>* >> > >> >On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 10:38 PM, David Kellogg >> >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 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 >> >> >> > 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 >> >> >> > 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" >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 > >> > faculty/mroth/> >> >> > > > >>> >> >> > > > >>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >> >> > > > >>> >>> >> > > > >>> ections-in-mat >> >> > > > >>> >> >>hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of-mathematics/>* >> >> > > > >>> >> >> > > > >>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 8:18 AM, Andy Blunden >> >>> >> > >> >> > > > 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 >> >> > > > >>>>> *Sent: *April 17, 2017 11:54 PM >> >> > > > >>>>> *To: *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" >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 >> >> > > > >>>>>>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >> >> > > > >>>>>>> >> >>> >> > > > >>>>>>> >> >> > > > >>>>>> 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 things? 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 >> >> > .. >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>> '?? >> >> > > > >>>>> ? ' >> >> > > > >>>>> >> >> > > > >>>>> 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 field? 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 say?) when I have thought about this a bit >>more >> >>- >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>> maybe in >> >> > > > >>>>> >> >> > > > >>>>> 2018? we should pick up! :-) >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> On 17/04/2017 18:22, "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >>on >> >> > behalf >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> of Wolff-Michael Roth" >>> >>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 >> >> > > > >>>>> >> >> > > > >>>>> "r?le". I am quoting from p. 178: >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> Marx joins Hegel as regards terminology, and not >>Kant or >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> Fichte, who tried to solve the problem of ?ideality? >> >>(i.e., >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> activity) >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> while >> >> > > > >>>>> >> >> > > > >>>>> remaining ?inside >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> consciousness?, 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 ?ideality? >> >>takes >> >> > in >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> the >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> whole >> >> > > > >>>>> >> >> > > > >>>>> range of phenomena >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> within which the ?ideal?, 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 ?moment? 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 >>people?s >> >> eyes, >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> the commodity-form of the product, particularly in >>its >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> dazzling money-form, in the form >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> of >> >> > > > >>>>> >> >> > > > >>>>> the >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> notorious ?real >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> talers?, ?real roubles?, or ?real dollars?, things >> >>which, >> >> as >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> soon >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> as >> >> > > > >>>>> we >> >> > > > >>>>> >> >> > > > >>>>> have the slightest >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> theoretical understanding of them, immediately turn >>out >> >>to >> >> be >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> not >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> ?real? >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> at >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> all, but ?ideal? >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> through and through, things whose category quite >> >> > unambiguously >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> includes >> >> > > > >>>>> >> >> > > > >>>>> words, the >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> units of language, and many other ?things?. Things >>that, >> >> > while >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> being >> >> > > > >>>>> >> >> > > > >>>>> wholly >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> ?material?, >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> palpable-corporeal formations, acquire all their >> >>?meaning? >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> (function >> >> > > > >>>>> >> >> > > > >>>>> and >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> r?le) from ?spirit?, >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> >from ?thought? 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 >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> >> >> > > > >>>>> >> >> > > > >>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> >> >>> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> directions-in-mat >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of- >> >> > mathematics/ >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> >* On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 8:31 AM, >> >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> wrote: >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> I am attempting to follow Wolff-Michael?s >>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 >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> ?use-value? >> >> > > > >>>>> & >> >> > > > >>>>> >> >> > > > >>>>> sign >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> complex ?value?. >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> His methodology is to read Marx ?substituting? the >>word >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> ?SIGN? >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> (implying >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> sign complex) FOR ?commodity? 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: ?natural signs? such as animal >>footprints >> >> are >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> useful/functional to the hunter inherently; they do >>NOT >> >> have >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> ?value? >> >> > > > >>>>> >> >> > > > >>>>> (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 ?value? >> >> (exchangeable). >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> Someone >> >> > > > >>>>> >> >> > > > >>>>> who >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> satisfies HER needs through her product produces >> >> ?use-value? >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> but >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> NOT >> >> > > > >>>>> >> >> > > > >>>>> ?value?. >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> b) VALUE: (exchangeable). To produce SIGNS >>(complexes), >> >> she >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> has >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> to >> >> > > > >>>>> >> >> > > > >>>>> produce >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> not only ?use-value? but use-value FOR others. She >>has >> >>to >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> produce ?societal? use-values.... To be/come >> >> (exchangeable) >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> SIGN, the >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> product >> >> > > > >>>>> >> >> > > > >>>>> HAS >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> TO BE TRANSFERRED to another, FOR whom the SIGN >>complex >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> ?constitutes? >> >> > > > >>>>> >> >> > > > >>>>> use-value. >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> The production of signs that produce no ?value? >>that is >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> exchangeable >> >> > > > >>>>> >> >> > > > >>>>> FOR >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> others leads to personal notes often having NO >> >>use-value to >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> others. >> >> > > > >>>>> >> >> > > > >>>>> To >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> trans/form use-value to BE come ?value? 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 >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> ?use-value? & ?value? >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> (exchangeable) >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> My morning musement >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> >> >> > > > >>>>> >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> From wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com Sat Apr 22 11:47:19 2017 From: wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com (Wolff-Michael Roth) Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2017 11:47:19 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value' In-Reply-To: References: <58f4dfe0.5a45620a.c2a11.c004@mx.google.com> <62ef71d1-672d-bf3e-cae2-87aecbd09692@mira.net> <58f61836.8e2c620a.3b9e9.7d11@mx.google.com> <0d06b705-2e34-1171-1a2e-f4be2a14503b@mira.net> <071e3c6a-ba4e-1de8-1dae-1d54b8879ddd@mira.net> <5FCAE108E8796240B89A0E15AE182DBD1CBEF130@CISCMRMBS01.mds.ad.dur.ac.uk> Message-ID: 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 New book: *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" 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 > > > >New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > 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 Ric?ur 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" >> wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> >Ric?ur (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 [*?nociation*] and statement [ > >> >*?nonc?*]." > >> >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 Ric?ur 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 > >> > > >> >New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > >> > >> directions-in-mat > >> >hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of-mathematics/>* > >> > > >> >On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 10:38 PM, David Kellogg > >> >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 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 > >> > >> >> > 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 > >> > >> >> > 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" >>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 >> >> > faculty/mroth/> > >> >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > >>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > >> >> > > > >>> > >> >> >> > > > >>> ections-in-mat > >> >> > > > >>> > >> >>hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of-mathematics/>* > >> >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > >>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 8:18 AM, Andy Blunden > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> > > > 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 > >> >> > > > >>>>> *Sent: *April 17, 2017 11:54 PM > >> >> > > > >>>>> *To: *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" >>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 > >> >> > > > >>>>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > >> >> > > > >>>>>>> > >> >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>>> 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 things? 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 > >> >> > .. > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>>>> '?? > >> >> > > > >>>>> ? ' > >> >> > > > >>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>> 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 field? 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 say?) when I have thought about this a bit > >>more > >> >>- > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>>>> maybe in > >> >> > > > >>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>> 2018? we should pick up! :-) > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> On 17/04/2017 18:22, "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > >>on > >> >> > behalf > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> of Wolff-Michael Roth" > >> >> >>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 > >> >> > > > >>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>> "r?le". I am quoting from p. 178: > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> Marx joins Hegel as regards terminology, and not > >>Kant or > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> Fichte, who tried to solve the problem of ?ideality? > >> >>(i.e., > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> activity) > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> while > >> >> > > > >>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>> remaining ?inside > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> consciousness?, 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 ?ideality? > >> >>takes > >> >> > in > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> the > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> whole > >> >> > > > >>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>> range of phenomena > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> within which the ?ideal?, 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 ?moment? 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 > >>people?s > >> >> eyes, > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> the commodity-form of the product, particularly in > >>its > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> dazzling money-form, in the form > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> of > >> >> > > > >>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>> the > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> notorious ?real > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> talers?, ?real roubles?, or ?real dollars?, things > >> >>which, > >> >> as > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> soon > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> as > >> >> > > > >>>>> we > >> >> > > > >>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>> have the slightest > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> theoretical understanding of them, immediately turn > >>out > >> >>to > >> >> be > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> not > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> ?real? > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> at > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> all, but ?ideal? > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> through and through, things whose category quite > >> >> > unambiguously > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> includes > >> >> > > > >>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>> words, the > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> units of language, and many other ?things?. Things > >>that, > >> >> > while > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> being > >> >> > > > >>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>> wholly > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> ?material?, > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> palpable-corporeal formations, acquire all their > >> >>?meaning? > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> (function > >> >> > > > >>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>> and > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> r?le) from ?spirit?, > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> >from ?thought? 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 > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > >> >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> directions-in-mat > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of- > >> >> > mathematics/ > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> >* On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 8:31 AM, > >> >> > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> wrote: > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> I am attempting to follow Wolff-Michael?s > >>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 > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> ?use-value? > >> >> > > > >>>>> & > >> >> > > > >>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>> sign > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> complex ?value?. > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> His methodology is to read Marx ?substituting? the > >>word > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> ?SIGN? > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> (implying > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> sign complex) FOR ?commodity? 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: ?natural signs? such as animal > >>footprints > >> >> are > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> useful/functional to the hunter inherently; they do > >>NOT > >> >> have > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> ?value? > >> >> > > > >>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>> (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 ?value? > >> >> (exchangeable). > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> Someone > >> >> > > > >>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>> who > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> satisfies HER needs through her product produces > >> >> ?use-value? > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> but > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> NOT > >> >> > > > >>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>> ?value?. > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> b) VALUE: (exchangeable). To produce SIGNS > >>(complexes), > >> >> she > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> has > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> to > >> >> > > > >>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>> produce > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> not only ?use-value? but use-value FOR others. She > >>has > >> >>to > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> produce ?societal? use-values.... To be/come > >> >> (exchangeable) > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> SIGN, the > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> product > >> >> > > > >>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>> HAS > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> TO BE TRANSFERRED to another, FOR whom the SIGN > >>complex > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> ?constitutes? > >> >> > > > >>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>> use-value. > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> The production of signs that produce no ?value? > >>that is > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> exchangeable > >> >> > > > >>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>> FOR > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> others leads to personal notes often having NO > >> >>use-value to > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> others. > >> >> > > > >>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>> To > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> trans/form use-value to BE come ?value? 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 > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> ?use-value? & ?value? > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> (exchangeable) > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> My morning musement > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>> > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > >> >> > >> > >> > >> > > > From julian.williams@manchester.ac.uk Sat Apr 22 12:09:27 2017 From: julian.williams@manchester.ac.uk (Julian Williams) Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2017 19:09:27 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value' In-Reply-To: References: <58f4dfe0.5a45620a.c2a11.c004@mx.google.com> <62ef71d1-672d-bf3e-cae2-87aecbd09692@mira.net> <58f61836.8e2c620a.3b9e9.7d11@mx.google.com> <0d06b705-2e34-1171-1a2e-f4be2a14503b@mira.net> <071e3c6a-ba4e-1de8-1dae-1d54b8879ddd@mira.net> <5FCAE108E8796240B89A0E15AE182DBD1CBEF130@CISCMRMBS01.mds.ad.dur.ac.uk> Message-ID: 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" 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 > >New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >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" > 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 >> > >> >New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >> >> 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 Ric?ur 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" > >> wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >Ric?ur (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 [*?nociation*] and >>statement [ >> >> >*?nonc?*]." >> >> >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 Ric?ur 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 >> >> > >> >> >New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >> >> >> >> directions-in-mat >> >> >hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of-mathematics/>* >> >> > >> >> >On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 10:38 PM, David Kellogg >> >> >> >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 >>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 >> >> >> >> >> > 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 >> >> >> >> >> > 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" > >>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 > >> >> > faculty/mroth/> >> >> >> > > > >>> >> >> >> > > > >>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >> >> >> > > > >>> >> >>> >> >> > > > >>> ections-in-mat >> >> >> > > > >>> >> >> >>hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of-mathematics/>* >> >> >> > > > >>> >> >> >> > > > >>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 8:18 AM, Andy Blunden >> >> >>> >> >> > >> >> >> > > > 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 >> >> >> > > > >>>>> *Sent: *April 17, 2017 11:54 PM >> >> >> > > > >>>>> *To: *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" >>> >>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 >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>> >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>> >> >> >>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>> >> >> >> > > > >>>>>> 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 things? 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 >> >> >> > .. >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>> '?? >> >> >> > > > >>>>> ? ' >> >> >> > > > >>>>> >> >> >> > > > >>>>> 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 field? 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 say?) when I have thought about this a bit >> >>more >> >> >>- >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>> maybe in >> >> >> > > > >>>>> >> >> >> > > > >>>>> 2018? we should pick up! :-) >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> On 17/04/2017 18:22, >>"xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >> >>on >> >> >> > behalf >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> of Wolff-Michael Roth" >> >>> >> >>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 >> >> >> > > > >>>>> >> >> >> > > > >>>>> "r?le". I am quoting from p. 178: >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> Marx joins Hegel as regards terminology, and not >> >>Kant or >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> Fichte, who tried to solve the problem of >>?ideality? >> >> >>(i.e., >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> activity) >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> while >> >> >> > > > >>>>> >> >> >> > > > >>>>> remaining ?inside >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> consciousness?, 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 >>?ideality? >> >> >>takes >> >> >> > in >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> the >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> whole >> >> >> > > > >>>>> >> >> >> > > > >>>>> range of phenomena >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> within which the ?ideal?, 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 ?moment? 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 >> >>people?s >> >> >> eyes, >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> the commodity-form of the product, particularly in >> >>its >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> dazzling money-form, in the form >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> of >> >> >> > > > >>>>> >> >> >> > > > >>>>> the >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> notorious ?real >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> talers?, ?real roubles?, or ?real dollars?, things >> >> >>which, >> >> >> as >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> soon >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> as >> >> >> > > > >>>>> we >> >> >> > > > >>>>> >> >> >> > > > >>>>> have the slightest >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> theoretical understanding of them, immediately >>turn >> >>out >> >> >>to >> >> >> be >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> not >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> ?real? >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> at >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> all, but ?ideal? >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> through and through, things whose category quite >> >> >> > unambiguously >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> includes >> >> >> > > > >>>>> >> >> >> > > > >>>>> words, the >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> units of language, and many other ?things?. Things >> >>that, >> >> >> > while >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> being >> >> >> > > > >>>>> >> >> >> > > > >>>>> wholly >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> ?material?, >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> palpable-corporeal formations, acquire all their >> >> >>?meaning? >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> (function >> >> >> > > > >>>>> >> >> >> > > > >>>>> and >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> r?le) from ?spirit?, >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> >from ?thought? 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 >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> >> >> >> > > > >>>>> >> >> >> > > > >>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> >> >> >>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> directions-in-mat >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of- >> >> >> > mathematics/ >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> >* On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 8:31 AM, >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> wrote: >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> I am attempting to follow Wolff-Michael?s >> >>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 >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> ?use-value? >> >> >> > > > >>>>> & >> >> >> > > > >>>>> >> >> >> > > > >>>>> sign >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> complex ?value?. >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> His methodology is to read Marx ?substituting? >>the >> >>word >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> ?SIGN? >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> (implying >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> sign complex) FOR ?commodity? 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: ?natural signs? such as animal >> >>footprints >> >> >> are >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> useful/functional to the hunter inherently; they >>do >> >>NOT >> >> >> have >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> ?value? >> >> >> > > > >>>>> >> >> >> > > > >>>>> (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 ?value? >> >> >> (exchangeable). >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> Someone >> >> >> > > > >>>>> >> >> >> > > > >>>>> who >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> satisfies HER needs through her product produces >> >> >> ?use-value? >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> but >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> NOT >> >> >> > > > >>>>> >> >> >> > > > >>>>> ?value?. >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> b) VALUE: (exchangeable). To produce SIGNS >> >>(complexes), >> >> >> she >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> has >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> to >> >> >> > > > >>>>> >> >> >> > > > >>>>> produce >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> not only ?use-value? but use-value FOR others. >>She >> >>has >> >> >>to >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> produce ?societal? use-values.... To be/come >> >> >> (exchangeable) >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> SIGN, the >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> product >> >> >> > > > >>>>> >> >> >> > > > >>>>> HAS >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> TO BE TRANSFERRED to another, FOR whom the SIGN >> >>complex >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> ?constitutes? >> >> >> > > > >>>>> >> >> >> > > > >>>>> use-value. >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> The production of signs that produce no ?value? >> >>that is >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> exchangeable >> >> >> > > > >>>>> >> >> >> > > > >>>>> FOR >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> others leads to personal notes often having NO >> >> >>use-value to >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> others. >> >> >> > > > >>>>> >> >> >> > > > >>>>> To >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> trans/form use-value to BE come ?value? 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 >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> ?use-value? & ?value? >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> (exchangeable) >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> My morning musement >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> >> >> >> > > > >>>>> >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> From wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com Sat Apr 22 13:39:35 2017 From: wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com (Wolff-Michael Roth) Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2017 13:39:35 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value' In-Reply-To: References: <58f4dfe0.5a45620a.c2a11.c004@mx.google.com> <62ef71d1-672d-bf3e-cae2-87aecbd09692@mira.net> <58f61836.8e2c620a.3b9e9.7d11@mx.google.com> <0d06b705-2e34-1171-1a2e-f4be2a14503b@mira.net> <071e3c6a-ba4e-1de8-1dae-1d54b8879ddd@mira.net> <5FCAE108E8796240B89A0E15AE182DBD1CBEF130@CISCMRMBS01.mds.ad.dur.ac.uk> Message-ID: 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 New book: *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" 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 > > > >New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > 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" >> 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 > >> > > >> >New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > >> > >> 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 Ric?ur 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" >> >> wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> >Ric?ur (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 [*?nociation*] and > >>statement [ > >> >> >*?nonc?*]." > >> >> >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 Ric?ur 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 > > >> >> > > >> >> >New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > >> >> > >> >> directions-in-mat > >> >> >hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of-mathematics/>* > >> >> > > >> >> >On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 10:38 PM, David Kellogg > >> > >> >> >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 > >>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 > >> >> > >> >> >> > 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 > >> >> > >> >> >> > 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" >> >>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 >> >> >> > faculty/mroth/> > >> >> >> > > > >>> > >> >> >> > > > >>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > >> >> >> > > > >>> > >> >> >> >> >> > > > >>> ections-in-mat > >> >> >> > > > >>> > >> >> >>hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of-mathematics/>* > >> >> >> > > > >>> > >> >> >> > > > >>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 8:18 AM, Andy Blunden > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > > 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 > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> *Sent: *April 17, 2017 11:54 PM > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> *To: *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" > >> >> >>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 > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>> > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>> > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>> 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 things? 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 > >> >> >> > .. > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>> '?? > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> ? ' > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> 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 field? 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 say?) when I have thought about this a bit > >> >>more > >> >> >>- > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>> maybe in > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> 2018? we should pick up! :-) > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> On 17/04/2017 18:22, > >>"xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > >> >>on > >> >> >> > behalf > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> of Wolff-Michael Roth" > >> >> >> >> >>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 > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> "r?le". I am quoting from p. 178: > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> Marx joins Hegel as regards terminology, and not > >> >>Kant or > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> Fichte, who tried to solve the problem of > >>?ideality? > >> >> >>(i.e., > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> activity) > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> while > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> remaining ?inside > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> consciousness?, 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 > >>?ideality? > >> >> >>takes > >> >> >> > in > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> the > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> whole > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> range of phenomena > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> within which the ?ideal?, 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 ?moment? 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 > >> >>people?s > >> >> >> eyes, > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> the commodity-form of the product, particularly in > >> >>its > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> dazzling money-form, in the form > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> of > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> the > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> notorious ?real > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> talers?, ?real roubles?, or ?real dollars?, things > >> >> >>which, > >> >> >> as > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> soon > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> as > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> we > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> have the slightest > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> theoretical understanding of them, immediately > >>turn > >> >>out > >> >> >>to > >> >> >> be > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> not > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> ?real? > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> at > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> all, but ?ideal? > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> through and through, things whose category quite > >> >> >> > unambiguously > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> includes > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> words, the > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> units of language, and many other ?things?. Things > >> >>that, > >> >> >> > while > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> being > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> wholly > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> ?material?, > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> palpable-corporeal formations, acquire all their > >> >> >>?meaning? > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> (function > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> and > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> r?le) from ?spirit?, > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> >from ?thought? 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 > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> directions-in-mat > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> hematics-and-science- > education/the-mathematics-of- > >> >> >> > mathematics/ > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> >* On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 8:31 AM, > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> wrote: > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> I am attempting to follow Wolff-Michael?s > >> >>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 > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> ?use-value? > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> & > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> sign > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> complex ?value?. > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> His methodology is to read Marx ?substituting? > >>the > >> >>word > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> ?SIGN? > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> (implying > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> sign complex) FOR ?commodity? 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: ?natural signs? such as animal > >> >>footprints > >> >> >> are > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> useful/functional to the hunter inherently; they > >>do > >> >>NOT > >> >> >> have > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> ?value? > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> (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 ?value? > >> >> >> (exchangeable). > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> Someone > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> who > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> satisfies HER needs through her product produces > >> >> >> ?use-value? > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> but > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> NOT > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> ?value?. > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> b) VALUE: (exchangeable). To produce SIGNS > >> >>(complexes), > >> >> >> she > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> has > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> to > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> produce > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> not only ?use-value? but use-value FOR others. > >>She > >> >>has > >> >> >>to > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> produce ?societal? use-values.... To be/come > >> >> >> (exchangeable) > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> SIGN, the > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> product > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> HAS > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> TO BE TRANSFERRED to another, FOR whom the SIGN > >> >>complex > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> ?constitutes? > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> use-value. > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> The production of signs that produce no ?value? > >> >>that is > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> exchangeable > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> FOR > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> others leads to personal notes often having NO > >> >> >>use-value to > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> others. > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> To > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> trans/form use-value to BE come ?value? 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 > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> ?use-value? & ?value? > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> (exchangeable) > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> My morning musement > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> > >> > >> > > > From dkellogg60@gmail.com Sat Apr 22 14:18:59 2017 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2017 07:18:59 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value' In-Reply-To: References: <58f4dfe0.5a45620a.c2a11.c004@mx.google.com> <62ef71d1-672d-bf3e-cae2-87aecbd09692@mira.net> <58f61836.8e2c620a.3b9e9.7d11@mx.google.com> <0d06b705-2e34-1171-1a2e-f4be2a14503b@mira.net> <071e3c6a-ba4e-1de8-1dae-1d54b8879ddd@mira.net> <5FCAE108E8796240B89A0E15AE182DBD1CBEF130@CISCMRMBS01.mds.ad.dur.ac.uk> <5FCAE108E8796240B89A0E15AE182DBD1CBEF1C4@CISCMRMBS01.mds.ad.dur.ac.uk> Message-ID: 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 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 > > 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 > > 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" > > > >> 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 > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > > > >>> > > > >>> ections-in-mat > > > > >>> hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of-mathematics/>* > > > > >>> > > > > >>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 8:18 AM, Andy Blunden > > > > >>> > > > > 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 > > > > >>>>> *Sent: *April 17, 2017 11:54 PM > > > > >>>>> *To: *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" > > > > >>>>>> > 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 > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> 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 things? 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 > > .. > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> '?? > > > > >>>>> ? ' > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> 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 field? 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 say?) when I have thought about this a bit more - > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> maybe in > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> 2018? we should pick up! :-) > > > > >>>>>>>> On 17/04/2017 18:22, "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on > > > > >>>>>>>> behalf of Wolff-Michael Roth" > > > > >>>>>>>> > 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 > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> "r?le". I am quoting from p. 178: > > > > >>>>>>>>> Marx joins Hegel as regards terminology, and not Kant or > > > > >>>>>>>>> Fichte, who tried to solve the problem of ?ideality? > > > > >>>>>>>>> (i.e., > > > > >>>>>>>>> activity) > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> while > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> remaining ?inside > > > > >>>>>>>>> consciousness?, 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 ?ideality? > > > > >>>>>>>>> takes in the > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> whole > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> range of phenomena > > > > >>>>>>>>> within which the ?ideal?, 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 ?moment? 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 people?s > > > > >>>>>>>>> eyes, the commodity-form of the product, particularly in > > > > >>>>>>>>> its dazzling money-form, in the form > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> of > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> the > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> notorious ?real > > > > >>>>>>>>> talers?, ?real roubles?, or ?real dollars?, things which, > > > > >>>>>>>>> as soon > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> as > > > > >>>>> we > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> have the slightest > > > > >>>>>>>>> theoretical understanding of them, immediately turn out to > > > > >>>>>>>>> be not > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> ?real? > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> at > > > > >>>>>>>>> all, but ?ideal? > > > > >>>>>>>>> through and through, things whose category quite > > > > >>>>>>>>> unambiguously > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> includes > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> words, the > > > > >>>>>>>>> units of language, and many other ?things?. Things that, > > > > >>>>>>>>> while > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> being > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> wholly > > > > >>>>>>>>> ?material?, > > > > >>>>>>>>> palpable-corporeal formations, acquire all their ?meaning? > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> (function > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> and > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> r?le) from ?spirit?, > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> >from ?thought? 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 > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> directions-in-mat > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of-mathemat > > > > >>>>>>>>> ics/ > > > > >>>>>>>>> >* On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 8:31 AM, > > > > >>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> I am attempting to follow Wolff-Michael?s 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 > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> ?use-value? > > > > >>>>> & > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> sign > > > > >>>>>>>>>> complex ?value?. > > > > >>>>>>>>>> His methodology is to read Marx ?substituting? the word > > > > >>>>>>>>>> ?SIGN? > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> (implying > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> sign complex) FOR ?commodity? 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: ?natural signs? such as animal footprints > > > > >>>>>>>>>> are useful/functional to the hunter inherently; they do > > > > >>>>>>>>>> NOT have > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> ?value? > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> (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 ?value? > (exchangeable). > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Someone > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> who > > > > >>>>>>>>>> satisfies HER needs through her product produces > > > > >>>>>>>>>> ?use-value? but > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> NOT > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> ?value?. > > > > >>>>>>>>>> b) VALUE: (exchangeable). To produce SIGNS (complexes), > > > > >>>>>>>>>> she has > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> to > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> produce > > > > >>>>>>>>>> not only ?use-value? but use-value FOR others. She has to > > > > >>>>>>>>>> produce ?societal? use-values.... To be/come > > > > >>>>>>>>>> (exchangeable) SIGN, the > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> product > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> HAS > > > > >>>>>>>>>> TO BE TRANSFERRED to another, FOR whom the SIGN complex > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> ?constitutes? > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> use-value. > > > > >>>>>>>>>> The production of signs that produce no ?value? that is > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> exchangeable > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> FOR > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> others leads to personal notes often having NO use-value > > > > >>>>>>>>> to > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> others. > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> To > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> trans/form use-value to BE come ?value? 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 > > > > >>>>>>>>>> ?use-value? & ?value? > > > > >>>>>>>>>> (exchangeable) > > > > >>>>>>>>>> My morning musement > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From mcole@ucsd.edu Sat Apr 22 15:27:58 2017 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2017 15:27:58 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value' In-Reply-To: References: <58f4dfe0.5a45620a.c2a11.c004@mx.google.com> <62ef71d1-672d-bf3e-cae2-87aecbd09692@mira.net> <58f61836.8e2c620a.3b9e9.7d11@mx.google.com> <0d06b705-2e34-1171-1a2e-f4be2a14503b@mira.net> <071e3c6a-ba4e-1de8-1dae-1d54b8879ddd@mira.net> <5FCAE108E8796240B89A0E15AE182DBD1CBEF130@CISCMRMBS01.mds.ad.dur.ac.uk> <5FCAE108E8796240B89A0E15AE182DBD1CBEF1C4@CISCMRMBS01.mds.ad.dur.ac.uk> Message-ID: 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 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 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 > > > 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 > > > 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" 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 > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > > > > >>> > > > > >>> ections-in-mat > > > > > >>> hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of- > mathematics/>* > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 8:18 AM, Andy Blunden > > > > > >>> > > > > > 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 > > > > > >>>>> *Sent: *April 17, 2017 11:54 PM > > > > > >>>>> *To: *xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu 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" > > > > > >>>>>> > > 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 > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > > > > >>>>>>> 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 things? 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 > > > .. > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> '?? > > > > > >>>>> ? ' > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> 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 field? 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 say?) when I have thought about this a bit more - > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> maybe in > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> 2018? we should pick up! :-) > > > > > >>>>>>>> On 17/04/2017 18:22, "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on > > > > > >>>>>>>> behalf of Wolff-Michael Roth" > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > 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 > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> "r?le". I am quoting from p. 178: > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Marx joins Hegel as regards terminology, and not Kant or > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Fichte, who tried to solve the problem of ?ideality? > > > > > >>>>>>>>> (i.e., > > > > > >>>>>>>>> activity) > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> while > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> remaining ?inside > > > > > >>>>>>>>> consciousness?, 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 ?ideality? > > > > > >>>>>>>>> takes in the > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> whole > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> range of phenomena > > > > > >>>>>>>>> within which the ?ideal?, 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 ?moment? 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 people?s > > > > > >>>>>>>>> eyes, the commodity-form of the product, particularly in > > > > > >>>>>>>>> its dazzling money-form, in the form > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> of > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> the > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> notorious ?real > > > > > >>>>>>>>> talers?, ?real roubles?, or ?real dollars?, things which, > > > > > >>>>>>>>> as soon > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> as > > > > > >>>>> we > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> have the slightest > > > > > >>>>>>>>> theoretical understanding of them, immediately turn out > to > > > > > >>>>>>>>> be not > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> ?real? > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> at > > > > > >>>>>>>>> all, but ?ideal? > > > > > >>>>>>>>> through and through, things whose category quite > > > > > >>>>>>>>> unambiguously > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> includes > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> words, the > > > > > >>>>>>>>> units of language, and many other ?things?. Things that, > > > > > >>>>>>>>> while > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> being > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> wholly > > > > > >>>>>>>>> ?material?, > > > > > >>>>>>>>> palpable-corporeal formations, acquire all their > ?meaning? > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> (function > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> and > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> r?le) from ?spirit?, > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> >from ?thought? 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 > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > > > > >>>>>>>>> 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-Michael?s 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 > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> ?use-value? > > > > > >>>>> & > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> sign > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> complex ?value?. > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> His methodology is to read Marx ?substituting? the word > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> ?SIGN? > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> (implying > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> sign complex) FOR ?commodity? 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: ?natural signs? such as animal footprints > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> are useful/functional to the hunter inherently; they do > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> NOT have > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> ?value? > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> (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 ?value? > > (exchangeable). > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Someone > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> who > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> satisfies HER needs through her product produces > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> ?use-value? but > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> NOT > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> ?value?. > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> b) VALUE: (exchangeable). To produce SIGNS (complexes), > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> she has > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> to > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> produce > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> not only ?use-value? but use-value FOR others. She has > to > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> produce ?societal? use-values.... To be/come > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> (exchangeable) SIGN, the > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> product > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> HAS > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> TO BE TRANSFERRED to another, FOR whom the SIGN complex > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> ?constitutes? > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> use-value. > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> The production of signs that produce no ?value? that is > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> exchangeable > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> FOR > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> others leads to personal notes often having NO use-value > > > > > >>>>>>>>> to > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> others. > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> To > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> trans/form use-value to BE come ?value? 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 > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> ?use-value? & ?value? > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> (exchangeable) > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> My morning musement > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: cole.re-look.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 233692 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20170422/3f2fdeea/attachment.pdf From dkellogg60@gmail.com Sat Apr 22 15:52:47 2017 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2017 08:52:47 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value' In-Reply-To: References: <58f4dfe0.5a45620a.c2a11.c004@mx.google.com> <62ef71d1-672d-bf3e-cae2-87aecbd09692@mira.net> <58f61836.8e2c620a.3b9e9.7d11@mx.google.com> <0d06b705-2e34-1171-1a2e-f4be2a14503b@mira.net> <071e3c6a-ba4e-1de8-1dae-1d54b8879ddd@mira.net> <5FCAE108E8796240B89A0E15AE182DBD1CBEF130@CISCMRMBS01.mds.ad.dur.ac.uk> <5FCAE108E8796240B89A0E15AE182DBD1CBEF1C4@CISCMRMBS01.mds.ad.dur.ac.uk> Message-ID: 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 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 > 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 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 > > > > > 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 > > > > > 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" > 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 > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> ections-in-mat > > > > > > >>> hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of- > > mathematics/>* > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 8:18 AM, Andy Blunden > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > >>>>> *Sent: *April 17, 2017 11:54 PM > > > > > > >>>>> *To: *xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > 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" > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > 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 > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > > > > > >>>>>>> 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 things? 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 > > > > .. > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> '?? > > > > > > >>>>> ? ' > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> 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 field? 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 say?) when I have thought about this a bit > more - > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> maybe in > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> 2018? we should pick up! :-) > > > > > > >>>>>>>> On 17/04/2017 18:22, "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on > > > > > > >>>>>>>> behalf of Wolff-Michael Roth" > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > 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 > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> "r?le". I am quoting from p. 178: > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Marx joins Hegel as regards terminology, and not Kant > or > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Fichte, who tried to solve the problem of ?ideality? > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> (i.e., > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> activity) > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> while > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> remaining ?inside > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> consciousness?, 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 ?ideality? > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> takes in the > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> whole > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> range of phenomena > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> within which the ?ideal?, 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 ?moment? 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 people?s > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> eyes, the commodity-form of the product, particularly > in > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> its dazzling money-form, in the form > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> of > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> the > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> notorious ?real > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> talers?, ?real roubles?, or ?real dollars?, things > which, > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> as soon > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> as > > > > > > >>>>> we > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> have the slightest > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> theoretical understanding of them, immediately turn out > > to > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> be not > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> ?real? > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> at > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> all, but ?ideal? > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> through and through, things whose category quite > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> unambiguously > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> includes > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> words, the > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> units of language, and many other ?things?. Things > that, > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> while > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> being > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> wholly > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> ?material?, > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> palpable-corporeal formations, acquire all their > > ?meaning? > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> (function > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> and > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> r?le) from ?spirit?, > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> >from ?thought? 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 > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > 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-Michael?s 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 > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> ?use-value? > > > > > > >>>>> & > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> sign > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> complex ?value?. > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> His methodology is to read Marx ?substituting? the > word > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> ?SIGN? > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> (implying > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> sign complex) FOR ?commodity? 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: ?natural signs? such as animal > footprints > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> are useful/functional to the hunter inherently; they > do > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> NOT have > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> ?value? > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> (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 ?value? > > > (exchangeable). > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Someone > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> who > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> satisfies HER needs through her product produces > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> ?use-value? but > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> NOT > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> ?value?. > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> b) VALUE: (exchangeable). To produce SIGNS > (complexes), > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> she has > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> to > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> produce > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> not only ?use-value? but use-value FOR others. She has > > to > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> produce ?societal? use-values.... To be/come > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> (exchangeable) SIGN, the > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> product > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> HAS > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> TO BE TRANSFERRED to another, FOR whom the SIGN > complex > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> ?constitutes? > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> use-value. > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> The production of signs that produce no ?value? that > is > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> exchangeable > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> FOR > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> others leads to personal notes often having NO > use-value > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> to > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> others. > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> To > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> trans/form use-value to BE come ?value? 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 > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> ?use-value? & ?value? > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> (exchangeable) > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> My morning musement > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From mcole@ucsd.edu Sat Apr 22 16:26:01 2017 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2017 16:26:01 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value' In-Reply-To: References: <58f4dfe0.5a45620a.c2a11.c004@mx.google.com> <62ef71d1-672d-bf3e-cae2-87aecbd09692@mira.net> <58f61836.8e2c620a.3b9e9.7d11@mx.google.com> <0d06b705-2e34-1171-1a2e-f4be2a14503b@mira.net> <071e3c6a-ba4e-1de8-1dae-1d54b8879ddd@mira.net> <5FCAE108E8796240B89A0E15AE182DBD1CBEF130@CISCMRMBS01.mds.ad.dur.ac.uk> <5FCAE108E8796240B89A0E15AE182DBD1CBEF1C4@CISCMRMBS01.mds.ad.dur.ac.uk> Message-ID: 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 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 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 > > 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 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" > > 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 > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > > > > > > >>> dir > > > > > > > >>> ections-in-mat > > > > > > > >>> hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of- > > > mathematics/>* > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 8:18 AM, Andy Blunden > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > >>>>> *Sent: *April 17, 2017 11:54 PM > > > > > > > >>>>> *To: *xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu 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" > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > 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 > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > 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 things? 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 > > > > > .. > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> '?? > > > > > > > >>>>> ? ' > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>> 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 field? 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 say?) when I have thought about this a bit > > more - > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> maybe in > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>> 2018? we should pick up! :-) > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> On 17/04/2017 18:22, "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > on > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> behalf of Wolff-Michael Roth" > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > 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 > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>> "r?le". I am quoting from p. 178: > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Marx joins Hegel as regards terminology, and not Kant > > or > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Fichte, who tried to solve the problem of ?ideality? > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> (i.e., > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> activity) > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> while > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>> remaining ?inside > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> consciousness?, 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 ?ideality? > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> takes in the > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> whole > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>> range of phenomena > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> within which the ?ideal?, 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 ?moment? 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 > people?s > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> eyes, the commodity-form of the product, particularly > > in > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> its dazzling money-form, in the form > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> of > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>> the > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> notorious ?real > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> talers?, ?real roubles?, or ?real dollars?, things > > which, > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> as soon > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> as > > > > > > > >>>>> we > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>> have the slightest > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> theoretical understanding of them, immediately turn > out > > > to > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> be not > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> ?real? > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> at > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> all, but ?ideal? > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> through and through, things whose category quite > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> unambiguously > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> includes > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>> words, the > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> units of language, and many other ?things?. Things > > that, > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> while > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> being > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>> wholly > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> ?material?, > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> palpable-corporeal formations, acquire all their > > > ?meaning? > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> (function > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>> and > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> r?le) from ?spirit?, > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> >from ?thought? 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 > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > 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-Michael?s 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 > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> ?use-value? > > > > > > > >>>>> & > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>> sign > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> complex ?value?. > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> His methodology is to read Marx ?substituting? the > > word > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> ?SIGN? > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> (implying > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> sign complex) FOR ?commodity? 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: ?natural signs? such as animal > > footprints > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> are useful/functional to the hunter inherently; they > > do > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> NOT have > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> ?value? > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>> (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 ?value? > > > > (exchangeable). > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Someone > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>> who > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> satisfies HER needs through her product produces > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> ?use-value? but > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> NOT > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>> ?value?. > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> b) VALUE: (exchangeable). To produce SIGNS > > (complexes), > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> she has > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> to > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>> produce > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> not only ?use-value? but use-value FOR others. She > has > > > to > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> produce ?societal? use-values.... To be/come > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> (exchangeable) SIGN, the > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> product > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>> HAS > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> TO BE TRANSFERRED to another, FOR whom the SIGN > > complex > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> ?constitutes? > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>> use-value. > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> The production of signs that produce no ?value? that > > is > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> exchangeable > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>> FOR > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> others leads to personal notes often having NO > > use-value > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> to > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> others. > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>> To > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> trans/form use-value to BE come ?value? 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 > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> ?use-value? & ?value? > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> (exchangeable) > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> My morning musement > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From ewall@umich.edu Sat Apr 22 16:57:57 2017 From: ewall@umich.edu (Edward Wall) Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2017 18:57:57 -0500 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value' In-Reply-To: References: <58f4dfe0.5a45620a.c2a11.c004@mx.google.com> <62ef71d1-672d-bf3e-cae2-87aecbd09692@mira.net> <58f61836.8e2c620a.3b9e9.7d11@mx.google.com> <0d06b705-2e34-1171-1a2e-f4be2a14503b@mira.net> <071e3c6a-ba4e-1de8-1dae-1d54b8879ddd@mira.net> <5FCAE108E8796240B89A0E15AE182DBD1CBEF130@CISCMRMBS01.mds.ad.dur.ac.uk> <5FCAE108E8796240B89A0E15AE182DBD1CBEF1C4@CISCMRMBS01.mds.ad.dur.ac.uk> Message-ID: Mike and David For what?s it worth, it appears to be page 25 in Cole and Scribner. There was, by the way, a Cole and Gay article ?Culture and Memory? published in 1972. Ed > On Apr 22, 2017, at 5:27 PM, mike cole 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 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 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 >>>> 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 >>>> 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" > 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 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ections-in-mat >>>>>>>>> hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of- >> mathematics/>* >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 8:18 AM, Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>>> *Sent: *April 17, 2017 11:54 PM >>>>>>>>>>> *To: *xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > 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" >>>>>>>>>>>> >>> 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >>>>>>>>>>>>> > 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 things? 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 >>>> .. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> '?? >>>>>>>>>>> ? ' >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 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 field? 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 say?) when I have thought about this a bit more - >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> maybe in >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 2018? we should pick up! :-) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/04/2017 18:22, "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on >>>>>>>>>>>>>> behalf of Wolff-Michael Roth" >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> 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 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> "r?le". I am quoting from p. 178: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Marx joins Hegel as regards terminology, and not Kant or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fichte, who tried to solve the problem of ?ideality? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (i.e., >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> activity) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> while >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> remaining ?inside >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consciousness?, 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 ?ideality? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> takes in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> whole >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> range of phenomena >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> within which the ?ideal?, 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 ?moment? 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 people?s >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eyes, the commodity-form of the product, particularly in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its dazzling money-form, in the form >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> notorious ?real >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talers?, ?real roubles?, or ?real dollars?, things which, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as soon >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>>> we >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> have the slightest >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theoretical understanding of them, immediately turn out >> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?real? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all, but ?ideal? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through and through, things whose category quite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unambiguously >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> includes >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> words, the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> units of language, and many other ?things?. Things that, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> while >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> being >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> wholly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?material?, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> palpable-corporeal formations, acquire all their >> ?meaning? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (function >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> r?le) from ?spirit?, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from ?thought? 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > 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-Michael?s 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?use-value? >>>>>>>>>>> & >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> sign >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complex ?value?. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> His methodology is to read Marx ?substituting? the word >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?SIGN? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (implying >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sign complex) FOR ?commodity? 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: ?natural signs? such as animal footprints >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are useful/functional to the hunter inherently; they do >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NOT have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?value? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> (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 ?value? >>> (exchangeable). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Someone >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> who >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> satisfies HER needs through her product produces >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?use-value? but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NOT >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ?value?. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> b) VALUE: (exchangeable). To produce SIGNS (complexes), >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> she has >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> produce >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not only ?use-value? but use-value FOR others. She has >> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> produce ?societal? use-values.... To be/come >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (exchangeable) SIGN, the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> product >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> HAS >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TO BE TRANSFERRED to another, FOR whom the SIGN complex >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?constitutes? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> use-value. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The production of signs that produce no ?value? that is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exchangeable >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> FOR >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> others leads to personal notes often having NO use-value >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> others. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> To >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trans/form use-value to BE come ?value? 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?use-value? & ?value? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (exchangeable) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My morning musement >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> > From mcole@ucsd.edu Sat Apr 22 17:24:55 2017 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2017 17:24:55 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value' In-Reply-To: References: <58f4dfe0.5a45620a.c2a11.c004@mx.google.com> <62ef71d1-672d-bf3e-cae2-87aecbd09692@mira.net> <58f61836.8e2c620a.3b9e9.7d11@mx.google.com> <0d06b705-2e34-1171-1a2e-f4be2a14503b@mira.net> <071e3c6a-ba4e-1de8-1dae-1d54b8879ddd@mira.net> <5FCAE108E8796240B89A0E15AE182DBD1CBEF130@CISCMRMBS01.mds.ad.dur.ac.uk> <5FCAE108E8796240B89A0E15AE182DBD1CBEF1C4@CISCMRMBS01.mds.ad.dur.ac.uk> Message-ID: And there were more, Ed. The facility where I have a pdf of that book is inaccessible at the moment and discussing it without reading it is not going to help xmca-ers understand the issues being discussed. I think this is not a central part of the argument that david is making, and the last thing that should happen is that there should be distractions or footnotes added to the current discussion. I will bug out for now. If, at some later time, the Cole and Scribner book, which was published just as we started to seriously engage Vygotsky, seems appropriate for discussion, the book can be made available as a pdf, I can blush through all the blunders, and then we can discuss the last chapter which addresses the overall conclusion of the book. Lets stick with wording and the issues surrounding the importance of this concept. Or at least, I'll stick with that. mike On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 4:57 PM, Edward Wall wrote: > Mike and David > > For what?s it worth, it appears to be page 25 in Cole and Scribner. > There was, by the way, a Cole and Gay article ?Culture and Memory? > published in 1972. > > Ed > > > On Apr 22, 2017, at 5:27 PM, mike cole 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 > 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 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 > >>>> 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 > >>>> 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" >> 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 > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ections-in-mat > >>>>>>>>> hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of- > >> mathematics/>* > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 8:18 AM, Andy Blunden > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>> 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 > >>>>>>>>>>> *Sent: *April 17, 2017 11:54 PM > >>>>>>>>>>> *To: *xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu >> 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" > >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> 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 > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> 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 things? 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 > >>>> .. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> '?? > >>>>>>>>>>> ? ' > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> 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 field? 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 say?) when I have thought about this a bit more - > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> maybe in > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> 2018? we should pick up! :-) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/04/2017 18:22, "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> behalf of Wolff-Michael Roth" > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> 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 > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> "r?le". I am quoting from p. 178: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Marx joins Hegel as regards terminology, and not Kant or > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fichte, who tried to solve the problem of ?ideality? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (i.e., > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> activity) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> while > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> remaining ?inside > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consciousness?, 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 ?ideality? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> takes in the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> whole > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> range of phenomena > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> within which the ?ideal?, 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 ?moment? 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 people?s > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eyes, the commodity-form of the product, particularly in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its dazzling money-form, in the form > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> notorious ?real > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talers?, ?real roubles?, or ?real dollars?, things which, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as soon > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> as > >>>>>>>>>>> we > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> have the slightest > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theoretical understanding of them, immediately turn out > >> to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be not > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?real? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all, but ?ideal? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through and through, things whose category quite > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unambiguously > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> includes > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> words, the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> units of language, and many other ?things?. Things that, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> while > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> being > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> wholly > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?material?, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> palpable-corporeal formations, acquire all their > >> ?meaning? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (function > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> r?le) from ?spirit?, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from ?thought? 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 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> 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-Michael?s 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 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?use-value? > >>>>>>>>>>> & > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> sign > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complex ?value?. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> His methodology is to read Marx ?substituting? the word > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?SIGN? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (implying > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sign complex) FOR ?commodity? 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: ?natural signs? such as animal footprints > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are useful/functional to the hunter inherently; they do > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NOT have > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?value? > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> (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 ?value? > >>> (exchangeable). > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Someone > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> who > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> satisfies HER needs through her product produces > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?use-value? but > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NOT > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> ?value?. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> b) VALUE: (exchangeable). To produce SIGNS (complexes), > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> she has > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> produce > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not only ?use-value? but use-value FOR others. She has > >> to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> produce ?societal? use-values.... To be/come > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (exchangeable) SIGN, the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> product > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> HAS > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TO BE TRANSFERRED to another, FOR whom the SIGN complex > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?constitutes? > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> use-value. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The production of signs that produce no ?value? that is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exchangeable > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> FOR > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> others leads to personal notes often having NO use-value > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> others. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> To > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trans/form use-value to BE come ?value? 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 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?use-value? & ?value? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (exchangeable) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My morning musement > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > > > > > From ewall@umich.edu Sat Apr 22 18:09:31 2017 From: ewall@umich.edu (Edward Wall) Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2017 20:09:31 -0500 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value' In-Reply-To: References: <58f4dfe0.5a45620a.c2a11.c004@mx.google.com> <62ef71d1-672d-bf3e-cae2-87aecbd09692@mira.net> <58f61836.8e2c620a.3b9e9.7d11@mx.google.com> <0d06b705-2e34-1171-1a2e-f4be2a14503b@mira.net> <071e3c6a-ba4e-1de8-1dae-1d54b8879ddd@mira.net> <5FCAE108E8796240B89A0E15AE182DBD1CBEF130@CISCMRMBS01.mds.ad.dur.ac.uk> <5FCAE108E8796240B89A0E15AE182DBD1CBEF1C4@CISCMRMBS01.mds.ad.dur.ac.uk> Message-ID: <269AEAD5-A6E1-48FB-88F3-905EFE2ECB2E@umich.edu> MIke I?m all for getting back to wording. Ed > On Apr 22, 2017, at 7:24 PM, mike cole wrote: > > And there were more, Ed. > The facility where I have a pdf of that book is inaccessible at the moment > and discussing it without reading it is not going to help xmca-ers > understand the issues being discussed. > > I think this is not a central part of the argument that david is making, > and the last thing that should happen is that there should be distractions > or footnotes added to the current discussion. > > I will bug out for now. If, at some later time, the Cole and Scribner book, > which was published just as we started to seriously engage Vygotsky, seems > appropriate for discussion, the book can be made available as a pdf, I can > blush through all the blunders, and then we can discuss the last chapter > which addresses the overall conclusion of the book. > > Lets stick with wording and the issues surrounding the importance of this > concept. Or at least, I'll stick with that. > > mike > > > On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 4:57 PM, Edward Wall wrote: > >> Mike and David >> >> For what?s it worth, it appears to be page 25 in Cole and Scribner. >> There was, by the way, a Cole and Gay article ?Culture and Memory? >> published in 1972. >> >> Ed >> >>> On Apr 22, 2017, at 5:27 PM, mike cole 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 >> 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 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 >>>>>> 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 >>>>>> 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" >>> 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 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ections-in-mat >>>>>>>>>>> hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of- >>>> mathematics/>* >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 8:18 AM, Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>> *Sent: *April 17, 2017 11:54 PM >>>>>>>>>>>>> *To: *xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu >>> 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" >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> 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 things? 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 >>>>>> .. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> '?? >>>>>>>>>>>>> ? ' >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 field? 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 say?) when I have thought about this a bit more - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maybe in >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2018? we should pick up! :-) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/04/2017 18:22, "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behalf of Wolff-Michael Roth" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "r?le". I am quoting from p. 178: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Marx joins Hegel as regards terminology, and not Kant or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fichte, who tried to solve the problem of ?ideality? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (i.e., >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> activity) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> while >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> remaining ?inside >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consciousness?, 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 ?ideality? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> takes in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whole >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> range of phenomena >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> within which the ?ideal?, 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 ?moment? 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 people?s >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eyes, the commodity-form of the product, particularly in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its dazzling money-form, in the form >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> notorious ?real >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talers?, ?real roubles?, or ?real dollars?, things which, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as soon >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>>>>> we >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> have the slightest >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theoretical understanding of them, immediately turn out >>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?real? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all, but ?ideal? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through and through, things whose category quite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unambiguously >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> includes >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> words, the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> units of language, and many other ?things?. Things that, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> while >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wholly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?material?, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> palpable-corporeal formations, acquire all their >>>> ?meaning? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (function >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> r?le) from ?spirit?, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from ?thought? 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> 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-Michael?s 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?use-value? >>>>>>>>>>>>> & >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> sign >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complex ?value?. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> His methodology is to read Marx ?substituting? the word >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?SIGN? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (implying >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sign complex) FOR ?commodity? 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: ?natural signs? such as animal footprints >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are useful/functional to the hunter inherently; they do >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NOT have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?value? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> (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 ?value? >>>>> (exchangeable). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Someone >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> who >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> satisfies HER needs through her product produces >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?use-value? but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NOT >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ?value?. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> b) VALUE: (exchangeable). To produce SIGNS (complexes), >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> she has >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> produce >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not only ?use-value? but use-value FOR others. She has >>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> produce ?societal? use-values.... To be/come >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (exchangeable) SIGN, the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> product >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> HAS >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TO BE TRANSFERRED to another, FOR whom the SIGN complex >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?constitutes? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> use-value. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The production of signs that produce no ?value? that is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exchangeable >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> FOR >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> others leads to personal notes often having NO use-value >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> others. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> To >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trans/form use-value to BE come ?value? 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?use-value? & ?value? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (exchangeable) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My morning musement >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> From ablunden@mira.net Sat Apr 22 18:39:28 2017 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2017 11:39:28 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value' In-Reply-To: References: <58f4dfe0.5a45620a.c2a11.c004@mx.google.com> <62ef71d1-672d-bf3e-cae2-87aecbd09692@mira.net> <58f61836.8e2c620a.3b9e9.7d11@mx.google.com> <0d06b705-2e34-1171-1a2e-f4be2a14503b@mira.net> <071e3c6a-ba4e-1de8-1dae-1d54b8879ddd@mira.net> <5FCAE108E8796240B89A0E15AE182DBD1CBEF130@CISCMRMBS01.mds.ad.dur.ac.uk> <5FCAE108E8796240B89A0E15AE182DBD1CBEF1C4@CISCMRMBS01.mds.ad.dur.ac.uk> Message-ID: I am happy to withdraw my comment about "Marx died too," David, your point is taken. But I do think that a new concept or a new word such as "wording" requires a succinct explanation without footnotes or it cannot perform the function for which one coins a new word. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://home.mira.net/~andy http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making On 23/04/2017 8:52 AM, David Kellogg 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 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 >> 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 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 >>>> 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 >>>> 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" >> 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 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ections-in-mat >>>>>>>>>> hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of- >>> mathematics/>* >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 8:18 AM, Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>>>> *Sent: *April 17, 2017 11:54 PM >>>>>>>>>>>> *To: *xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu >> 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" >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > 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 things? 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 >>>>> .. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> '?? >>>>>>>>>>>> ? ' >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 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 field? 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 say?) when I have thought about this a bit >> more - >>>>>>>>>>>>>> maybe in >>>>>>>>>>>> 2018? we should pick up! :-) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/04/2017 18:22, "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >> on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behalf of Wolff-Michael Roth" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>>>> "r?le". I am quoting from p. 178: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Marx joins Hegel as regards terminology, and not Kant >> or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fichte, who tried to solve the problem of ?ideality? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (i.e., >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> activity) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> while >>>>>>>>>>>> remaining ?inside >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consciousness?, 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 ?ideality? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> takes in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whole >>>>>>>>>>>> range of phenomena >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> within which the ?ideal?, 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 ?moment? 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 people?s >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eyes, the commodity-form of the product, particularly >> in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its dazzling money-form, in the form >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> notorious ?real >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talers?, ?real roubles?, or ?real dollars?, things >> which, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as soon >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>>>> we >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> have the slightest >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theoretical understanding of them, immediately turn out >>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?real? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all, but ?ideal? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through and through, things whose category quite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unambiguously >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> includes >>>>>>>>>>>> words, the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> units of language, and many other ?things?. Things >> that, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> while >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being >>>>>>>>>>>> wholly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?material?, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> palpable-corporeal formations, acquire all their >>> ?meaning? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (function >>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> r?le) from ?spirit?, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >from ?thought? 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> 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-Michael?s 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?use-value? >>>>>>>>>>>> & >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> sign >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complex ?value?. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> His methodology is to read Marx ?substituting? the >> word >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?SIGN? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (implying >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sign complex) FOR ?commodity? 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: ?natural signs? such as animal >> footprints >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are useful/functional to the hunter inherently; they >> do >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NOT have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?value? >>>>>>>>>>>> (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 ?value? >>>> (exchangeable). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Someone >>>>>>>>>>>> who >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> satisfies HER needs through her product produces >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?use-value? but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NOT >>>>>>>>>>>> ?value?. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> b) VALUE: (exchangeable). To produce SIGNS >> (complexes), >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> she has >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>> produce >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not only ?use-value? but use-value FOR others. She has >>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> produce ?societal? use-values.... To be/come >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (exchangeable) SIGN, the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> product >>>>>>>>>>>> HAS >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TO BE TRANSFERRED to another, FOR whom the SIGN >> complex >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?constitutes? >>>>>>>>>>>> use-value. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The production of signs that produce no ?value? that >> is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exchangeable >>>>>>>>>>>> FOR >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> others leads to personal notes often having NO >> use-value >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> others. >>>>>>>>>>>> To >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trans/form use-value to BE come ?value? 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?use-value? & ?value? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (exchangeable) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My morning musement >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> > From ablunden@mira.net Sat Apr 22 18:55:54 2017 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2017 11:55:54 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value' In-Reply-To: References: <58f4dfe0.5a45620a.c2a11.c004@mx.google.com> <0d06b705-2e34-1171-1a2e-f4be2a14503b@mira.net> <071e3c6a-ba4e-1de8-1dae-1d54b8879ddd@mira.net> <5FCAE108E8796240B89A0E15AE182DBD1CBEF130@CISCMRMBS01.mds.ad.dur.ac.uk> Message-ID: Julian, I do think that if you want to integrate theories of discourse with theories of social-economic relations, then the unit of "utterance" is most important. It seems to shed light on positioning, whereas "word meaning" as a unit sheds light on concepts, and it would seem that both are needed (as are value, commodity, etc.) Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://home.mira.net/~andy http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making On 23/04/2017 5:09 AM, Julian Williams wrote: > Michael > > As you were - so we are entirely in disagreement, then. > > For me the E-V and U-V of a dialogic exchange has nothing essentially to > do with the sensual and super sensual moments of the 'word' as per > Vygotsky. And I don't see at all how these really confer 'value' in any > Marxist sense of the term on speech/utterance (etc etc). > > I am guessing that we are back with analogy of 'commodity' and 'word' in > dialogue, rather than a holistic understanding of discourse in the > totality of social-economic relations, and so we have made no progress > here. > > We can take this up another time perhaps. > > Julian > > > > On 22/04/2017 19:47, "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of > Wolff-Michael Roth" 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 >> >> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >> > 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" >> 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 >>>> >>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >>>> >> 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 Ric?ur 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" >>>> wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Ric?ur (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 [*?nociation*] and >>> statement [ >>>>>> *?nonc?*]." >>>>>> 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 Ric?ur 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >>>>>> >>>> directions-in-mat >>>>>> hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of-mathematics/>* >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 10:38 PM, David Kellogg >>> >>>>>> 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 >>> 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 >>>>> >>>>>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>>>>> 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" >>>> 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 >>>>>>> faculty/mroth/> >>>>>>>>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> ections-in-mat >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of-mathematics/>* >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 8:18 AM, Andy Blunden >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Sent: *April 17, 2017 11:54 PM >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *To: *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" >>> >>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 things? 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 >>>>>>>> .. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> '?? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ? ' >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 field? 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 say?) when I have thought about this a bit >>>>> more >>>>>>> - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maybe in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2018? we should pick up! :-) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/04/2017 18:22, >>> "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >>>>> on >>>>>>>> behalf >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Wolff-Michael Roth" >>>>> >>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "r?le". I am quoting from p. 178: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Marx joins Hegel as regards terminology, and not >>>>> Kant or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fichte, who tried to solve the problem of >>> ?ideality? >>>>>>> (i.e., >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> activity) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> while >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remaining ?inside >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consciousness?, 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 >>> ?ideality? >>>>>>> takes >>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whole >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> range of phenomena >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> within which the ?ideal?, 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 ?moment? 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 >>>>> people?s >>>>>>> eyes, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the commodity-form of the product, particularly in >>>>> its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dazzling money-form, in the form >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> notorious ?real >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talers?, ?real roubles?, or ?real dollars?, things >>>>>>> which, >>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> soon >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have the slightest >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theoretical understanding of them, immediately >>> turn >>>>> out >>>>>>> to >>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?real? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all, but ?ideal? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through and through, things whose category quite >>>>>>>> unambiguously >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> includes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words, the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> units of language, and many other ?things?. Things >>>>> that, >>>>>>>> while >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wholly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?material?, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> palpable-corporeal formations, acquire all their >>>>>>> ?meaning? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (function >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> r?le) from ?spirit?, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >from ?thought? 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> directions-in-mat >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of- >>>>>>>> mathematics/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 8:31 AM, >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am attempting to follow Wolff-Michael?s >>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?use-value? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> & >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sign >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complex ?value?. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> His methodology is to read Marx ?substituting? >>> the >>>>> word >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?SIGN? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (implying >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sign complex) FOR ?commodity? 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: ?natural signs? such as animal >>>>> footprints >>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> useful/functional to the hunter inherently; they >>> do >>>>> NOT >>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?value? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (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 ?value? >>>>>>> (exchangeable). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Someone >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> satisfies HER needs through her product produces >>>>>>> ?use-value? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NOT >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?value?. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> b) VALUE: (exchangeable). To produce SIGNS >>>>> (complexes), >>>>>>> she >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> produce >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not only ?use-value? but use-value FOR others. >>> She >>>>> has >>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> produce ?societal? use-values.... To be/come >>>>>>> (exchangeable) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SIGN, the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> product >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HAS >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TO BE TRANSFERRED to another, FOR whom the SIGN >>>>> complex >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?constitutes? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use-value. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The production of signs that produce no ?value? >>>>> that is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exchangeable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FOR >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> others leads to personal notes often having NO >>>>>>> use-value to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> others. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trans/form use-value to BE come ?value? 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?use-value? & ?value? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (exchangeable) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My morning musement >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> > > > From haydizulfei@rocketmail.com Sun Apr 23 03:51:19 2017 From: haydizulfei@rocketmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?=E2=80=AAHaydi_Zulfei=E2=80=AC_=E2=80=AA?=) Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2017 10:51:19 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value' In-Reply-To: References: <58f4dfe0.5a45620a.c2a11.c004@mx.google.com> <62ef71d1-672d-bf3e-cae2-87aecbd09692@mira.net> <58f61836.8e2c620a.3b9e9.7d11@mx.google.com> <0d06b705-2e34-1171-1a2e-f4be2a14503b@mira.net> <071e3c6a-ba4e-1de8-1dae-1d54b8879ddd@mira.net> <5FCAE108E8796240B89A0E15AE182DBD1CBEF130@CISCMRMBS01.mds.ad.dur.ac.uk> Message-ID: <1584773472.7158037.1492944679993@mail.yahoo.com> Michael et all :I , in my turn as well as in my capacity as being related to this forum , ask my questions and you are again quite free to put it to silence not to waste your good times . As to your critique below , you pretend that you are all sunk in very serious material practical actual corporeal sensual tangible palpable concrete non-ideal non-referential meaning-free domain . This is shortly and summarily base and the social relations arising from it . Remember primitive needs , food, shelter ... But when we exit this domain --ignoring linear spiral magic for a moment--we enter the domain of superstructure. Julian , I think , in his way , referred to all this. That's generally the realm of 'ideas' arising from those social relations being realized as worldVIEWs , ideologies , philosophies , knowledge , sciences , theories , schools of thought , religion , mythology , etc. etc. (or shortly ideological system) These are reflections. In later history , they can have their relative independence. And we have Marx's recourse to dialectics . That is , these reflections , in their turn affect each other and more importantly , they , in their totality , affect the social relations and through it , the base. However , they cannot and do not alter , metamorphose , uproot the essence of the base being fathomed to reach 'matter' to this point of time (Marx,Ilyenko,Vygotsky,Voloshinov,etc.) . Now if a marxist/socialist revolution occurs , the efficient practitioners first of all begin to act within the base as you all know all. Now contrary to what you pretend to do materially within the bounds of actuality and concretion (reminiscent of solid hard mass) definitely and repeatedly sticking the label 'abstract' to whoever enters the dialogue , you're in fact strangling yourselves with the rope of 'ideas/ideals' borrowed from Ilyenko on one side and ironically from the numerous post-modernist scholars and philosophers on the other . Yes you're all right with what Marx technically says about non-ideological ontological entities up to the point of social relations but though this point does not act as a barrier to the permission to arrive in the domain of superstructure , it however bars you from ignoring the indispensable distinction . The whole debate and controversy is here. If Vygotsky deals with sign/discourse/utterance all pertaining to the sphere of superstructure the way you do , then Vygotsky must have believed in 'supersensuals' as 'materials' as in their natures . Then the distinction wanes . The knot has not yet been disentangled . Lenin's definition might still be relevant with his definition of the material : a thing outside the mind standing to/on itself. It runs ahead unless we pose first the third with equals as surplus with respect to material social relations and second therefrom unless we transfer the ultimate outcome of the mechanism as occurrence of 'alienation' as some category within ideological domain. You as a scholar are musing with your reflections over what Marx mused over the real material circumstantial situational processes in progress in real time and place in factories and plants . But the worker is tangibly involved in problems of his life with another problem that the hand is his but the awareness is yours all separate from each other. And you imagine/fancy you're involved in such a situation distorting practical with theoretical. Lave and McDermott's case is different. They take the whole educational system in dealing with LEARNING AND TEACHING phenomena as derivative from the sphere of ideology/superstructure and use similes and metaphors to justify an effective analogy in Marxian terms . There's no such factories and no such manual labour over raw materials and no corporeal products to satisfy the material needs of men and no metamorphesis of essences. Just we understand that what is happening within the process of material production (labour) is happening correspondingly not identically and essentially in a different nature in the process of learning production . We cannot eliminate alienation and human estrangement from his self and identity (whatever mental efforts we might get involved in) unless we eliminate what gave impetus to the appearance of this estrangement , that is , disown the hugely accumulated surplus (global capital) from the usurpers . And that's why Marx chose to express : Workers of the World ! Unite ! # Intellectuals of the World ! Unite ! No belief in Marx ? Another matter! BestHaydi ? From: Wolff-Michael Roth To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Sent: Saturday, 22 April 2017, 23:18:54 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value' 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 New book: *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" 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 > > > >New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > 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 Ric?ur 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" >> wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> >Ric?ur (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 [*?nociation*] and statement [ > >> >*?nonc?*]." > >> >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 Ric?ur 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 > >> > > >> >New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > >> > >> directions-in-mat > >> >hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of-mathematics/>* > >> > > >> >On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 10:38 PM, David Kellogg > >> >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 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 > >> > >> >> > 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 > >> > >> >> > 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" >>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 >> >> > faculty/mroth/> > >> >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > >>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > >> >> > > > >>> > >> >> >> > > > >>> ections-in-mat > >> >> > > > >>> > >> >>hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of-mathematics/>* > >> >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > >>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 8:18 AM, Andy Blunden > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> > > > 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 > >> >> > > > >>>>> *Sent: *April 17, 2017 11:54 PM > >> >> > > > >>>>> *To: *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" >>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 > >> >> > > > >>>>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > >> >> > > > >>>>>>> > >> >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>>> 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 things? 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 > >> >> > .. > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>>>> '?? > >> >> > > > >>>>> ? ' > >> >> > > > >>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>> 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 field? 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 say?) when I have thought about this a bit > >>more > >> >>- > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>>>> maybe in > >> >> > > > >>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>> 2018? we should pick up!? :-) > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> On 17/04/2017 18:22, "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > >>on > >> >> > behalf > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> of Wolff-Michael Roth" > >> >> >>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 > >> >> > > > >>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>> "r?le". I am quoting from p. 178: > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> Marx joins Hegel as regards terminology, and not > >>Kant or > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> Fichte, who tried to solve the problem of ?ideality? > >> >>(i.e., > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> activity) > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> while > >> >> > > > >>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>> remaining ?inside > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> consciousness?, 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 ?ideality? > >> >>takes > >> >> > in > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> the > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> whole > >> >> > > > >>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>> range of phenomena > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> within which the ?ideal?, 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 ?moment? 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 > >>people?s > >> >> eyes, > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> the commodity-form of the product, particularly in > >>its > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> dazzling money-form, in the form > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> of > >> >> > > > >>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>> the > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> notorious ?real > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> talers?, ?real roubles?, or ?real dollars?, things > >> >>which, > >> >> as > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> soon > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> as > >> >> > > > >>>>> we > >> >> > > > >>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>> have the slightest > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> theoretical understanding of them, immediately turn > >>out > >> >>to > >> >> be > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> not > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> ?real? > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> at > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> all, but ?ideal? > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> through and through, things whose category quite > >> >> > unambiguously > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> includes > >> >> > > > >>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>> words, the > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> units of language, and many other ?things?. Things > >>that, > >> >> > while > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> being > >> >> > > > >>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>> wholly > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> ?material?, > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> palpable-corporeal formations, acquire all their > >> >>?meaning? > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> (function > >> >> > > > >>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>> and > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> r?le) from ?spirit?, > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> >from ?thought? 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 > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > >> >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> directions-in-mat > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of- > >> >> > mathematics/ > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> >* On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 8:31 AM, > >> >> > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> wrote: > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> I am attempting to follow Wolff-Michael?s > >>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 > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> ?use-value? > >> >> > > > >>>>> & > >> >> > > > >>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>> sign > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> complex ?value?. > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> His methodology is to read Marx ?substituting? the > >>word > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> ?SIGN? > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> (implying > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> sign complex) FOR ?commodity? 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: ?natural signs? such as animal > >>footprints > >> >> are > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> useful/functional to the hunter inherently; they do > >>NOT > >> >> have > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> ?value? > >> >> > > > >>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>> (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 ?value? > >> >> (exchangeable). > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> Someone > >> >> > > > >>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>> who > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> satisfies HER needs through her product produces > >> >> ?use-value? > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> but > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> NOT > >> >> > > > >>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>> ?value?. > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> b) VALUE: (exchangeable). To produce SIGNS > >>(complexes), > >> >> she > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> has > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> to > >> >> > > > >>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>> produce > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> not only ?use-value? but use-value FOR others. She > >>has > >> >>to > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> produce ?societal? use-values.... To be/come > >> >> (exchangeable) > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> SIGN, the > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> product > >> >> > > > >>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>> HAS > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> TO BE TRANSFERRED to another, FOR whom the SIGN > >>complex > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> ?constitutes? > >> >> > > > >>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>> use-value. > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> The production of signs that produce no ?value? > >>that is > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> exchangeable > >> >> > > > >>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>> FOR > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> others leads to personal notes often having NO > >> >>use-value to > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> others. > >> >> > > > >>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>> To > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> trans/form use-value to BE come ?value? 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 > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> ?use-value? & ?value? > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> (exchangeable) > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> My morning musement > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > >> >> > > > >>>>> > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > >> >> > >> > >> > >> > > > From mcole@ucsd.edu Sun Apr 23 09:52:45 2017 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2017 09:52:45 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value' In-Reply-To: References: <58f4dfe0.5a45620a.c2a11.c004@mx.google.com> <62ef71d1-672d-bf3e-cae2-87aecbd09692@mira.net> <58f61836.8e2c620a.3b9e9.7d11@mx.google.com> <0d06b705-2e34-1171-1a2e-f4be2a14503b@mira.net> <071e3c6a-ba4e-1de8-1dae-1d54b8879ddd@mira.net> <5FCAE108E8796240B89A0E15AE182DBD1CBEF130@CISCMRMBS01.mds.ad.dur.ac.uk> Message-ID: 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 > > New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > 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" > 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 > > > > > >New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > > > 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" > >> 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 > > >> > > > >> >New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > >> > > >> 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 Ric?ur 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" > >> >> wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> >> > > >> >> >Ric?ur (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 [*?nociation*] and > > >>statement [ > > >> >> >*?nonc?*]." > > >> >> >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 Ric?ur 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 faculty/mroth/ > > > > > >> >> > > > >> >> >New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > >> >> > > >> >> directions-in-mat > > >> >> >hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of-mathematics/>* > > >> >> > > > >> >> >On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 10:38 PM, David Kellogg > > >> > > >> >> >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 > > >>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 > > >> >> > > >> >> >> > 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 > > >> >> > > >> >> >> > 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" 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 > >> >> >> > faculty/mroth/> > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > >> >> > >> >> >> > > > >>> ections-in-mat > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > >> >> >>hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of-mathematics/>* > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 8:18 AM, Andy Blunden > > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > 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 > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> *Sent: *April 17, 2017 11:54 PM > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> *To: *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" > > >> > >> >>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 > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>> 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 things? 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 > > >> >> >> > .. > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>> '?? > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> ? ' > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> 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 field? 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 say?) when I have thought about this a > bit > > >> >>more > > >> >> >>- > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>> maybe in > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> 2018? we should pick up! :-) > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> On 17/04/2017 18:22, > > >>"xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > >> >>on > > >> >> >> > behalf > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> of Wolff-Michael Roth" > > >> >> > >> >> >>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 > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> "r?le". I am quoting from p. 178: > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> Marx joins Hegel as regards terminology, and not > > >> >>Kant or > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> Fichte, who tried to solve the problem of > > >>?ideality? > > >> >> >>(i.e., > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> activity) > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> while > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> remaining ?inside > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> consciousness?, 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 > > >>?ideality? > > >> >> >>takes > > >> >> >> > in > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> the > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> whole > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> range of phenomena > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> within which the ?ideal?, 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 ?moment? 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 > > >> >>people?s > > >> >> >> eyes, > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> the commodity-form of the product, particularly > in > > >> >>its > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> dazzling money-form, in the form > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> of > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> the > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> notorious ?real > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> talers?, ?real roubles?, or ?real dollars?, > things > > >> >> >>which, > > >> >> >> as > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> soon > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> as > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> we > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> have the slightest > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> theoretical understanding of them, immediately > > >>turn > > >> >>out > > >> >> >>to > > >> >> >> be > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> not > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> ?real? > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> at > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> all, but ?ideal? > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> through and through, things whose category quite > > >> >> >> > unambiguously > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> includes > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> words, the > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> units of language, and many other ?things?. > Things > > >> >>that, > > >> >> >> > while > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> being > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> wholly > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> ?material?, > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> palpable-corporeal formations, acquire all their > > >> >> >>?meaning? > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> (function > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> and > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> r?le) from ?spirit?, > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> >from ?thought? 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 > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> directions-in-mat > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> hematics-and-science- > > education/the-mathematics-of- > > >> >> >> > mathematics/ > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> >* On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 8:31 AM, > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> wrote: > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> I am attempting to follow Wolff-Michael?s > > >> >>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 > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> ?use-value? > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> & > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> sign > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> complex ?value?. > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> His methodology is to read Marx ?substituting? > > >>the > > >> >>word > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> ?SIGN? > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> (implying > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> sign complex) FOR ?commodity? 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: ?natural signs? such as animal > > >> >>footprints > > >> >> >> are > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> useful/functional to the hunter inherently; > they > > >>do > > >> >>NOT > > >> >> >> have > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> ?value? > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> (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 ?value? > > >> >> >> (exchangeable). > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> Someone > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> who > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> satisfies HER needs through her product > produces > > >> >> >> ?use-value? > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> but > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> NOT > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> ?value?. > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> b) VALUE: (exchangeable). To produce SIGNS > > >> >>(complexes), > > >> >> >> she > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> has > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> to > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> produce > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> not only ?use-value? but use-value FOR others. > > >>She > > >> >>has > > >> >> >>to > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> produce ?societal? use-values.... To be/come > > >> >> >> (exchangeable) > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> SIGN, the > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> product > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> HAS > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> TO BE TRANSFERRED to another, FOR whom the SIGN > > >> >>complex > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> ?constitutes? > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> use-value. > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> The production of signs that produce no ?value? > > >> >>that is > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> exchangeable > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> FOR > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> others leads to personal notes often having NO > > >> >> >>use-value to > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> others. > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> To > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> trans/form use-value to BE come ?value? 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 > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> ?use-value? & ?value? > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> (exchangeable) > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> My morning musement > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > From julian.williams@manchester.ac.uk Sun Apr 23 12:01:12 2017 From: julian.williams@manchester.ac.uk (Julian Williams) Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2017 19:01:12 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value' In-Reply-To: References: <58f4dfe0.5a45620a.c2a11.c004@mx.google.com> <0d06b705-2e34-1171-1a2e-f4be2a14503b@mira.net> <071e3c6a-ba4e-1de8-1dae-1d54b8879ddd@mira.net> <5FCAE108E8796240B89A0E15AE182DBD1CBEF130@CISCMRMBS01.mds.ad.dur.ac.uk> Message-ID: Andy: I do agree: however, my more general point was/ is that the value of a word or an utterance, or even probably an exchange of utterances, cannot be determined from within that unit, but only in its relation to the wider field of practice, and perhaps the field of 'opinion or discourse' which attaches to it. I usually draw on Bourdieu for this insight... Michael: I think perhaps your quote from Landi is quite consistent with my view/argument: I will check that out - at first glance the source could take me down a rabbit hole form which I may not return for a while. :-) Julian On 23/04/2017 02:55, "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Andy Blunden" wrote: >Julian, I do think that if you want to integrate theories of >discourse with theories of social-economic relations, then >the unit of "utterance" is most important. It seems to shed >light on positioning, whereas "word meaning" as a unit sheds >light on concepts, and it would seem that both are needed >(as are value, commodity, etc.) > >Andy > >------------------------------------------------------------ >Andy Blunden >http://home.mira.net/~andy >http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making > >On 23/04/2017 5:09 AM, Julian Williams wrote: >> Michael >> >> As you were - so we are entirely in disagreement, then. >> >> For me the E-V and U-V of a dialogic exchange has nothing essentially to >> do with the sensual and super sensual moments of the 'word' as per >> Vygotsky. And I don't see at all how these really confer 'value' in any >> Marxist sense of the term on speech/utterance (etc etc). >> >> I am guessing that we are back with analogy of 'commodity' and 'word' in >> dialogue, rather than a holistic understanding of discourse in the >> totality of social-economic relations, and so we have made no progress >> here. >> >> We can take this up another time perhaps. >> >> Julian >> >> >> >> On 22/04/2017 19:47, "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of >> Wolff-Michael Roth" > 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 >>> >>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >>> >>>>>at >>> 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" >>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >>>>> >>> 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 Ric?ur 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" >>>>> wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Ric?ur (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 [*?nociation*] and >>>> statement [ >>>>>>> *?nonc?*]." >>>>>>> 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 Ric?ur 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 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >>>>>>> >>>>> directions-in-mat >>>>>>> hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of-mathematics/>* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 10:38 PM, David Kellogg >>>> >>>>>>> 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 >>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 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" >>>>> 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 >>>>>>>> faculty/mroth/> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ections-in-mat >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of-mathematics/>* >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 8:18 AM, Andy Blunden >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Sent: *April 17, 2017 11:54 PM >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *To: *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" >>>> >>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 things? 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 >>>>>>>>> .. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> '?? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ? ' >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 field? 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 say?) when I have thought about this a bit >>>>>> more >>>>>>>> - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maybe in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2018? we should pick up! :-) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/04/2017 18:22, >>>> "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >>>>>> on >>>>>>>>> behalf >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Wolff-Michael Roth" >>>>>> >>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "r?le". I am quoting from p. 178: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Marx joins Hegel as regards terminology, and not >>>>>> Kant or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fichte, who tried to solve the problem of >>>> ?ideality? >>>>>>>> (i.e., >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> activity) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> while >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remaining ?inside >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consciousness?, 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 >>>> ?ideality? >>>>>>>> takes >>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whole >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> range of phenomena >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> within which the ?ideal?, 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 ?moment? 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 >>>>>> people?s >>>>>>>> eyes, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the commodity-form of the product, particularly in >>>>>> its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dazzling money-form, in the form >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> notorious ?real >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talers?, ?real roubles?, or ?real dollars?, things >>>>>>>> which, >>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> soon >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have the slightest >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theoretical understanding of them, immediately >>>> turn >>>>>> out >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?real? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all, but ?ideal? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through and through, things whose category quite >>>>>>>>> unambiguously >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> includes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words, the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> units of language, and many other ?things?. Things >>>>>> that, >>>>>>>>> while >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wholly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?material?, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> palpable-corporeal formations, acquire all their >>>>>>>> ?meaning? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (function >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> r?le) from ?spirit?, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >from ?thought? 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> directions-in-mat >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of- >>>>>>>>> mathematics/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 8:31 AM, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am attempting to follow Wolff-Michael?s >>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?use-value? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> & >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sign >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complex ?value?. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> His methodology is to read Marx ?substituting? >>>> the >>>>>> word >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?SIGN? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (implying >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sign complex) FOR ?commodity? 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: ?natural signs? such as animal >>>>>> footprints >>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> useful/functional to the hunter inherently; they >>>> do >>>>>> NOT >>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?value? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (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 ?value? >>>>>>>> (exchangeable). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Someone >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> satisfies HER needs through her product produces >>>>>>>> ?use-value? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NOT >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?value?. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> b) VALUE: (exchangeable). To produce SIGNS >>>>>> (complexes), >>>>>>>> she >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> produce >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not only ?use-value? but use-value FOR others. >>>> She >>>>>> has >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> produce ?societal? use-values.... To be/come >>>>>>>> (exchangeable) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SIGN, the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> product >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HAS >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TO BE TRANSFERRED to another, FOR whom the SIGN >>>>>> complex >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?constitutes? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use-value. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The production of signs that produce no ?value? >>>>>> that is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exchangeable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FOR >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> others leads to personal notes often having NO >>>>>>>> use-value to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> others. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trans/form use-value to BE come ?value? 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?use-value? & ?value? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (exchangeable) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My morning musement >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >> >> >> > From dkellogg60@gmail.com Sun Apr 23 14:17:20 2017 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 07:17:20 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value' In-Reply-To: References: <58f4dfe0.5a45620a.c2a11.c004@mx.google.com> <62ef71d1-672d-bf3e-cae2-87aecbd09692@mira.net> <58f61836.8e2c620a.3b9e9.7d11@mx.google.com> <0d06b705-2e34-1171-1a2e-f4be2a14503b@mira.net> <071e3c6a-ba4e-1de8-1dae-1d54b8879ddd@mira.net> <5FCAE108E8796240B89A0E15AE182DBD1CBEF130@CISCMRMBS01.mds.ad.dur.ac.uk> Message-ID: 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 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 > > > > New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > > 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" > > 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 > > > > > > > >New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > > > > > 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" > > >> 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 faculty/mroth/> > > > >> > > > > >> >New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > > >> > > > >> 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 Ric?ur 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" of > > > >> >> wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> >> > > > >> >> >Ric?ur (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 [*?nociation*] and > > > >>statement [ > > > >> >> >*?nonc?*]." > > > >> >> >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 Ric?ur 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 > faculty/mroth/ > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> >New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > > >> >> > > > >> >> directions-in-mat > > > >> >> >hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of- > mathematics/>* > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> >On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 10:38 PM, David Kellogg > > > >> > > > >> >> >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 > > > >>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 > > > >> >> > > > >> >> >> > 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 > > > >> >> > > > >> >> >> > 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" > 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 > > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > >> >> >> > > > >>> ections-in-mat > > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > >> >> >>hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of- > mathematics/>* > > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 8:18 AM, Andy Blunden > > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > 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 > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> *Sent: *April 17, 2017 11:54 PM > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> *To: *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" > > > >> > > >> >>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 > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>> 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 things? 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 > > > >> >> >> > .. > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>> '?? > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> ? ' > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> 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 field? 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 say?) when I have thought about this a > > bit > > > >> >>more > > > >> >> >>- > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>> maybe in > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> 2018? we should pick up! :-) > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> On 17/04/2017 18:22, > > > >>"xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > >> >>on > > > >> >> >> > behalf > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> of Wolff-Michael Roth" > > > >> >> > > >> >> >>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 > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> "r?le". I am quoting from p. 178: > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> Marx joins Hegel as regards terminology, and > not > > > >> >>Kant or > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> Fichte, who tried to solve the problem of > > > >>?ideality? > > > >> >> >>(i.e., > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> activity) > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> while > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> remaining ?inside > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> consciousness?, 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 > > > >>?ideality? > > > >> >> >>takes > > > >> >> >> > in > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> the > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> whole > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> range of phenomena > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> within which the ?ideal?, 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 ?moment? 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 > > > >> >>people?s > > > >> >> >> eyes, > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> the commodity-form of the product, > particularly > > in > > > >> >>its > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> dazzling money-form, in the form > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> of > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> the > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> notorious ?real > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> talers?, ?real roubles?, or ?real dollars?, > > things > > > >> >> >>which, > > > >> >> >> as > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> soon > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> as > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> we > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> have the slightest > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> theoretical understanding of them, immediately > > > >>turn > > > >> >>out > > > >> >> >>to > > > >> >> >> be > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> not > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> ?real? > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> at > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> all, but ?ideal? > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> through and through, things whose category > quite > > > >> >> >> > unambiguously > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> includes > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> words, the > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> units of language, and many other ?things?. > > Things > > > >> >>that, > > > >> >> >> > while > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> being > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> wholly > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> ?material?, > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> palpable-corporeal formations, acquire all > their > > > >> >> >>?meaning? > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> (function > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> and > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> r?le) from ?spirit?, > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> >from ?thought? 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 > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> directions-in-mat > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> hematics-and-science- > > > education/the-mathematics-of- > > > >> >> >> > mathematics/ > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> >* On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 8:31 AM, > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> I am attempting to follow Wolff-Michael?s > > > >> >>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 > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> ?use-value? > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> & > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> sign > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> complex ?value?. > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> His methodology is to read Marx > ?substituting? > > > >>the > > > >> >>word > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> ?SIGN? > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> (implying > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> sign complex) FOR ?commodity? 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: ?natural signs? such as animal > > > >> >>footprints > > > >> >> >> are > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> useful/functional to the hunter inherently; > > they > > > >>do > > > >> >>NOT > > > >> >> >> have > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> ?value? > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> (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 ?value? > > > >> >> >> (exchangeable). > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> Someone > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> who > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> satisfies HER needs through her product > > produces > > > >> >> >> ?use-value? > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> but > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> NOT > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> ?value?. > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> b) VALUE: (exchangeable). To produce SIGNS > > > >> >>(complexes), > > > >> >> >> she > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> has > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> to > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> produce > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> not only ?use-value? but use-value FOR > others. > > > >>She > > > >> >>has > > > >> >> >>to > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> produce ?societal? use-values.... To be/come > > > >> >> >> (exchangeable) > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> SIGN, the > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> product > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> HAS > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> TO BE TRANSFERRED to another, FOR whom the > SIGN > > > >> >>complex > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> ?constitutes? > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> use-value. > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> The production of signs that produce no > ?value? > > > >> >>that is > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> exchangeable > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> FOR > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> others leads to personal notes often having NO > > > >> >> >>use-value to > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> others. > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> To > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> trans/form use-value to BE come ?value? > 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 > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> ?use-value? & ?value? > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> (exchangeable) > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> My morning musement > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > From mcole@ucsd.edu Sun Apr 23 15:37:51 2017 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2017 15:37:51 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value' In-Reply-To: References: <58f4dfe0.5a45620a.c2a11.c004@mx.google.com> <62ef71d1-672d-bf3e-cae2-87aecbd09692@mira.net> <58f61836.8e2c620a.3b9e9.7d11@mx.google.com> <0d06b705-2e34-1171-1a2e-f4be2a14503b@mira.net> <071e3c6a-ba4e-1de8-1dae-1d54b8879ddd@mira.net> <5FCAE108E8796240B89A0E15AE182DBD1CBEF130@CISCMRMBS01.mds.ad.dur.ac.uk> Message-ID: Hi David - On p. 26 we are explicitly quoting Levi-Strauss in the phrase you offer. I do not know what to make of the citations! When I get access to the website where the original text can be found, I will send it to you. Plenty to criticize in the book, but not in that fashion. :-( mike On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 2:17 PM, David Kellogg 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 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 > > > > > > New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > > > > 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" > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > >New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > > > > > > > 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" > > > >> 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 > faculty/mroth/> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > > > >> > > > > >> 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 Ric?ur 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" > of > > > > >> >> wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> >Ric?ur (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 [*?nociation*] and > > > > >>statement [ > > > > >> >> >*?nonc?*]." > > > > >> >> >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 Ric?ur 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 > > faculty/mroth/ > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> >New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> directions-in-mat > > > > >> >> >hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of- > > mathematics/>* > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> >On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 10:38 PM, David Kellogg > > > > >> > > > > >> >> >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 > > > > > >>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 > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > 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 > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > 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" 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 > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>> ections-in-mat > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > >> >> >>hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of- > > mathematics/>* > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 8:18 AM, Andy Blunden > > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > 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 > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> *Sent: *April 17, 2017 11:54 PM > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> *To: *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" > > > > >> > > > >> >>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 > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>> 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 things? 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 > > > > >> >> >> > .. > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>> '?? > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> ? ' > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> 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 field? 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 say?) when I have thought about > this a > > > bit > > > > >> >>more > > > > >> >> >>- > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>> maybe in > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> 2018? we should pick up! :-) > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> On 17/04/2017 18:22, > > > > >>"xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > >> >>on > > > > >> >> >> > behalf > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> of Wolff-Michael Roth" > > > > >> >> > > > >> >> >>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 > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> "r?le". I am quoting from p. 178: > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> Marx joins Hegel as regards terminology, and > > not > > > > >> >>Kant or > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> Fichte, who tried to solve the problem of > > > > >>?ideality? > > > > >> >> >>(i.e., > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> activity) > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> while > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> remaining ?inside > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> consciousness?, 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 > > > > >>?ideality? > > > > >> >> >>takes > > > > >> >> >> > in > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> the > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> whole > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> range of phenomena > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> within which the ?ideal?, 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 ?moment? 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 > > > > >> >>people?s > > > > >> >> >> eyes, > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> the commodity-form of the product, > > particularly > > > in > > > > >> >>its > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> dazzling money-form, in the form > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> of > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> the > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> notorious ?real > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> talers?, ?real roubles?, or ?real dollars?, > > > things > > > > >> >> >>which, > > > > >> >> >> as > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> soon > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> as > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> we > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> have the slightest > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> theoretical understanding of them, > immediately > > > > >>turn > > > > >> >>out > > > > >> >> >>to > > > > >> >> >> be > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> not > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> ?real? > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> at > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> all, but ?ideal? > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> through and through, things whose category > > quite > > > > >> >> >> > unambiguously > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> includes > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> words, the > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> units of language, and many other ?things?. > > > Things > > > > >> >>that, > > > > >> >> >> > while > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> being > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> wholly > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> ?material?, > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> palpable-corporeal formations, acquire all > > their > > > > >> >> >>?meaning? > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> (function > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> and > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> r?le) from ?spirit?, > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> >from ?thought? 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 > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> directions-in-mat > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> hematics-and-science- > > > > education/the-mathematics-of- > > > > >> >> >> > mathematics/ > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> >* On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 8:31 AM, > > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> I am attempting to follow Wolff-Michael?s > > > > >> >>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 > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> ?use-value? > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> & > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> sign > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> complex ?value?. > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> His methodology is to read Marx > > ?substituting? > > > > >>the > > > > >> >>word > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> ?SIGN? > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> (implying > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> sign complex) FOR ?commodity? 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: ?natural signs? such as > animal > > > > >> >>footprints > > > > >> >> >> are > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> useful/functional to the hunter inherently; > > > they > > > > >>do > > > > >> >>NOT > > > > >> >> >> have > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> ?value? > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> (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 > ?value? > > > > >> >> >> (exchangeable). > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> Someone > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> who > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> satisfies HER needs through her product > > > produces > > > > >> >> >> ?use-value? > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> but > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> NOT > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> ?value?. > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> b) VALUE: (exchangeable). To produce SIGNS > > > > >> >>(complexes), > > > > >> >> >> she > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> has > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> to > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> produce > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> not only ?use-value? but use-value FOR > > others. > > > > >>She > > > > >> >>has > > > > >> >> >>to > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> produce ?societal? use-values.... To > be/come > > > > >> >> >> (exchangeable) > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> SIGN, the > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> product > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> HAS > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> TO BE TRANSFERRED to another, FOR whom the > > SIGN > > > > >> >>complex > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> ?constitutes? > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> use-value. > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> The production of signs that produce no > > ?value? > > > > >> >>that is > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> exchangeable > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> FOR > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> others leads to personal notes often having > NO > > > > >> >> >>use-value to > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> others. > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> To > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> trans/form use-value to BE come ?value? > > 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 > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> ?use-value? & ?value? > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> (exchangeable) > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> My morning musement > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From mpacker@uniandes.edu.co Sun Apr 23 15:40:35 2017 From: mpacker@uniandes.edu.co (Martin John Packer) Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2017 22:40:35 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value' In-Reply-To: References: <58f4dfe0.5a45620a.c2a11.c004@mx.google.com> <62ef71d1-672d-bf3e-cae2-87aecbd09692@mira.net> <58f61836.8e2c620a.3b9e9.7d11@mx.google.com> <0d06b705-2e34-1171-1a2e-f4be2a14503b@mira.net> <071e3c6a-ba4e-1de8-1dae-1d54b8879ddd@mira.net> <5FCAE108E8796240B89A0E15AE182DBD1CBEF130@CISCMRMBS01.mds.ad.dur.ac.uk> Message-ID: <2FEEFC60-3FFA-46C0-B06C-0DEF34DE8044@uniandes.edu.co> 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 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 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 >>> >>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >>> >> 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" >>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >>>>> >>> 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" >>>>> 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 > faculty/mroth/> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >>>>>>> >>>>> 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 Ric?ur 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" > of >>>>>>>> wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Ric?ur (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 [*?nociation*] and >>>>>> statement [ >>>>>>>>> *?nonc?*]." >>>>>>>>> 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 Ric?ur 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 >> faculty/mroth/ >>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> directions-in-mat >>>>>>>>> hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of- >> mathematics/>* >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 10:38 PM, David Kellogg >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 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" >> 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ections-in-mat >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of- >> mathematics/>* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 8:18 AM, Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Sent: *April 17, 2017 11:54 PM >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *To: *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" >>>>>> >>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 things? 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 >>>>>>>>>>> .. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> '?? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ? ' >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 field? 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 say?) when I have thought about this a >>> bit >>>>>>>> more >>>>>>>>>> - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maybe in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2018? we should pick up! :-) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/04/2017 18:22, >>>>>> "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>>>>> behalf >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Wolff-Michael Roth" >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "r?le". I am quoting from p. 178: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Marx joins Hegel as regards terminology, and >> not >>>>>>>> Kant or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fichte, who tried to solve the problem of >>>>>> ?ideality? >>>>>>>>>> (i.e., >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> activity) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> while >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remaining ?inside >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consciousness?, 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 >>>>>> ?ideality? >>>>>>>>>> takes >>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whole >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> range of phenomena >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> within which the ?ideal?, 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 ?moment? 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 >>>>>>>> people?s >>>>>>>>>> eyes, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the commodity-form of the product, >> particularly >>> in >>>>>>>> its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dazzling money-form, in the form >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> notorious ?real >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talers?, ?real roubles?, or ?real dollars?, >>> things >>>>>>>>>> which, >>>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> soon >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have the slightest >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theoretical understanding of them, immediately >>>>>> turn >>>>>>>> out >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?real? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all, but ?ideal? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through and through, things whose category >> quite >>>>>>>>>>> unambiguously >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> includes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words, the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> units of language, and many other ?things?. >>> Things >>>>>>>> that, >>>>>>>>>>> while >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wholly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?material?, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> palpable-corporeal formations, acquire all >> their >>>>>>>>>> ?meaning? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (function >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> r?le) from ?spirit?, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from ?thought? 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> directions-in-mat >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hematics-and-science- >>>> education/the-mathematics-of- >>>>>>>>>>> mathematics/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 8:31 AM, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am attempting to follow Wolff-Michael?s >>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?use-value? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> & >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sign >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complex ?value?. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> His methodology is to read Marx >> ?substituting? >>>>>> the >>>>>>>> word >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?SIGN? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (implying >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sign complex) FOR ?commodity? 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: ?natural signs? such as animal >>>>>>>> footprints >>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> useful/functional to the hunter inherently; >>> they >>>>>> do >>>>>>>> NOT >>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?value? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (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 ?value? >>>>>>>>>> (exchangeable). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Someone >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> satisfies HER needs through her product >>> produces >>>>>>>>>> ?use-value? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NOT >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?value?. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> b) VALUE: (exchangeable). To produce SIGNS >>>>>>>> (complexes), >>>>>>>>>> she >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> produce >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not only ?use-value? but use-value FOR >> others. >>>>>> She >>>>>>>> has >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> produce ?societal? use-values.... To be/come >>>>>>>>>> (exchangeable) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SIGN, the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> product >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HAS >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TO BE TRANSFERRED to another, FOR whom the >> SIGN >>>>>>>> complex >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?constitutes? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use-value. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The production of signs that produce no >> ?value? >>>>>>>> that is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exchangeable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FOR >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> others leads to personal notes often having NO >>>>>>>>>> use-value to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> others. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trans/form use-value to BE come ?value? >> 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?use-value? & ?value? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (exchangeable) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My morning musement >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> From dkellogg60@gmail.com Sun Apr 23 15:53:36 2017 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 08:53:36 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value' In-Reply-To: <2FEEFC60-3FFA-46C0-B06C-0DEF34DE8044@uniandes.edu.co> References: <58f4dfe0.5a45620a.c2a11.c004@mx.google.com> <62ef71d1-672d-bf3e-cae2-87aecbd09692@mira.net> <58f61836.8e2c620a.3b9e9.7d11@mx.google.com> <0d06b705-2e34-1171-1a2e-f4be2a14503b@mira.net> <071e3c6a-ba4e-1de8-1dae-1d54b8879ddd@mira.net> <5FCAE108E8796240B89A0E15AE182DBD1CBEF130@CISCMRMBS01.mds.ad.dur.ac.uk> <2FEEFC60-3FFA-46C0-B06C-0DEF34DE8044@uniandes.edu.co> Message-ID: Yes, you can get the whole of Halliday's writings on Nigel in Volume 4 of his Collected Works, which even includes all his data (on a CD, which this computer can't use!) http://www.bloomsbury.com/au/the-language-of-early-childhood-9780826458704/ I won't say that I never disagree with you, or even that I never disagree with Halliday. But I will say that when I do either, I am almost always wrong, and if I do both error is certain. But agreement's over-rated; astonishment is probably better for me. David Kellogg Macquarie University On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 8:40 AM, Martin John Packer wrote: > 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 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 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 > >>> > >>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > >>> >>> 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" >>>> 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 > >>>>> > >>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > >>>>> >>>> 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" >>>>>> 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 >> faculty/mroth/> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > >>>>>>> >>>>>> 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 Ric?ur 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" >> of > >>>>>>>> wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Ric?ur (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 [*?nociation*] and > >>>>>> statement [ > >>>>>>>>> *?nonc?*]." > >>>>>>>>> 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 Ric?ur 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 >>> faculty/mroth/ > >>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> directions-in-mat > >>>>>>>>> hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of- > >> mathematics/>* > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 10:38 PM, David Kellogg > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> 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 > >>>>>> 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 > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> 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 > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> 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" >>> 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 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ections-in-mat > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of- > >> mathematics/>* > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 8:18 AM, Andy Blunden > >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Sent: *April 17, 2017 11:54 PM > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *To: *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" > >>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 things? 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 > >>>>>>>>>>> .. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> '?? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ? ' > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 field? 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 say?) when I have thought about this a > >>> bit > >>>>>>>> more > >>>>>>>>>> - > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maybe in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2018? we should pick up! :-) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/04/2017 18:22, > >>>>>> "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > >>>>>>>> on > >>>>>>>>>>> behalf > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Wolff-Michael Roth" > >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 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 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "r?le". I am quoting from p. 178: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Marx joins Hegel as regards terminology, and > >> not > >>>>>>>> Kant or > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fichte, who tried to solve the problem of > >>>>>> ?ideality? > >>>>>>>>>> (i.e., > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> activity) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> while > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remaining ?inside > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consciousness?, 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 > >>>>>> ?ideality? > >>>>>>>>>> takes > >>>>>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whole > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> range of phenomena > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> within which the ?ideal?, 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 ?moment? 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 > >>>>>>>> people?s > >>>>>>>>>> eyes, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the commodity-form of the product, > >> particularly > >>> in > >>>>>>>> its > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dazzling money-form, in the form > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> notorious ?real > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talers?, ?real roubles?, or ?real dollars?, > >>> things > >>>>>>>>>> which, > >>>>>>>>>> as > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> soon > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have the slightest > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theoretical understanding of them, immediately > >>>>>> turn > >>>>>>>> out > >>>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>> be > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?real? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all, but ?ideal? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through and through, things whose category > >> quite > >>>>>>>>>>> unambiguously > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> includes > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words, the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> units of language, and many other ?things?. > >>> Things > >>>>>>>> that, > >>>>>>>>>>> while > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wholly > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?material?, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> palpable-corporeal formations, acquire all > >> their > >>>>>>>>>> ?meaning? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (function > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> r?le) from ?spirit?, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from ?thought? 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 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> directions-in-mat > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hematics-and-science- > >>>> education/the-mathematics-of- > >>>>>>>>>>> mathematics/ > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 8:31 AM, > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am attempting to follow Wolff-Michael?s > >>>>>>>> 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 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?use-value? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> & > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sign > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complex ?value?. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> His methodology is to read Marx > >> ?substituting? > >>>>>> the > >>>>>>>> word > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?SIGN? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (implying > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sign complex) FOR ?commodity? 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: ?natural signs? such as animal > >>>>>>>> footprints > >>>>>>>>>> are > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> useful/functional to the hunter inherently; > >>> they > >>>>>> do > >>>>>>>> NOT > >>>>>>>>>> have > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?value? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (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 ?value? > >>>>>>>>>> (exchangeable). > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Someone > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> satisfies HER needs through her product > >>> produces > >>>>>>>>>> ?use-value? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NOT > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?value?. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> b) VALUE: (exchangeable). To produce SIGNS > >>>>>>>> (complexes), > >>>>>>>>>> she > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> produce > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not only ?use-value? but use-value FOR > >> others. > >>>>>> She > >>>>>>>> has > >>>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> produce ?societal? use-values.... To be/come > >>>>>>>>>> (exchangeable) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SIGN, the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> product > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HAS > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TO BE TRANSFERRED to another, FOR whom the > >> SIGN > >>>>>>>> complex > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?constitutes? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use-value. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The production of signs that produce no > >> ?value? > >>>>>>>> that is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exchangeable > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FOR > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> others leads to personal notes often having NO > >>>>>>>>>> use-value to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> others. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trans/form use-value to BE come ?value? > >> 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 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?use-value? & ?value? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (exchangeable) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My morning musement > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > > > From dkellogg60@gmail.com Sun Apr 23 16:23:11 2017 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 09:23:11 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value' In-Reply-To: <2FEEFC60-3FFA-46C0-B06C-0DEF34DE8044@uniandes.edu.co> References: <58f4dfe0.5a45620a.c2a11.c004@mx.google.com> <62ef71d1-672d-bf3e-cae2-87aecbd09692@mira.net> <58f61836.8e2c620a.3b9e9.7d11@mx.google.com> <0d06b705-2e34-1171-1a2e-f4be2a14503b@mira.net> <071e3c6a-ba4e-1de8-1dae-1d54b8879ddd@mira.net> <5FCAE108E8796240B89A0E15AE182DBD1CBEF130@CISCMRMBS01.mds.ad.dur.ac.uk> <2FEEFC60-3FFA-46C0-B06C-0DEF34DE8044@uniandes.edu.co> Message-ID: To recap. Mike asked why I chose the word "wording" when Vygotsky clearly uses "word meaning". I could have said that it's a better translation, because as Mike points out the word "znachenie slova" can be translated as "the Word" in the sense of "In the beginning was the Word", that is, metonymically. For that matter, "znachenie" can ALSO be translated as "value", so you COULD argue that "signification" is really exchange value (because it is self-similar, and relationally defined, context free) while "sense" is use value (because it is constantly in flux, contextually defined, and situationally bound). But I think all that's misleading; it implies that all we need is better translations for better understandings, and that really does give too much emphasis to Vygotsky's signification and not enough to his sense.The main reason I chose "wording" is that I have to analyse data, developmentally. My latest study showed that Korean kids telling stories do change the words they use as they go from first to sixth grade--but the variation within groups is way more than the variation between groups, and it's not at all in the direction of "scientific" words as you might expect; it's not systematically away from pure Korean words and towards Sino-Korean calques. What really does change is the wording--that is, the lexicogrammar. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09500782.2017.1306074 But what is NOT true of words really IS true of wording. Ways of wording and ways of meaning are changing together; yea, a change in the way of wording enables a change in the way of meaning, and that in turn allows new possibilities for wording. I tried to use Vygotsky and Schif's example sentence "A planned economy is possible in the USSR because all of the factories, farms and means of production are owned by the workers and peasants" to give an extended example of "grammatical metaphor": the way in which wording might change as the child develops, becoming more compact and less explicit. I thought this might show how this might fit with Vygotsky's explanation of the "Great Globe" of concepts in Chapter Six of Thinking and Speech. Obviously, I was wrong. Instead, Wolff-Michael suggested that we should read Ricoeur. At first I was a little annoyed with this, because Ricoeur is choosing a vocabulary that is leading inexorably in the direction of speech act theory and away from wording. A lot of the vocabulary he uses is by way of producing a forced, manufactured clarity: first presenting an obvious point in obscure language and then in very concrete form (e.g. "judicative" and then "grasping together"). But as Mike points out, we all have our favorite authors, and since I have read quite a bit of Ricoeur, I thought I could probably make the same kind of point using Wolff-Michael's example that I had so obviously failed to make with my own. It's not just that the child's horizons expand to include different words. It's that there are different ways of making meaning, which we can trace in the different ways of wording. In this way we can solve the problem which Ruqaiya attributed (apparently incorrectly) to Cole and Gay and then to Cole and Scribner; that is, we CAN show that different ways of wording DO realize and also enable different ways of thinking. And what better place to start than at the very beginning, with the child's ability to distinguish between the interpersonal metafunction (the pragmatic) and the ideational one (the mathetic)? When the child learns to do these things together, the child realizes and enables new ways of meaning and new ways of thinking (viz. narratives). In the case of "Guess what!" we have a good example of the pragmatic/interpersonal predominating. In the case of "I found Grandpa's book!" we have an example of the mathetic/ideational predominating. When a child produces the first true wording, it differs from "mama" in that it is able to act pragmatically and mathetically (ideationally and interpersonally) at one and the same time. But as Vygotsky says, this isn't the end of the story. It's much more like the very beginning. David Kellogg Macquarie University On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 8:40 AM, Martin John Packer wrote: > 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 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 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 > >>> > >>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > >>> >>> 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" >>>> 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 > >>>>> > >>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > >>>>> >>>> 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" >>>>>> 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 >> faculty/mroth/> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > >>>>>>> >>>>>> 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 Ric?ur 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" >> of > >>>>>>>> wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Ric?ur (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 [*?nociation*] and > >>>>>> statement [ > >>>>>>>>> *?nonc?*]." > >>>>>>>>> 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 Ric?ur 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 >>> faculty/mroth/ > >>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> directions-in-mat > >>>>>>>>> hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of- > >> mathematics/>* > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 10:38 PM, David Kellogg > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> 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 > >>>>>> 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 > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> 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 > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> 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" >>> 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 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ections-in-mat > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of- > >> mathematics/>* > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 8:18 AM, Andy Blunden > >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Sent: *April 17, 2017 11:54 PM > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *To: *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" > >>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 things? 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 > >>>>>>>>>>> .. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> '?? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ? ' > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 field? 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 say?) when I have thought about this a > >>> bit > >>>>>>>> more > >>>>>>>>>> - > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maybe in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2018? we should pick up! :-) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/04/2017 18:22, > >>>>>> "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > >>>>>>>> on > >>>>>>>>>>> behalf > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Wolff-Michael Roth" > >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 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 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "r?le". I am quoting from p. 178: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Marx joins Hegel as regards terminology, and > >> not > >>>>>>>> Kant or > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fichte, who tried to solve the problem of > >>>>>> ?ideality? > >>>>>>>>>> (i.e., > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> activity) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> while > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remaining ?inside > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consciousness?, 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 > >>>>>> ?ideality? > >>>>>>>>>> takes > >>>>>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whole > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> range of phenomena > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> within which the ?ideal?, 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 ?moment? 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 > >>>>>>>> people?s > >>>>>>>>>> eyes, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the commodity-form of the product, > >> particularly > >>> in > >>>>>>>> its > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dazzling money-form, in the form > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> notorious ?real > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talers?, ?real roubles?, or ?real dollars?, > >>> things > >>>>>>>>>> which, > >>>>>>>>>> as > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> soon > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have the slightest > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theoretical understanding of them, immediately > >>>>>> turn > >>>>>>>> out > >>>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>> be > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?real? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all, but ?ideal? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through and through, things whose category > >> quite > >>>>>>>>>>> unambiguously > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> includes > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words, the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> units of language, and many other ?things?. > >>> Things > >>>>>>>> that, > >>>>>>>>>>> while > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wholly > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?material?, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> palpable-corporeal formations, acquire all > >> their > >>>>>>>>>> ?meaning? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (function > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> r?le) from ?spirit?, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from ?thought? 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 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> directions-in-mat > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hematics-and-science- > >>>> education/the-mathematics-of- > >>>>>>>>>>> mathematics/ > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 8:31 AM, > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am attempting to follow Wolff-Michael?s > >>>>>>>> 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 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?use-value? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> & > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sign > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complex ?value?. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> His methodology is to read Marx > >> ?substituting? > >>>>>> the > >>>>>>>> word > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?SIGN? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (implying > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sign complex) FOR ?commodity? 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: ?natural signs? such as animal > >>>>>>>> footprints > >>>>>>>>>> are > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> useful/functional to the hunter inherently; > >>> they > >>>>>> do > >>>>>>>> NOT > >>>>>>>>>> have > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?value? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (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 ?value? > >>>>>>>>>> (exchangeable). > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Someone > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> satisfies HER needs through her product > >>> produces > >>>>>>>>>> ?use-value? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NOT > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?value?. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> b) VALUE: (exchangeable). To produce SIGNS > >>>>>>>> (complexes), > >>>>>>>>>> she > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> produce > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not only ?use-value? but use-value FOR > >> others. > >>>>>> She > >>>>>>>> has > >>>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> produce ?societal? use-values.... To be/come > >>>>>>>>>> (exchangeable) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SIGN, the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> product > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HAS > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TO BE TRANSFERRED to another, FOR whom the > >> SIGN > >>>>>>>> complex > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?constitutes? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use-value. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The production of signs that produce no > >> ?value? > >>>>>>>> that is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exchangeable > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FOR > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> others leads to personal notes often having NO > >>>>>>>>>> use-value to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> others. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trans/form use-value to BE come ?value? > >> 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 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?use-value? & ?value? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (exchangeable) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My morning musement > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > > > From smago@uga.edu Wed Apr 19 10:45:45 2017 From: smago@uga.edu (Peter Smagorinsky) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 17:45:45 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] JoLLE Volume 13(1) Podcast Preview Message-ID: Our podcast preview for the forthcoming spring issue of JoLLE has officially been released on iTunes (itun.es/i67n3JY) and our website (jolle.coe.uga.edu/current-issue/). Do tune in, and be on the lookout for the articles to be uploaded soon! From hshonerd@gmail.com Sun Apr 23 21:34:56 2017 From: hshonerd@gmail.com (HENRY SHONERD) Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2017 22:34:56 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value' In-Reply-To: References: <58f4dfe0.5a45620a.c2a11.c004@mx.google.com> <62ef71d1-672d-bf3e-cae2-87aecbd09692@mira.net> <58f61836.8e2c620a.3b9e9.7d11@mx.google.com> <0d06b705-2e34-1171-1a2e-f4be2a14503b@mira.net> <071e3c6a-ba4e-1de8-1dae-1d54b8879ddd@mira.net> <5FCAE108E8796240B89A0E15AE182DBD1CBEF130@CISCMRMBS01.mds.ad.dur.ac.uk> <2FEEFC60-3FFA-46C0-B06C-0DEF34DE8044@uniandes.edu.co> Message-ID: <60B9B660-F55D-42DA-ADFD-5DBC2AEBBB10@gmail.com> David, My mother in law is 89 years old and has a gentleman friend four years older who is quite deaf now. He has kept his marbles though, and can be the life of the party. His favorite pragmatic move to engage discourse he can manage is to say, ?Ya wanna know something?? (He?s Jewish from New York, so you can imagine exactly how he says it.) That?s seems analogous to ?Guess what?? This might seem a trivial response you this thread, but it made me realize just how much I was getting from reading it. I know you are one to appreciate real data, so I thought it relevant, at least. Henry ? > On Apr 23, 2017, at 5:23 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > > To recap. Mike asked why I chose the word "wording" when Vygotsky clearly > uses "word meaning". I could have said that it's a better translation, > because as Mike points out the word "znachenie slova" can be translated as > "the Word" in the sense of "In the beginning was the Word", that is, > metonymically. For that matter, "znachenie" can ALSO be translated as > "value", so you COULD argue that "signification" is really exchange value > (because it is self-similar, and relationally defined, context free) while > "sense" is use value (because it is constantly in flux, contextually > defined, and situationally bound). > > But I think all that's misleading; it implies that all we need is better > translations for better understandings, and that really does give too much > emphasis to Vygotsky's signification and not enough to his sense.The main > reason I chose "wording" is that I have to analyse data, developmentally. > My latest study showed that Korean kids telling stories do change the words > they use as they go from first to sixth grade--but the variation within > groups is way more than the variation between groups, and it's not at all > in the direction of "scientific" words as you might expect; it's not > systematically away from pure Korean words and towards Sino-Korean calques. > What really does change is the wording--that is, the lexicogrammar. > > http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09500782.2017.1306074 > > But what is NOT true of words really IS true of wording. Ways of wording > and ways of meaning are changing together; yea, a change in the way of > wording enables a change in the way of meaning, and that in turn allows new > possibilities for wording. I tried to use Vygotsky and Schif's example > sentence "A planned economy is possible in the USSR because all of the > factories, farms and means of production are owned by the workers and > peasants" to give an extended example of "grammatical metaphor": the way in > which wording might change as the child develops, becoming more compact > and less explicit. I thought this might show how this might fit with > Vygotsky's explanation of the "Great Globe" of concepts in Chapter Six of > Thinking and Speech. > > Obviously, I was wrong. Instead, Wolff-Michael suggested that we should > read Ricoeur. At first I was a little annoyed with this, because Ricoeur is > choosing a vocabulary that is leading inexorably in the direction of speech > act theory and away from wording. A lot of the vocabulary he uses is by way > of producing a forced, manufactured clarity: first presenting an obvious > point in obscure language and then in very concrete form (e.g. "judicative" > and then "grasping together"). But as Mike points out, we all have our > favorite authors, and since I have read quite a bit of Ricoeur, I thought I > could probably make the same kind of point using Wolff-Michael's example > that I had so obviously failed to make with my own. > > It's not just that the child's horizons expand to include different words. > It's that there are different ways of making meaning, which we can trace in > the different ways of wording. In this way we can solve the problem which > Ruqaiya attributed (apparently incorrectly) to Cole and Gay and then to > Cole and Scribner; that is, we CAN show that different ways of wording DO > realize and also enable different ways of thinking. And what better place > to start than at the very beginning, with the child's ability to > distinguish between the interpersonal metafunction (the pragmatic) and the > ideational one (the mathetic)? When the child learns to do these things > together, the child realizes and enables new ways of meaning and new ways > of thinking (viz. narratives). > > In the case of "Guess what!" we have a good example of the > pragmatic/interpersonal predominating. In the case of "I found Grandpa's > book!" we have an example of the mathetic/ideational predominating. When a > child produces the first true wording, it differs from "mama" in that it is > able to act pragmatically and mathetically (ideationally and > interpersonally) at one and the same time. But as Vygotsky says, this isn't > the end of the story. It's much more like the very beginning. > > David Kellogg > Macquarie University > > On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 8:40 AM, Martin John Packer > wrote: > >> 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 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 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 >>>>> >>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >>>>> >>>> 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" >>>>> 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 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >>>>>>> >>>>> 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" >>>>>>> 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 >>> faculty/mroth/> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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 Ric?ur 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" >>> of >>>>>>>>>> wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Ric?ur (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 [*?nociation*] and >>>>>>>> statement [ >>>>>>>>>>> *?nonc?*]." >>>>>>>>>>> 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 Ric?ur 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 >>>> faculty/mroth/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> directions-in-mat >>>>>>>>>>> hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of- >>>> mathematics/>* >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 10:38 PM, David Kellogg >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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" >>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ections-in-mat >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of- >>>> mathematics/>* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 8:18 AM, Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Sent: *April 17, 2017 11:54 PM >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *To: *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" >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 things? 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>> .. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> '?? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ? ' >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 field? 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 say?) when I have thought about this a >>>>> bit >>>>>>>>>> more >>>>>>>>>>>> - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maybe in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2018? we should pick up! :-) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/04/2017 18:22, >>>>>>>> "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >>>>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>>>>>>> behalf >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Wolff-Michael Roth" >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "r?le". I am quoting from p. 178: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Marx joins Hegel as regards terminology, and >>>> not >>>>>>>>>> Kant or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fichte, who tried to solve the problem of >>>>>>>> ?ideality? >>>>>>>>>>>> (i.e., >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> activity) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> while >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remaining ?inside >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consciousness?, 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 >>>>>>>> ?ideality? >>>>>>>>>>>> takes >>>>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whole >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> range of phenomena >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> within which the ?ideal?, 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 ?moment? 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 >>>>>>>>>> people?s >>>>>>>>>>>> eyes, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the commodity-form of the product, >>>> particularly >>>>> in >>>>>>>>>> its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dazzling money-form, in the form >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> notorious ?real >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talers?, ?real roubles?, or ?real dollars?, >>>>> things >>>>>>>>>>>> which, >>>>>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> soon >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have the slightest >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theoretical understanding of them, immediately >>>>>>>> turn >>>>>>>>>> out >>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?real? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all, but ?ideal? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through and through, things whose category >>>> quite >>>>>>>>>>>>> unambiguously >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> includes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words, the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> units of language, and many other ?things?. >>>>> Things >>>>>>>>>> that, >>>>>>>>>>>>> while >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wholly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?material?, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> palpable-corporeal formations, acquire all >>>> their >>>>>>>>>>>> ?meaning? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (function >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> r?le) from ?spirit?, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from ?thought? 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> directions-in-mat >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hematics-and-science- >>>>>> education/the-mathematics-of- >>>>>>>>>>>>> mathematics/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 8:31 AM, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am attempting to follow Wolff-Michael?s >>>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?use-value? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> & >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sign >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complex ?value?. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> His methodology is to read Marx >>>> ?substituting? >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> word >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?SIGN? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (implying >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sign complex) FOR ?commodity? 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: ?natural signs? such as animal >>>>>>>>>> footprints >>>>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> useful/functional to the hunter inherently; >>>>> they >>>>>>>> do >>>>>>>>>> NOT >>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?value? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (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 ?value? >>>>>>>>>>>> (exchangeable). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Someone >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> satisfies HER needs through her product >>>>> produces >>>>>>>>>>>> ?use-value? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NOT >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?value?. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> b) VALUE: (exchangeable). To produce SIGNS >>>>>>>>>> (complexes), >>>>>>>>>>>> she >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> produce >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not only ?use-value? but use-value FOR >>>> others. >>>>>>>> She >>>>>>>>>> has >>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> produce ?societal? use-values.... To be/come >>>>>>>>>>>> (exchangeable) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SIGN, the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> product >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HAS >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TO BE TRANSFERRED to another, FOR whom the >>>> SIGN >>>>>>>>>> complex >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?constitutes? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use-value. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The production of signs that produce no >>>> ?value? >>>>>>>>>> that is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exchangeable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FOR >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> others leads to personal notes often having NO >>>>>>>>>>>> use-value to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> others. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trans/form use-value to BE come ?value? >>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?use-value? & ?value? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (exchangeable) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My morning musement >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >> >> >> From huw.softdesigns@gmail.com Mon Apr 24 05:38:32 2017 From: huw.softdesigns@gmail.com (Huw Lloyd) Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 13:38:32 +0100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value' In-Reply-To: <60B9B660-F55D-42DA-ADFD-5DBC2AEBBB10@gmail.com> References: <58f4dfe0.5a45620a.c2a11.c004@mx.google.com> <62ef71d1-672d-bf3e-cae2-87aecbd09692@mira.net> <58f61836.8e2c620a.3b9e9.7d11@mx.google.com> <0d06b705-2e34-1171-1a2e-f4be2a14503b@mira.net> <071e3c6a-ba4e-1de8-1dae-1d54b8879ddd@mira.net> <5FCAE108E8796240B89A0E15AE182DBD1CBEF130@CISCMRMBS01.mds.ad.dur.ac.uk> <2FEEFC60-3FFA-46C0-B06C-0DEF34DE8044@uniandes.edu.co> <60B9B660-F55D-42DA-ADFD-5DBC2AEBBB10@gmail.com> Message-ID: Friends, Not having read through all these emails, but trusting to the sense of the usual divisions of interest and focus that crop up here which I am getting on my skim through, I would suggest that any objective sense of meaning in dialogue stems from the relative development of the participants. For me, one of the more interesting statements made recently has been Michael's referring to the singular plural and the plural singular (which I would like to know more about). In the 1970s Elliott Jaques helped compile a book called "levels of abstraction" in which a mathematical progression was provided covering contradictions of word and word meaning, class and properties, and (if I recall correctly) "for every" and "there exists". These are all quite interesting when one thinks about the singular and plural, but applying in a deep way to the development of functional systems, e.g. Elkonin's tentative remarks regarding progression in stages. I am sorry that this goes too deep to explain it here, it requires considerable time and attention. I have a sense that Gordon Pask's work pertains to this too, but I know v. little about that yet. Best, Huw On 24 April 2017 at 05:34, HENRY SHONERD wrote: > David, > My mother in law is 89 years old and has a gentleman friend four years > older who is quite deaf now. He has kept his marbles though, and can be the > life of the party. His favorite pragmatic move to engage discourse he can > manage is to say, ?Ya wanna know something?? (He?s Jewish from New York, so > you can imagine exactly how he says it.) That?s seems analogous to ?Guess > what?? This might seem a trivial response you this thread, but it made me > realize just how much I was getting from reading it. I know you are one to > appreciate real data, so I thought it relevant, at least. > Henry > ? > > > On Apr 23, 2017, at 5:23 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > > > > To recap. Mike asked why I chose the word "wording" when Vygotsky clearly > > uses "word meaning". I could have said that it's a better translation, > > because as Mike points out the word "znachenie slova" can be translated > as > > "the Word" in the sense of "In the beginning was the Word", that is, > > metonymically. For that matter, "znachenie" can ALSO be translated as > > "value", so you COULD argue that "signification" is really exchange value > > (because it is self-similar, and relationally defined, context free) > while > > "sense" is use value (because it is constantly in flux, contextually > > defined, and situationally bound). > > > > But I think all that's misleading; it implies that all we need is better > > translations for better understandings, and that really does give too > much > > emphasis to Vygotsky's signification and not enough to his sense.The main > > reason I chose "wording" is that I have to analyse data, developmentally. > > My latest study showed that Korean kids telling stories do change the > words > > they use as they go from first to sixth grade--but the variation within > > groups is way more than the variation between groups, and it's not at all > > in the direction of "scientific" words as you might expect; it's not > > systematically away from pure Korean words and towards Sino-Korean > calques. > > What really does change is the wording--that is, the lexicogrammar. > > > > http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09500782.2017.1306074 > > > > But what is NOT true of words really IS true of wording. Ways of wording > > and ways of meaning are changing together; yea, a change in the way of > > wording enables a change in the way of meaning, and that in turn allows > new > > possibilities for wording. I tried to use Vygotsky and Schif's example > > sentence "A planned economy is possible in the USSR because all of the > > factories, farms and means of production are owned by the workers and > > peasants" to give an extended example of "grammatical metaphor": the way > in > > which wording might change as the child develops, becoming more compact > > and less explicit. I thought this might show how this might fit with > > Vygotsky's explanation of the "Great Globe" of concepts in Chapter Six of > > Thinking and Speech. > > > > Obviously, I was wrong. Instead, Wolff-Michael suggested that we should > > read Ricoeur. At first I was a little annoyed with this, because Ricoeur > is > > choosing a vocabulary that is leading inexorably in the direction of > speech > > act theory and away from wording. A lot of the vocabulary he uses is by > way > > of producing a forced, manufactured clarity: first presenting an obvious > > point in obscure language and then in very concrete form (e.g. > "judicative" > > and then "grasping together"). But as Mike points out, we all have our > > favorite authors, and since I have read quite a bit of Ricoeur, I > thought I > > could probably make the same kind of point using Wolff-Michael's example > > that I had so obviously failed to make with my own. > > > > It's not just that the child's horizons expand to include different > words. > > It's that there are different ways of making meaning, which we can trace > in > > the different ways of wording. In this way we can solve the problem which > > Ruqaiya attributed (apparently incorrectly) to Cole and Gay and then to > > Cole and Scribner; that is, we CAN show that different ways of wording DO > > realize and also enable different ways of thinking. And what better place > > to start than at the very beginning, with the child's ability to > > distinguish between the interpersonal metafunction (the pragmatic) and > the > > ideational one (the mathetic)? When the child learns to do these things > > together, the child realizes and enables new ways of meaning and new ways > > of thinking (viz. narratives). > > > > In the case of "Guess what!" we have a good example of the > > pragmatic/interpersonal predominating. In the case of "I found Grandpa's > > book!" we have an example of the mathetic/ideational predominating. > When a > > child produces the first true wording, it differs from "mama" in that it > is > > able to act pragmatically and mathetically (ideationally and > > interpersonally) at one and the same time. But as Vygotsky says, this > isn't > > the end of the story. It's much more like the very beginning. > > > > David Kellogg > > Macquarie University > > > > On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 8:40 AM, Martin John Packer < > mpacker@uniandes.edu.co > >> wrote: > > > >> 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 > 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 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 > >>>>> > >>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > >>>>> >>>>> 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" >>>>>> 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 faculty/mroth/> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > >>>>>>> >>>>>> 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" >>>>>>>> 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 >>>> faculty/mroth/> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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 Ric?ur 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" >>>> of > >>>>>>>>>> wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Ric?ur (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 [*?nociation*] and > >>>>>>>> statement [ > >>>>>>>>>>> *?nonc?*]." > >>>>>>>>>>> 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 Ric?ur 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 >>>>> faculty/mroth/ > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> directions-in-mat > >>>>>>>>>>> hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of- > >>>> mathematics/>* > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 10:38 PM, David Kellogg > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> 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 > >>>>>>>> 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 > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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" >>>>> 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 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ections-in-mat > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of- > >>>> mathematics/>* > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 8:18 AM, Andy Blunden > >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Sent: *April 17, 2017 11:54 PM > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *To: *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" > >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 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 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 things? 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 > >>>>>>>>>>>>> .. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> '?? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ? ' > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 field? 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 say?) when I have thought about this a > >>>>> bit > >>>>>>>>>> more > >>>>>>>>>>>> - > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maybe in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2018? we should pick up! :-) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/04/2017 18:22, > >>>>>>>> "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > >>>>>>>>>> on > >>>>>>>>>>>>> behalf > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Wolff-Michael Roth" > >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 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 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "r?le". I am quoting from p. 178: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Marx joins Hegel as regards terminology, and > >>>> not > >>>>>>>>>> Kant or > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fichte, who tried to solve the problem of > >>>>>>>> ?ideality? > >>>>>>>>>>>> (i.e., > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> activity) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> while > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remaining ?inside > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consciousness?, 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 > >>>>>>>> ?ideality? > >>>>>>>>>>>> takes > >>>>>>>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whole > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> range of phenomena > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> within which the ?ideal?, 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 ?moment? 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 > >>>>>>>>>> people?s > >>>>>>>>>>>> eyes, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the commodity-form of the product, > >>>> particularly > >>>>> in > >>>>>>>>>> its > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dazzling money-form, in the form > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> notorious ?real > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talers?, ?real roubles?, or ?real dollars?, > >>>>> things > >>>>>>>>>>>> which, > >>>>>>>>>>>> as > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> soon > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have the slightest > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theoretical understanding of them, immediately > >>>>>>>> turn > >>>>>>>>>> out > >>>>>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>>>> be > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?real? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all, but ?ideal? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through and through, things whose category > >>>> quite > >>>>>>>>>>>>> unambiguously > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> includes > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words, the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> units of language, and many other ?things?. > >>>>> Things > >>>>>>>>>> that, > >>>>>>>>>>>>> while > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wholly > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?material?, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> palpable-corporeal formations, acquire all > >>>> their > >>>>>>>>>>>> ?meaning? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (function > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> r?le) from ?spirit?, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from ?thought? 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 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> directions-in-mat > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hematics-and-science- > >>>>>> education/the-mathematics-of- > >>>>>>>>>>>>> mathematics/ > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 8:31 AM, > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am attempting to follow Wolff-Michael?s > >>>>>>>>>> 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 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?use-value? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> & > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sign > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complex ?value?. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> His methodology is to read Marx > >>>> ?substituting? > >>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>> word > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?SIGN? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (implying > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sign complex) FOR ?commodity? 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: ?natural signs? such as animal > >>>>>>>>>> footprints > >>>>>>>>>>>> are > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> useful/functional to the hunter inherently; > >>>>> they > >>>>>>>> do > >>>>>>>>>> NOT > >>>>>>>>>>>> have > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?value? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (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 ?value? > >>>>>>>>>>>> (exchangeable). > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Someone > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> satisfies HER needs through her product > >>>>> produces > >>>>>>>>>>>> ?use-value? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NOT > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?value?. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> b) VALUE: (exchangeable). To produce SIGNS > >>>>>>>>>> (complexes), > >>>>>>>>>>>> she > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> produce > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not only ?use-value? but use-value FOR > >>>> others. > >>>>>>>> She > >>>>>>>>>> has > >>>>>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> produce ?societal? use-values.... To be/come > >>>>>>>>>>>> (exchangeable) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SIGN, the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> product > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HAS > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TO BE TRANSFERRED to another, FOR whom the > >>>> SIGN > >>>>>>>>>> complex > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?constitutes? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use-value. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The production of signs that produce no > >>>> ?value? > >>>>>>>>>> that is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exchangeable > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FOR > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> others leads to personal notes often having NO > >>>>>>>>>>>> use-value to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> others. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trans/form use-value to BE come ?value? > >>>> 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 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?use-value? & ?value? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (exchangeable) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My morning musement > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >> > >> > >> > > > From haydizulfei@rocketmail.com Mon Apr 24 08:35:15 2017 From: haydizulfei@rocketmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?=E2=80=AAHaydi_Zulfei=E2=80=AC_=E2=80=AA?=) Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 15:35:15 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value' In-Reply-To: References: <58f4dfe0.5a45620a.c2a11.c004@mx.google.com> <62ef71d1-672d-bf3e-cae2-87aecbd09692@mira.net> <58f61836.8e2c620a.3b9e9.7d11@mx.google.com> <0d06b705-2e34-1171-1a2e-f4be2a14503b@mira.net> <071e3c6a-ba4e-1de8-1dae-1d54b8879ddd@mira.net> <5FCAE108E8796240B89A0E15AE182DBD1CBEF130@CISCMRMBS01.mds.ad.dur.ac.uk> <2FEEFC60-3FFA-46C0-B06C-0DEF34DE8044@uniandes.edu.co> <60B9B660-F55D-42DA-ADFD-5DBC2AEBBB10@gmail.com> Message-ID: <610888449.8138319.1493048116017@mail.yahoo.com> Dear all,It was said here that Marx had 16 years to overview his work . The following footnote from Lave & McDermott might throw a little light over the slight issue ; hope it's valid : 20 In 1857, Marx wrote an introduction to a planned six volume work that he would never finish (the three volumes of Capital being less than his plans for a first volume). In English, the ?Introduction to a Critique of Political Economy? appears as an Afterward to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy (1859) and as an Introduction to the Grundrisse (1858-59). In both cases, it carries the title of its content: ?Production, Consumption, Distribution, Exchange (Circulation).? Best Haydi From: Huw Lloyd To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Sent: Monday, 24 April 2017, 17:09:43 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value' Friends, Not having read through all these emails, but trusting to the sense of the usual divisions of interest and focus that crop up here which I am getting on my skim through, I would suggest that any objective sense of meaning in dialogue stems from the relative development of the participants. For me, one of the more interesting statements made recently has been Michael's referring to the singular plural and the plural singular (which I would like to know more about). In the 1970s Elliott Jaques helped compile a book called "levels of abstraction" in which a mathematical progression was provided covering contradictions of word and word meaning, class and properties, and (if I recall correctly) "for every" and "there exists".? These are all quite interesting when one thinks about the singular and plural, but applying in a deep way to the development of functional systems, e.g. Elkonin's tentative remarks regarding progression in stages.? I am sorry that this goes too deep to explain it here, it requires considerable time and attention. I have a sense that Gordon Pask's work pertains to this too, but I know v. little about that yet. Best, Huw On 24 April 2017 at 05:34, HENRY SHONERD wrote: > David, > My mother in law is 89 years old and has a gentleman friend four years > older who is quite deaf now. He has kept his marbles though, and can be the > life of the party. His favorite pragmatic move to engage discourse he can > manage is to say, ?Ya wanna know something?? (He?s Jewish from New York, so > you can imagine exactly how he says it.) That?s seems analogous to ?Guess > what?? This might seem a trivial response you this thread, but it made me > realize just how much I was getting from reading it. I know you are one to > appreciate real data, so I thought it relevant, at least. > Henry > ? > > > On Apr 23, 2017, at 5:23 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > > > > To recap. Mike asked why I chose the word "wording" when Vygotsky clearly > > uses "word meaning". I could have said that it's a better translation, > > because as Mike points out the word "znachenie slova" can be translated > as > > "the Word" in the sense of "In the beginning was the Word", that is, > > metonymically. For that matter, "znachenie" can ALSO be translated as > > "value", so you COULD argue that "signification" is really exchange value > > (because it is self-similar, and relationally defined, context free) > while > > "sense" is use value (because it is constantly in flux, contextually > > defined, and situationally bound). > > > > But I think all that's misleading; it implies that all we need is better > > translations for better understandings, and that really does give too > much > > emphasis to Vygotsky's signification and not enough to his sense.The main > > reason I chose "wording" is that I have to analyse data, developmentally. > > My latest study showed that Korean kids telling stories do change the > words > > they use as they go from first to sixth grade--but the variation within > > groups is way more than the variation between groups, and it's not at all > > in the direction of "scientific" words as you might expect; it's not > > systematically away from pure Korean words and towards Sino-Korean > calques. > > What really does change is the wording--that is, the lexicogrammar. > > > > http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09500782.2017.1306074 > > > > But what is NOT true of words really IS true of wording. Ways of wording > > and ways of meaning are changing together; yea, a change in the way of > > wording enables a change in the way of meaning, and that in turn allows > new > > possibilities for wording. I tried to use Vygotsky and Schif's example > > sentence "A planned economy is possible in the USSR because all of the > > factories, farms and means of production are owned by the workers and > > peasants" to give an extended example of "grammatical metaphor": the way > in > > which wording might change as the child develops, becoming more compact > > and less explicit. I thought this might show how this might fit with > > Vygotsky's explanation of the "Great Globe" of concepts in Chapter Six of > > Thinking and Speech. > > > > Obviously, I was wrong. Instead, Wolff-Michael suggested that we should > > read Ricoeur. At first I was a little annoyed with this, because Ricoeur > is > > choosing a vocabulary that is leading inexorably in the direction of > speech > > act theory and away from wording. A lot of the vocabulary he uses is by > way > > of producing a forced, manufactured clarity: first presenting an obvious > > point in obscure language and then in very concrete form (e.g. > "judicative" > > and then "grasping together"). But as Mike points out, we all have our > > favorite authors, and since I have read quite a bit of Ricoeur, I > thought I > > could probably make the same kind of point using Wolff-Michael's example > > that I had so obviously failed to make with my own. > > > > It's not just that the child's horizons expand to include different > words. > > It's that there are different ways of making meaning, which we can trace > in > > the different ways of wording. In this way we can solve the problem which > > Ruqaiya attributed (apparently incorrectly) to Cole and Gay and then to > > Cole and Scribner; that is, we CAN show that different ways of wording DO > > realize and also enable different ways of thinking. And what better place > > to start than at the very beginning, with the child's ability to > > distinguish between the interpersonal metafunction (the pragmatic) and > the > > ideational one (the mathetic)? When the child learns to do these things > > together, the child realizes and enables new ways of meaning and new ways > > of thinking (viz. narratives). > > > > In the case of "Guess what!" we have a good example of the > > pragmatic/interpersonal predominating. In the case of "I found Grandpa's > > book!" we have an example of the mathetic/ideational predominating. > When a > > child produces the first true wording, it differs from "mama" in that it > is > > able to act pragmatically and mathetically (ideationally and > > interpersonally) at one and the same time. But as Vygotsky says, this > isn't > > the end of the story. It's much more like the very beginning. > > > > David Kellogg > > Macquarie University > > > > On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 8:40 AM, Martin John Packer < > mpacker@uniandes.edu.co > >> wrote: > > > >> 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 > 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 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 > >>>>> > >>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > >>>>> >>>>> 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" >>>>>> 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 faculty/mroth/> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > >>>>>>> >>>>>> 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" >>>>>>>> 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 >>>> faculty/mroth/> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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 Ric?ur 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" >>>> of > >>>>>>>>>> wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Ric?ur (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 [*?nociation*] and > >>>>>>>> statement [ > >>>>>>>>>>> *?nonc?*]." > >>>>>>>>>>> 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 Ric?ur 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 >>>>> faculty/mroth/ > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> directions-in-mat > >>>>>>>>>>> hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of- > >>>> mathematics/>* > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 10:38 PM, David Kellogg > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> 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 > >>>>>>>> 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 > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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" >>>>> 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 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ections-in-mat > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of- > >>>> mathematics/>* > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 8:18 AM, Andy Blunden > >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Sent: *April 17, 2017 11:54 PM > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *To: *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" > >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 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 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 things? 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 > >>>>>>>>>>>>> .. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> '?? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ? ' > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 field? 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 say?) when I have thought about this a > >>>>> bit > >>>>>>>>>> more > >>>>>>>>>>>> - > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maybe in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2018? we should pick up!? :-) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/04/2017 18:22, > >>>>>>>> "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > >>>>>>>>>> on > >>>>>>>>>>>>> behalf > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Wolff-Michael Roth" > >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 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 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "r?le". I am quoting from p. 178: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Marx joins Hegel as regards terminology, and > >>>> not > >>>>>>>>>> Kant or > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fichte, who tried to solve the problem of > >>>>>>>> ?ideality? > >>>>>>>>>>>> (i.e., > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> activity) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> while > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remaining ?inside > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consciousness?, 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 > >>>>>>>> ?ideality? > >>>>>>>>>>>> takes > >>>>>>>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whole > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> range of phenomena > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> within which the ?ideal?, 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 ?moment? 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 > >>>>>>>>>> people?s > >>>>>>>>>>>> eyes, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the commodity-form of the product, > >>>> particularly > >>>>> in > >>>>>>>>>> its > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dazzling money-form, in the form > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> notorious ?real > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talers?, ?real roubles?, or ?real dollars?, > >>>>> things > >>>>>>>>>>>> which, > >>>>>>>>>>>> as > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> soon > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have the slightest > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theoretical understanding of them, immediately > >>>>>>>> turn > >>>>>>>>>> out > >>>>>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>>>> be > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?real? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all, but ?ideal? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through and through, things whose category > >>>> quite > >>>>>>>>>>>>> unambiguously > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> includes > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words, the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> units of language, and many other ?things?. > >>>>> Things > >>>>>>>>>> that, > >>>>>>>>>>>>> while > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wholly > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?material?, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> palpable-corporeal formations, acquire all > >>>> their > >>>>>>>>>>>> ?meaning? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (function > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> r?le) from ?spirit?, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from ?thought? 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 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> directions-in-mat > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hematics-and-science- > >>>>>> education/the-mathematics-of- > >>>>>>>>>>>>> mathematics/ > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 8:31 AM, > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am attempting to follow Wolff-Michael?s > >>>>>>>>>> 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 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?use-value? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> & > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sign > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complex ?value?. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> His methodology is to read Marx > >>>> ?substituting? > >>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>> word > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?SIGN? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (implying > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sign complex) FOR ?commodity? 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: ?natural signs? such as animal > >>>>>>>>>> footprints > >>>>>>>>>>>> are > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> useful/functional to the hunter inherently; > >>>>> they > >>>>>>>> do > >>>>>>>>>> NOT > >>>>>>>>>>>> have > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?value? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (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 ?value? > >>>>>>>>>>>> (exchangeable). > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Someone > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> satisfies HER needs through her product > >>>>> produces > >>>>>>>>>>>> ?use-value? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NOT > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?value?. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> b) VALUE: (exchangeable). To produce SIGNS > >>>>>>>>>> (complexes), > >>>>>>>>>>>> she > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> produce > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not only ?use-value? but use-value FOR > >>>> others. > >>>>>>>> She > >>>>>>>>>> has > >>>>>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> produce ?societal? use-values.... To be/come > >>>>>>>>>>>> (exchangeable) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SIGN, the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> product > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HAS > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TO BE TRANSFERRED to another, FOR whom the > >>>> SIGN > >>>>>>>>>> complex > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?constitutes? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use-value. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The production of signs that produce no > >>>> ?value? > >>>>>>>>>> that is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exchangeable > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FOR > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> others leads to personal notes often having NO > >>>>>>>>>>>> use-value to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> others. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trans/form use-value to BE come ?value? > >>>> 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 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?use-value? & ?value? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (exchangeable) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My morning musement > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >> > >> > >> > > > From lpscholar2@gmail.com Mon Apr 24 14:00:54 2017 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (lpscholar2@gmail.com) Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 14:00:54 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value' In-Reply-To: References: <58f4dfe0.5a45620a.c2a11.c004@mx.google.com> <62ef71d1-672d-bf3e-cae2-87aecbd09692@mira.net> <58f61836.8e2c620a.3b9e9.7d11@mx.google.com> <0d06b705-2e34-1171-1a2e-f4be2a14503b@mira.net> <071e3c6a-ba4e-1de8-1dae-1d54b8879ddd@mira.net> <5FCAE108E8796240B89A0E15AE182DBD1CBEF130@CISCMRMBS01.mds.ad.dur.ac.uk> Message-ID: <58fe679e.e0096b0a.a0a68.9cf7@mx.google.com> So... If more than 10 years old makes thinking and thought anethema WHAT does that say about the scope of thinking of high impact journals? When returning to wording, statement, and utterance I hope we also turn back to ?mediation?. I have this definition of mediation to consider: (carrying across -within back/forth) BOTH (giving/receiving) within a singular relation This is felt differently than mediation: (carrying over to the other side) which may imply bridges required for joining or linking two pre-existing sides (first one and then the other). Sent from my Windows 10 phone From: mike cole Sent: April 23, 2017 9:54 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value' Hi David et al -- Found my copy of Cole and Scribner! To my relief, it appears that somewhere along the way there was a misattribution of that quote you posted that Hasan criticized and that I wanted to disavow (but there it was in black and white!). So, apropos, we have a problem of context here. If you look at p. 25 of Scribner and Cole, you will find that the quotation was in a paper by Cole and Gay (1972) (A paper on culture and memory in the American Anthropologist I had did not recall the date of. If you go just one sentence above the quotation you find the following: *For instance, one anthropologist commented, upon hearing about the results of our first research in this area (Gay and Cole 1967): The reasoning and thinking processes of different people in different cultures don't differ . . . just their values, beliefs, and ways of classifying differ [personal correspondence ].* We were *contesting *this statement which was the anthropological consensus at the time. For those interested in our own views at the time, it is best to consult Chapter 8 of that book by Cole and Scribner on *Culture and Thought. *(Its all antiquarian stuff anyway. Its now 50 years since the first publication of that line of work! References more than 10 years old are anethema to HIGH IMPACT journals! :-) and :-( mike Which takes the discussion back to the discussion of wording, stating, and uttering. On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Wolff-Michael Roth < wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote: > Julian, > I suggest reading Rossi-Landi, and Italian Marxist scholar, where I have > taken this: > > Like other products of labor, signs, words, expressions, > and messages have use value in communication and are subject to exchange, > distribution, and consumption; the markets within which these > products circulate as commodities are linguistic communities (Rossi- > Landi 1983). > > An appreciation of his contributions by Cianca Bianchi states: "Through his > "homological schema", > material and linguistic production are conceived to be the result of a > single process > that is particular to human beings and that can best be understood in terms > of work > and trade. " > > Cheers, > > Michael > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > -------------------- > Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor > Applied Cognitive Science > MacLaurin Building A567 > University of Victoria > Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 > http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth > > New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > 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" > 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 > > > > > >New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > > > 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" > >> 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 > > >> > > > >> >New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > >> > > >> 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 Ric?ur 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" > >> >> wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> >> > > >> >> >Ric?ur (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 [*?nociation*] and > > >>statement [ > > >> >> >*?nonc?*]." > > >> >> >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 Ric?ur 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 faculty/mroth/ > > > > > >> >> > > > >> >> >New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > >> >> > > >> >> directions-in-mat > > >> >> >hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of-mathematics/>* > > >> >> > > > >> >> >On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 10:38 PM, David Kellogg > > >> > > >> >> >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 > > >>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 > > >> >> > > >> >> >> > 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 > > >> >> > > >> >> >> > 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" 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 > >> >> >> > faculty/mroth/> > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > >> >> > >> >> >> > > > >>> ections-in-mat > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > >> >> >>hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of-mathematics/>* > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 8:18 AM, Andy Blunden > > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > 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 > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> *Sent: *April 17, 2017 11:54 PM > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> *To: *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" > > >> > >> >>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 > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>> 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 things? 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 > > >> >> >> > .. > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>> '?? > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> ? ' > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> 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 field? 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 say?) when I have thought about this a > bit > > >> >>more > > >> >> >>- > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>> maybe in > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> 2018? we should pick up! :-) > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> On 17/04/2017 18:22, > > >>"xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > >> >>on > > >> >> >> > behalf > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> of Wolff-Michael Roth" > > >> >> > >> >> >>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 > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> "r?le". I am quoting from p. 178: > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> Marx joins Hegel as regards terminology, and not > > >> >>Kant or > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> Fichte, who tried to solve the problem of > > >>?ideality? > > >> >> >>(i.e., > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> activity) > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> while > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> remaining ?inside > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> consciousness?, 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 > > >>?ideality? > > >> >> >>takes > > >> >> >> > in > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> the > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> whole > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> range of phenomena > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> within which the ?ideal?, 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 ?moment? 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 > > >> >>people?s > > >> >> >> eyes, > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> the commodity-form of the product, particularly > in > > >> >>its > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> dazzling money-form, in the form > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> of > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> the > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> notorious ?real > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> talers?, ?real roubles?, or ?real dollars?, > things > > >> >> >>which, > > >> >> >> as > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> soon > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> as > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> we > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> have the slightest > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> theoretical understanding of them, immediately > > >>turn > > >> >>out > > >> >> >>to > > >> >> >> be > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> not > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> ?real? > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> at > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> all, but ?ideal? > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> through and through, things whose category quite > > >> >> >> > unambiguously > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> includes > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> words, the > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> units of language, and many other ?things?. > Things > > >> >>that, > > >> >> >> > while > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> being > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> wholly > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> ?material?, > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> palpable-corporeal formations, acquire all their > > >> >> >>?meaning? > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> (function > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> and > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> r?le) from ?spirit?, > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> >from ?thought? 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 > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> directions-in-mat > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> hematics-and-science- > > education/the-mathematics-of- > > >> >> >> > mathematics/ > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> >* On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 8:31 AM, > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> wrote: > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> I am attempting to follow Wolff-Michael?s > > >> >>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 > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> ?use-value? > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> & > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> sign > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> complex ?value?. > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> His methodology is to read Marx ?substituting? > > >>the > > >> >>word > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> ?SIGN? > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> (implying > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> sign complex) FOR ?commodity? 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: ?natural signs? such as animal > > >> >>footprints > > >> >> >> are > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> useful/functional to the hunter inherently; > they > > >>do > > >> >>NOT > > >> >> >> have > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> ?value? > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> (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 ?value? > > >> >> >> (exchangeable). > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> Someone > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> who > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> satisfies HER needs through her product > produces > > >> >> >> ?use-value? > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> but > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> NOT > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> ?value?. > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> b) VALUE: (exchangeable). To produce SIGNS > > >> >>(complexes), > > >> >> >> she > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> has > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> to > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> produce > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> not only ?use-value? but use-value FOR others. > > >>She > > >> >>has > > >> >> >>to > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> produce ?societal? use-values.... To be/come > > >> >> >> (exchangeable) > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> SIGN, the > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> product > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> HAS > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> TO BE TRANSFERRED to another, FOR whom the SIGN > > >> >>complex > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> ?constitutes? > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> use-value. > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> The production of signs that produce no ?value? > > >> >>that is > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> exchangeable > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> FOR > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> others leads to personal notes often having NO > > >> >> >>use-value to > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> others. > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> To > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> trans/form use-value to BE come ?value? 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 > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> ?use-value? & ?value? > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> (exchangeable) > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> My morning musement > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > From mcole@ucsd.edu Tue Apr 25 10:54:33 2017 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 10:54:33 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Fwd: Time is running out...apply now for the 2017 Patrice L. Engle Dissertation Grant! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dissertation support money for the right person. mike ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: SRCD Date: Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 10:34 AM Subject: Time is running out...apply now for the 2017 Patrice L. Engle Dissertation Grant! To: Michael Cole Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser . [image: Society for Research in Child Development - eNewsletter] Patrice L. Engle Dissertation Grant April 2017 *2017 Patrice L. Engle Dissertation Grant* *For Global Early Child Development* [image: Patrice L. Engle]The Patrice L. Engle Dissertation Grant provides support for students interested in a career in global early child development who are from or doing research in low- or middle-income countries. The Grant includes US $5,000 to support dissertation research and a 2-year student membership to SRCD. For details and application procedures, please see click [here ]. Please click [here ] for a list of the 2016 winners of this grant. *The 2017 deadline for the application is April 30th, which is quickly approaching so submit yours now! Applications must *be sent via email to: Patrice.Engle.Grant@srcd.org . Applicants will be notified of decisions by June 30, 2017. *Questions can be directed to: Patrice.Engle.Grant@srcd.org . The Patrice L. Engle Dissertation Grant was established by generous donations from the Bernard van Leer Foundation, the Open Society Foundation, and Pat's family and friends. To inquire about making a donation, please contact: Patrice.Engle.Grant@srcd.org .* [image: Quick Links] *> Membership > SRCD Awards/Research Grants > Engle Grant * Questions Phone: (734) 926-0600 Email: info@srcd.org www.srcd.org | Copyright (C) 2017 SRCD All rights reserved. Unsubscribe from this list. | Update your profile 1825 K Street NW, Suite 325, Washington, D.C. 20006 | (734) 926-0600 From mcole@ucsd.edu Tue Apr 25 11:02:16 2017 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 11:02:16 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value' In-Reply-To: <58fe679e.e0096b0a.a0a68.9cf7@mx.google.com> References: <58f4dfe0.5a45620a.c2a11.c004@mx.google.com> <62ef71d1-672d-bf3e-cae2-87aecbd09692@mira.net> <58f61836.8e2c620a.3b9e9.7d11@mx.google.com> <0d06b705-2e34-1171-1a2e-f4be2a14503b@mira.net> <071e3c6a-ba4e-1de8-1dae-1d54b8879ddd@mira.net> <5FCAE108E8796240B89A0E15AE182DBD1CBEF130@CISCMRMBS01.mds.ad.dur.ac.uk> <58fe679e.e0096b0a.a0a68.9cf7@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Right Larry. A lot of high impact journals (not all) are deeply a-historical. When my wife and I were writing a textbook, we had, with each addition, to cut out older refs. To be allow to refer to Gesell, Rousseau in a serious manner was a constant battle. But what the heck. In a lot of classes that use the textbook, students are not required to remember or re-cover material from the mid-term on the final exam. In a course on development in a field that makes a big deal of sequence and growth over time. Live for the moment, no need to know the history of behavior in order to understand it. Yes, mediation has not gone away, despite its claimed ailments and devious traps. :-) mike On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 2:00 PM, wrote: > So... If more than 10 years old makes thinking and thought anethema WHAT > does that say about the scope of thinking of high impact journals? > > > > When returning to wording, statement, and utterance I hope we also turn > back to ?mediation?. > > I have this definition of mediation to consider: (carrying across -within > back/forth) BOTH (giving/receiving) within a singular relation > > This is felt differently than mediation: (carrying over to the other side) > which may imply bridges required for joining or linking two pre-existing > sides (first one and then the other). > > > > > > Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > > > *From: *mike cole > *Sent: *April 23, 2017 9:54 AM > *To: *eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > *Subject: *[Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value' > > > > Hi David et al -- > > > > Found my copy of Cole and Scribner! To my relief, it appears that somewhere > > along the way there was a misattribution of that quote you posted that > > Hasan criticized and that I wanted to disavow (but there it was in black > > and white!). > > > > So, apropos, we have a problem of context here. If you look at p. 25 of > > Scribner and Cole, you will find that the quotation was in a paper by Cole > > and Gay (1972) (A paper on culture and memory in the American > > Anthropologist I had did not recall the date of. If you go just one > > sentence above the quotation you find the following: > > > > *For instance, one anthropologist commented, upon hearing about the results > > of our first research in this area (Gay and Cole 1967): The reasoning and > > thinking processes of different people in different cultures don't differ . > > . . just their values, beliefs, and ways of classifying differ [personal > > correspondence ].* > > > > > > We were *contesting *this statement which was the anthropological consensus > > at the time. For those interested in our own views at the time, > > > > it is best to consult Chapter 8 of that book by Cole and Scribner on > *Culture > > and Thought. *(Its all antiquarian stuff anyway. Its now 50 years since the > > first publication of that line of work! References more than 10 years old > > are anethema to HIGH IMPACT journals! :-) and :-( > > > > > > mike > > > > > > Which takes the discussion back to the discussion of wording, stating, and > > uttering. > > > > On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Wolff-Michael Roth < > > wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Julian, > > > I suggest reading Rossi-Landi, and Italian Marxist scholar, where I have > > > taken this: > > > > > > Like other products of labor, signs, words, expressions, > > > and messages have use value in communication and are subject to exchange, > > > distribution, and consumption; the markets within which these > > > products circulate as commodities are linguistic communities (Rossi- > > > Landi 1983). > > > > > > An appreciation of his contributions by Cianca Bianchi states: "Through > his > > > "homological schema", > > > material and linguistic production are conceived to be the result of a > > > single process > > > that is particular to human beings and that can best be understood in > terms > > > of work > > > and trade. " > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > Michael > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > -------------------- > > > Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor > > > Applied Cognitive Science > > > MacLaurin Building A567 > > > University of Victoria > > > Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 > > > http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth > > > > > > New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > > > > 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" > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > >New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > > > > > > > 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" > > > >> 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 faculty/mroth/> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > > > >> > > > > >> 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 Ric?ur 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" of > > > > >> >> wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> >Ric?ur (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 [*?nociation*] and > > > > >>statement [ > > > > >> >> >*?nonc?*]." > > > > >> >> >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 Ric?ur 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 > > faculty/mroth/ > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> >New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> directions-in-mat > > > > >> >> >hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of- > mathematics/>* > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> >On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 10:38 PM, David Kellogg > > > > >> > > > > >> >> >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 > > > > >>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 > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > 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 > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > 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" > > 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 > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>> ections-in-mat > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > >> >> >>hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of- > mathematics/>* > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 8:18 AM, Andy Blunden > > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > 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 > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> *Sent: *April 17, 2017 11:54 PM > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> *To: *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" > > > > >> > > > >> >>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 > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>> 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 things? 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 > > > > >> >> >> > .. > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>> '?? > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> ? ' > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> 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 field? 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 say?) when I have thought about this a > > > bit > > > > >> >>more > > > > >> >> >>- > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>> maybe in > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> 2018? we should pick up! :-) > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> On 17/04/2017 18:22, > > > > >>"xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > >> >>on > > > > >> >> >> > behalf > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> of Wolff-Michael Roth" > > > > >> >> > > > >> >> >>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 > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> "r?le". I am quoting from p. 178: > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> Marx joins Hegel as regards terminology, and > not > > > > >> >>Kant or > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> Fichte, who tried to solve the problem of > > > > >>?ideality? > > > > >> >> >>(i.e., > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> activity) > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> while > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> remaining ?inside > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> consciousness?, 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 > > > > >>?ideality? > > > > >> >> >>takes > > > > >> >> >> > in > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> the > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> whole > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> range of phenomena > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> within which the ?ideal?, 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 ?moment? 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 > > > > >> >>people?s > > > > >> >> >> eyes, > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> the commodity-form of the product, > particularly > > > in > > > > >> >>its > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> dazzling money-form, in the form > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> of > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> the > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> notorious ?real > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> talers?, ?real roubles?, or ?real dollars?, > > > things > > > > >> >> >>which, > > > > >> >> >> as > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> soon > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> as > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> we > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> have the slightest > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> theoretical understanding of them, immediately > > > > >>turn > > > > >> >>out > > > > >> >> >>to > > > > >> >> >> be > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> not > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> ?real? > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> at > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> all, but ?ideal? > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> through and through, things whose category > quite > > > > >> >> >> > unambiguously > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> includes > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> words, the > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> units of language, and many other ?things?. > > > Things > > > > >> >>that, > > > > >> >> >> > while > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> being > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> wholly > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> ?material?, > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> palpable-corporeal formations, acquire all > their > > > > >> >> >>?meaning? > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> (function > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> and > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> r?le) from ?spirit?, > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> >from ?thought? 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 > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> directions-in-mat > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> hematics-and-science- > > > > education/the-mathematics-of- > > > > >> >> >> > mathematics/ > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> >* On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 8:31 AM, > > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> I am attempting to follow Wolff-Michael?s > > > > >> >>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 > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> ?use-value? > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> & > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> sign > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> complex ?value?. > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> His methodology is to read Marx > ?substituting? > > > > >>the > > > > >> >>word > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> ?SIGN? > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> (implying > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> sign complex) FOR ?commodity? 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: ?natural signs? such as animal > > > > >> >>footprints > > > > >> >> >> are > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> useful/functional to the hunter inherently; > > > they > > > > >>do > > > > >> >>NOT > > > > >> >> >> have > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> ?value? > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> (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 ?value? > > > > >> >> >> (exchangeable). > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> Someone > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> who > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> satisfies HER needs through her product > > > produces > > > > >> >> >> ?use-value? > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> but > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> NOT > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> ?value?. > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> b) VALUE: (exchangeable). To produce SIGNS > > > > >> >>(complexes), > > > > >> >> >> she > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> has > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> to > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> produce > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> not only ?use-value? but use-value FOR > others. > > > > >>She > > > > >> >>has > > > > >> >> >>to > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> produce ?societal? use-values.... To be/come > > > > >> >> >> (exchangeable) > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> SIGN, the > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> product > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> HAS > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> TO BE TRANSFERRED to another, FOR whom the > SIGN > > > > >> >>complex > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> ?constitutes? > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> use-value. > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> The production of signs that produce no > ?value? > > > > >> >>that is > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> exchangeable > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> FOR > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> others leads to personal notes often having NO > > > > >> >> >>use-value to > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> others. > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> To > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> trans/form use-value to BE come ?value? > 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 > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> ?use-value? & ?value? > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> (exchangeable) > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> My morning musement > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From lpscholar2@gmail.com Tue Apr 25 11:31:29 2017 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (lpscholar2@gmail.com) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 11:31:29 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value' In-Reply-To: References: <58f4dfe0.5a45620a.c2a11.c004@mx.google.com> <62ef71d1-672d-bf3e-cae2-87aecbd09692@mira.net> <58f61836.8e2c620a.3b9e9.7d11@mx.google.com> <0d06b705-2e34-1171-1a2e-f4be2a14503b@mira.net> <071e3c6a-ba4e-1de8-1dae-1d54b8879ddd@mira.net> <5FCAE108E8796240B89A0E15AE182DBD1CBEF130@CISCMRMBS01.mds.ad.dur.ac.uk> <58fe679e.e0096b0a.a0a68.9cf7@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <58ff9619.8427630a.82c24.69ee@mx.google.com> Mike, There is a particular example that occurred here when Wolff-Michael referenced Ricouer?s 3 volume project exploring metaphor and narrativity and their common unifying theme existing within human temporality (finitude). Is there an expectation for ?us? to go back and reference Ricouer?s exploration of this relation in depth? Through reading and re-reading these works of scholarship. I myself turned to the preface of Ricouer?s 3 volume exploration of this particular relation, metaphor/narrativity:: Temporality. Without human temporality, narrativity and metaphor would not exist. On this listserve there was a glance or nod in Ricouer?s direction and then???. This month we are recycling themes which already exist in the archive, but is this recycling just repetition,, or renovation, or innovation?. Peg?s metaphor of leaving loose threads for others to return to expresses a temporal sense ability at odds with high impact journals. Sent from my Windows 10 phone From: mike cole Sent: April 25, 2017 11:02 AM To: Larry Purss Cc: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value' Right Larry. A lot of high impact journals (not all) are deeply a-historical. When my wife and I were writing a textbook, we had, with each addition, to cut out older refs. To be allow to refer to Gesell, Rousseau in a serious manner was a constant battle.? But what the heck. In a lot of classes that use the textbook, students are not required to remember or re-cover material from the mid-term on the final exam. In a course on development in a field that makes a big deal of sequence and growth over time. Live for the moment, no need to know the history of behavior in order to understand it. Yes, mediation has not gone away, despite its claimed ailments and devious traps. ?:-) mike On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 2:00 PM, wrote: So... If more than 10 years old makes thinking and thought anethema WHAT does that say about the scope of thinking of high impact journals? ? When returning to wording, statement, and utterance I hope we also turn back to ?mediation?. I have this definition of mediation to consider: (carrying across -within back/forth) BOTH (giving/receiving) within a singular relation This is felt differently than mediation: (carrying over to the other side) which may imply bridges ?required for joining or linking two pre-existing sides (first one and then the other). ? ? Sent from my Windows 10 phone ? From: mike cole Sent: April 23, 2017 9:54 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value' ? Hi David et al -- ? Found my copy of Cole and Scribner! To my relief, it appears that somewhere along the way there was a misattribution of that quote you posted that Hasan criticized and that I wanted to disavow (but there it was in black and white!). ? So, apropos, we have a problem of context here.? If you look at p. 25 of Scribner and Cole, you will find that the quotation was in a paper by Cole and Gay (1972) (A paper on culture and memory in the American Anthropologist I had did not recall the date of. If you go just one sentence above the quotation you find the following: ? *For instance, one anthropologist commented, upon hearing about the results of our first research in this area (Gay and Cole 1967): The reasoning and thinking processes of different people in different cultures don't differ . . . just their values, beliefs, and ways of classifying differ [personal correspondence ].* ? ? We were *contesting *this statement which was the anthropological consensus at the time. For those interested in our own views at the time, ? it is best to consult Chapter 8 of that book by Cole and Scribner on *Culture and Thought. *(Its all antiquarian stuff anyway. Its now 50 years since the first publication of that line of work! References more than 10 years old are anethema to HIGH IMPACT? journals!? :-) and :-( ? ? mike ? ? Which takes the discussion back to the discussion of wording, stating, and uttering. ? On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Wolff-Michael Roth < wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote: ? > Julian, > I suggest reading Rossi-Landi, and Italian Marxist scholar, where I have > taken this: >? > Like other products of labor, signs, words, expressions, > and messages have use value in communication and are subject to exchange, > distribution, and consumption; the markets within which these > products circulate as commodities are linguistic communities (Rossi- > Landi 1983). >? > An appreciation of his contributions by Cianca Bianchi states: "Through his > "homological schema", > material and linguistic production are conceived to be the result of a > single process > that is particular to human beings and that can best be understood in terms > of work > and trade. " >? > Cheers, >? > Michael >? >? >? >? > ------------------------------------------------------------ > -------------------- > Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor > Applied Cognitive Science > MacLaurin Building A567 > University of Victoria > Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 > http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth >? > New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > 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" > 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 > > > > > >New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > > > 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" > >> 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 > > >> > > > >> >New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > >> > > >> 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 Ric?ur 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" > >> >> wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> >> > > >> >> >Ric?ur (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 [*?nociation*] and > > >>statement [ > > >> >> >*?nonc?*]." > > >> >> >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 Ric?ur 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 faculty/mroth/ > > > > > >> >> > > > >> >> >New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > >> >> > > >> >> directions-in-mat > > >> >> >hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of-mathematics/>* > > >> >> > > > >> >> >On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 10:38 PM, David Kellogg > > >> > > >> >> >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 > > >>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 > > >> >> > > >> >> >> > 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 > > >> >> > > >> >> >> > 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" 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 > >> >> >> > faculty/mroth/> > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > >> >> > >> >> >> > > > >>> ections-in-mat > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > >> >> >>hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of-mathematics/>* > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 8:18 AM, Andy Blunden > > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > 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 > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> *Sent: *April 17, 2017 11:54 PM > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> *To: *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" > > >> > >> >>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 > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>> 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 things? 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 > > >> >> >> > .. > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>> '?? > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> ? ' > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> 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 field? 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 say?) when I have thought about this a > bit > > >> >>more > > >> >> >>- > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>> maybe in > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> 2018? we should pick up!?? :-) > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> On 17/04/2017 18:22, > > >>"xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > >> >>on > > >> >> >> > behalf > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> of Wolff-Michael Roth" > > >> >> > >> >> >>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 > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> "r?le". I am quoting from p. 178: > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> Marx joins Hegel as regards terminology, and not > > >> >>Kant or > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> Fichte, who tried to solve the problem of > > >>?ideality? > > >> >> >>(i.e., > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> activity) > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> while > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> remaining ?inside > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> consciousness?, 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 > > >>?ideality? > > >> >> >>takes > > >> >> >> > in > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> the > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> whole > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> range of phenomena > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> within which the ?ideal?, 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 ?moment? 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 > > >> >>people?s > > >> >> >> eyes, > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> the commodity-form of the product, particularly > in > > >> >>its > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> dazzling money-form, in the form > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> of > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> the > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> notorious ?real > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> talers?, ?real roubles?, or ?real dollars?, > things > > >> >> >>which, > > >> >> >> as > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> soon > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> as > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> we > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> have the slightest > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> theoretical understanding of them, immediately > > >>turn > > >> >>out > > >> >> >>to > > >> >> >> be > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> not > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> ?real? > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> at > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> all, but ?ideal? > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> through and through, things whose category quite > > >> >> >> > unambiguously > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> includes > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> words, the > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> units of language, and many other ?things?. > Things > > >> >>that, > > >> >> >> > while > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> being > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> wholly > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> ?material?, > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> palpable-corporeal formations, acquire all their > > >> >> >>?meaning? > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> (function > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> and > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> r?le) from ?spirit?, > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> >from ?thought? 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 > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> directions-in-mat > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> hematics-and-science- > > education/the-mathematics-of- > > >> >> >> > mathematics/ > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> >* On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 8:31 AM, > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> wrote: > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> I am attempting to follow Wolff-Michael?s > > >> >>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 > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> ?use-value? > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> & > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> sign > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> complex ?value?. > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> His methodology is to read Marx ?substituting? > > >>the > > >> >>word > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> ?SIGN? > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> (implying > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> sign complex) FOR ?commodity? 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: ?natural signs? such as animal > > >> >>footprints > > >> >> >> are > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> useful/functional to the hunter inherently; > they > > >>do > > >> >>NOT > > >> >> >> have > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> ?value? > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> (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 ?value? > > >> >> >> (exchangeable). > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> Someone > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> who > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> satisfies HER needs through her product > produces > > >> >> >> ?use-value? > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> but > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> NOT > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> ?value?. > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> b) VALUE: (exchangeable). To produce SIGNS > > >> >>(complexes), > > >> >> >> she > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> has > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> to > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> produce > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> not only ?use-value? but use-value FOR others. > > >>She > > >> >>has > > >> >> >>to > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> produce ?societal? use-values.... To be/come > > >> >> >> (exchangeable) > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> SIGN, the > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> product > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> HAS > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> TO BE TRANSFERRED to another, FOR whom the SIGN > > >> >>complex > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> ?constitutes? > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> use-value. > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> The production of signs that produce no ?value? > > >> >>that is > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> exchangeable > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> FOR > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> others leads to personal notes often having NO > > >> >> >>use-value to > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> others. > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> To > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> trans/form use-value to BE come ?value? 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 > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> ?use-value? & ?value? > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> (exchangeable) > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> My morning musement > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >? ? From dkellogg60@gmail.com Tue Apr 25 14:13:59 2017 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 07:13:59 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value' In-Reply-To: <58ff9619.8427630a.82c24.69ee@mx.google.com> References: <58f4dfe0.5a45620a.c2a11.c004@mx.google.com> <62ef71d1-672d-bf3e-cae2-87aecbd09692@mira.net> <58f61836.8e2c620a.3b9e9.7d11@mx.google.com> <0d06b705-2e34-1171-1a2e-f4be2a14503b@mira.net> <071e3c6a-ba4e-1de8-1dae-1d54b8879ddd@mira.net> <5FCAE108E8796240B89A0E15AE182DBD1CBEF130@CISCMRMBS01.mds.ad.dur.ac.uk> <58fe679e.e0096b0a.a0a68.9cf7@mx.google.com> <58ff9619.8427630a.82c24.69ee@mx.google.com> Message-ID: I remember Paul Ricoeur. He taught at a seminary at the University of Chicago when I was an undergraduate. I was a member of the campus Spartacus Youth Club, and it was the only place that would allow us a public space for meetings. I tried to sell him a copy of "Young Spartacus" once: I can't remember if he bought it or not. But I remember him as a French gentleman, personally quite conservative, but not at all put off by the presence of a screaming red nineteen year old who for inexplicable reasons had a Parisian accent and spoke the argot of the Versailles banlieue. Maybe he bought our French paper, Le Bolchevik. I have been reading a symposium "On Narrative" that was going on at UC when I was organizing against Milton Friedman's Nobel Prize (he was also a professor there at the time--he won the prize the same year that Saul Bellow, another UC professor, did). Ricoeur, Derrida, and Hayden White all took part. It was the heyday of structuralism, and Ricoeur's contribution is interesting because it's quite ANTI-structuralist: he points out that the effect of structuralism on narrative studies has been to de-historicize, de-memorize, dehumanize; to convert stories into exchange values rather than use values. So the elements that Propp discovers in Ludmilla and Ruslan (and the Firebird and its variants) can come in any order. In contrast, even the simplest act of repetition is historicized, humanized, and memorable. A use value and not an exchange value. Derrida ignores everybody else and embarks on his usual verbal pyrotechnics, but Hayden White develops Ricoeur's idea in a way I think I actually used in my "Thinking of Feeling" paper: human memory goes through stages: medieval annals, Renaissance chronicles, and the nineteenth century narrative, each of which adds something distinctive and makes the meta-narrative that they form together into something non-reversible and developmental. But now I see that the reviewers made me remove all that (it is just as well: sociogenesis is one story and ontogenesis quite another). Ruqaiya Hasan used to say that there is a certain unity imposed on experience by language, from "the living of life" to the child's first real morpho-phoneme. If you take the phrase "the living of life" just as an example, you can see some of what Ricoeur is trying to get at. On the face of it, the phrase is redundant: the word "life" seems to contain absolutely nothing that isn't already there in "living". Yet "of life" must mean something, otherwise it would not enable us to add the specifier "the" to "living". I think Ricoeur would say that "life" is a kind of de-historicized, de-memorized, de-humanized "living", one that is turned from process into entity, and made synoptical, like the various retellings in different orders of the four Gospels. Yes, it's a powerful way of speaking, but it is powerful the way that sculpture is rather than the way that painting is. And the power is not in the word, but in the wording. David Kellogg Macquarie University On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 4:31 AM, wrote: > Mike, > There is a particular example that occurred here when Wolff-Michael > referenced Ricouer?s 3 volume project exploring metaphor and narrativity > and their common unifying theme existing within human temporality > (finitude). > Is there an expectation for ?us? to go back and reference Ricouer?s > exploration of this relation in depth? Through reading and re-reading these > works of scholarship. > I myself turned to the preface of Ricouer?s 3 volume exploration of this > particular relation, metaphor/narrativity:: Temporality. > > Without human temporality, narrativity and metaphor would not exist. > > On this listserve there was a glance or nod in Ricouer?s direction and > then???. > > This month we are recycling themes which already exist in the archive, but > is this recycling just repetition,, or renovation, or innovation?. > > Peg?s metaphor of leaving loose threads for others to return to expresses > a temporal sense ability at odds with high impact journals. > > > Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > From: mike cole > Sent: April 25, 2017 11:02 AM > To: Larry Purss > Cc: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value' > > Right Larry. A lot of high impact journals (not all) are deeply > a-historical. > > When my wife and I were writing a textbook, we had, with each addition, > to cut out older refs. To be allow to refer to Gesell, Rousseau in a > serious manner was a constant battle. > > But what the heck. In a lot of classes that use the textbook, students are > not required to remember or re-cover material from the mid-term on the > final exam. In a course on development in a field that makes a big deal of > sequence and growth over time. Live for the moment, no need to know the > history of behavior in order to understand it. > > Yes, mediation has not gone away, despite its claimed ailments and devious > traps. :-) > > mike > > On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 2:00 PM, wrote: > So... If more than 10 years old makes thinking and thought anethema WHAT > does that say about the scope of thinking of high impact journals? > > When returning to wording, statement, and utterance I hope we also turn > back to ?mediation?. > I have this definition of mediation to consider: (carrying across -within > back/forth) BOTH (giving/receiving) within a singular relation > This is felt differently than mediation: (carrying over to the other side) > which may imply bridges required for joining or linking two pre-existing > sides (first one and then the other). > > > Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > From: mike cole > Sent: April 23, 2017 9:54 AM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value' > > Hi David et al -- > > Found my copy of Cole and Scribner! To my relief, it appears that somewhere > along the way there was a misattribution of that quote you posted that > Hasan criticized and that I wanted to disavow (but there it was in black > and white!). > > So, apropos, we have a problem of context here. If you look at p. 25 of > Scribner and Cole, you will find that the quotation was in a paper by Cole > and Gay (1972) (A paper on culture and memory in the American > Anthropologist I had did not recall the date of. If you go just one > sentence above the quotation you find the following: > > *For instance, one anthropologist commented, upon hearing about the results > of our first research in this area (Gay and Cole 1967): The reasoning and > thinking processes of different people in different cultures don't differ . > . . just their values, beliefs, and ways of classifying differ [personal > correspondence ].* > > > We were *contesting *this statement which was the anthropological consensus > at the time. For those interested in our own views at the time, > > it is best to consult Chapter 8 of that book by Cole and Scribner on > *Culture > and Thought. *(Its all antiquarian stuff anyway. Its now 50 years since the > first publication of that line of work! References more than 10 years old > are anethema to HIGH IMPACT journals! :-) and :-( > > > mike > > > Which takes the discussion back to the discussion of wording, stating, and > uttering. > > On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Wolff-Michael Roth < > wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Julian, > > I suggest reading Rossi-Landi, and Italian Marxist scholar, where I have > > taken this: > > > > Like other products of labor, signs, words, expressions, > > and messages have use value in communication and are subject to exchange, > > distribution, and consumption; the markets within which these > > products circulate as commodities are linguistic communities (Rossi- > > Landi 1983). > > > > An appreciation of his contributions by Cianca Bianchi states: "Through > his > > "homological schema", > > material and linguistic production are conceived to be the result of a > > single process > > that is particular to human beings and that can best be understood in > terms > > of work > > and trade. " > > > > Cheers, > > > > Michael > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > -------------------- > > Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor > > Applied Cognitive Science > > MacLaurin Building A567 > > University of Victoria > > Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 > > http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth > > > > New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > > 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" > > 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 > > > > > > > >New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > > > > > 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" > > >> 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 faculty/mroth/> > > > >> > > > > >> >New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > > >> > > > >> 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 Ric?ur 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" of > > > >> >> wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> >> > > > >> >> >Ric?ur (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 [*?nociation*] and > > > >>statement [ > > > >> >> >*?nonc?*]." > > > >> >> >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 Ric?ur 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 > faculty/mroth/ > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> >New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > > >> >> > > > >> >> directions-in-mat > > > >> >> >hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of- > mathematics/>* > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> >On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 10:38 PM, David Kellogg > > > >> > > > >> >> >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 > > > >>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 > > > >> >> > > > >> >> >> > 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 > > > >> >> > > > >> >> >> > 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" > 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 > > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > >> >> >> > > > >>> ections-in-mat > > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > >> >> >>hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of- > mathematics/>* > > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 8:18 AM, Andy Blunden > > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > 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 > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> *Sent: *April 17, 2017 11:54 PM > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> *To: *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" > > > >> > > >> >>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 > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>> 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 things? 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 > > > >> >> >> > .. > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>> '?? > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> ? ' > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> 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 field? 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 say?) when I have thought about this a > > bit > > > >> >>more > > > >> >> >>- > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>> maybe in > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> 2018? we should pick up! :-) > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> On 17/04/2017 18:22, > > > >>"xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > >> >>on > > > >> >> >> > behalf > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> of Wolff-Michael Roth" > > > >> >> > > >> >> >>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 > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> "r?le". I am quoting from p. 178: > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> Marx joins Hegel as regards terminology, and > not > > > >> >>Kant or > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> Fichte, who tried to solve the problem of > > > >>?ideality? > > > >> >> >>(i.e., > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> activity) > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> while > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> remaining ?inside > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> consciousness?, 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 > > > >>?ideality? > > > >> >> >>takes > > > >> >> >> > in > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> the > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> whole > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> range of phenomena > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> within which the ?ideal?, 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 ?moment? 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 > > > >> >>people?s > > > >> >> >> eyes, > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> the commodity-form of the product, > particularly > > in > > > >> >>its > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> dazzling money-form, in the form > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> of > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> the > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> notorious ?real > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> talers?, ?real roubles?, or ?real dollars?, > > things > > > >> >> >>which, > > > >> >> >> as > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> soon > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> as > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> we > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> have the slightest > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> theoretical understanding of them, immediately > > > >>turn > > > >> >>out > > > >> >> >>to > > > >> >> >> be > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> not > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> ?real? > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> at > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> all, but ?ideal? > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> through and through, things whose category > quite > > > >> >> >> > unambiguously > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> includes > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> words, the > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> units of language, and many other ?things?. > > Things > > > >> >>that, > > > >> >> >> > while > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> being > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> wholly > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> ?material?, > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> palpable-corporeal formations, acquire all > their > > > >> >> >>?meaning? > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> (function > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> and > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> r?le) from ?spirit?, > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> >from ?thought? 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 > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> directions-in-mat > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> hematics-and-science- > > > education/the-mathematics-of- > > > >> >> >> > mathematics/ > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> >* On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 8:31 AM, > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> I am attempting to follow Wolff-Michael?s > > > >> >>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 > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> ?use-value? > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> & > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> sign > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> complex ?value?. > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> His methodology is to read Marx > ?substituting? > > > >>the > > > >> >>word > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> ?SIGN? > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> (implying > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> sign complex) FOR ?commodity? 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: ?natural signs? such as animal > > > >> >>footprints > > > >> >> >> are > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> useful/functional to the hunter inherently; > > they > > > >>do > > > >> >>NOT > > > >> >> >> have > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> ?value? > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> (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 ?value? > > > >> >> >> (exchangeable). > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> Someone > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> who > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> satisfies HER needs through her product > > produces > > > >> >> >> ?use-value? > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> but > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> NOT > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> ?value?. > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> b) VALUE: (exchangeable). To produce SIGNS > > > >> >>(complexes), > > > >> >> >> she > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> has > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> to > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> produce > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> not only ?use-value? but use-value FOR > others. > > > >>She > > > >> >>has > > > >> >> >>to > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> produce ?societal? use-values.... To be/come > > > >> >> >> (exchangeable) > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> SIGN, the > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> product > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> HAS > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> TO BE TRANSFERRED to another, FOR whom the > SIGN > > > >> >>complex > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> ?constitutes? > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> use-value. > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> The production of signs that produce no > ?value? > > > >> >>that is > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> exchangeable > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> FOR > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> others leads to personal notes often having NO > > > >> >> >>use-value to > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> others. > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> To > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> trans/form use-value to BE come ?value? > 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 > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> ?use-value? & ?value? > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> (exchangeable) > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> My morning musement > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From lpscholar2@gmail.com Tue Apr 25 15:26:14 2017 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (lpscholar2@gmail.com) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 15:26:14 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value' In-Reply-To: References: <58f4dfe0.5a45620a.c2a11.c004@mx.google.com> <62ef71d1-672d-bf3e-cae2-87aecbd09692@mira.net> <58f61836.8e2c620a.3b9e9.7d11@mx.google.com> <0d06b705-2e34-1171-1a2e-f4be2a14503b@mira.net> <071e3c6a-ba4e-1de8-1dae-1d54b8879ddd@mira.net> <5FCAE108E8796240B89A0E15AE182DBD1CBEF130@CISCMRMBS01.mds.ad.dur.ac.uk> <58fe679e.e0096b0a.a0a68.9cf7@mx.google.com> <58ff9619.8427630a.82c24.69ee@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <58ffcd1f.0c05240a.13c7f.e958@mx.google.com> David, Let?s pause at your opening up ?the living of life? that follows on after your memory of Ricoeur teaching at Chicago. Reflecting on your exploring ?living? and ?life? and their relation. Life being de-historicized, de-memorized, de-humanized. Something must be added to life FOR life to become ?living?: (historicized, memorized, humanized). Now this something we add to life is temporality; that qualia that expresses and under lights ?living? (the process under discussion). Now, if this relation of ?living? and ?life? is accepted?? We can return to Ricouer?s notion (and Gadamer?s) that ?human? memory goes through ?stages? (medieval annals, renaissance chronicles, nineteen century narrative) but All sharing temporality in common. In other words humanITY is ?living? OF Life. Or at least this expresses a Particular temporal qualia of ?living? moving beyond ?life?. Ricouer?s project (in 3 volumes) exploring this relation of being human and temporality within cultural memory. Exploring ?the living? form. Sent from my Windows 10 phone From: David Kellogg Sent: April 25, 2017 2:15 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value' I remember Paul Ricoeur. He taught at a seminary at the University of Chicago when I was an undergraduate. I was a member of the campus Spartacus Youth Club, and it was the only place that would allow us a public space for meetings. I tried to sell him a copy of "Young Spartacus" once: I can't remember if he bought it or not. But I remember him as a French gentleman, personally quite conservative, but not at all put off by the presence of a screaming red nineteen year old who for inexplicable reasons had a Parisian accent and spoke the argot of the Versailles banlieue. Maybe he bought our French paper, Le Bolchevik. I have been reading a symposium "On Narrative" that was going on at UC when I was organizing against Milton Friedman's Nobel Prize (he was also a professor there at the time--he won the prize the same year that Saul Bellow, another UC professor, did). Ricoeur, Derrida, and Hayden White all took part. It was the heyday of structuralism, and Ricoeur's contribution is interesting because it's quite ANTI-structuralist: he points out that the effect of structuralism on narrative studies has been to de-historicize, de-memorize, dehumanize; to convert stories into exchange values rather than use values. So the elements that Propp discovers in Ludmilla and Ruslan (and the Firebird and its variants) can come in any order. In contrast, even the simplest act of repetition is historicized, humanized, and memorable. A use value and not an exchange value. Derrida ignores everybody else and embarks on his usual verbal pyrotechnics, but Hayden White develops Ricoeur's idea in a way I think I actually used in my "Thinking of Feeling" paper: human memory goes through stages: medieval annals, Renaissance chronicles, and the nineteenth century narrative, each of which adds something distinctive and makes the meta-narrative that they form together into something non-reversible and developmental. But now I see that the reviewers made me remove all that (it is just as well: sociogenesis is one story and ontogenesis quite another). Ruqaiya Hasan used to say that there is a certain unity imposed on experience by language, from "the living of life" to the child's first real morpho-phoneme. If you take the phrase "the living of life" just as an example, you can see some of what Ricoeur is trying to get at. On the face of it, the phrase is redundant: the word "life" seems to contain absolutely nothing that isn't already there in "living". Yet "of life" must mean something, otherwise it would not enable us to add the specifier "the" to "living". I think Ricoeur would say that "life" is a kind of de-historicized, de-memorized, de-humanized "living", one that is turned from process into entity, and made synoptical, like the various retellings in different orders of the four Gospels. Yes, it's a powerful way of speaking, but it is powerful the way that sculpture is rather than the way that painting is. And the power is not in the word, but in the wording. David Kellogg Macquarie University On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 4:31 AM, wrote: > Mike, > There is a particular example that occurred here when Wolff-Michael > referenced Ricouer?s 3 volume project exploring metaphor and narrativity > and their common unifying theme existing within human temporality > (finitude). > Is there an expectation for ?us? to go back and reference Ricouer?s > exploration of this relation in depth? Through reading and re-reading these > works of scholarship. > I myself turned to the preface of Ricouer?s 3 volume exploration of this > particular relation, metaphor/narrativity:: Temporality. > > Without human temporality, narrativity and metaphor would not exist. > > On this listserve there was a glance or nod in Ricouer?s direction and > then???. > > This month we are recycling themes which already exist in the archive, but > is this recycling just repetition,, or renovation, or innovation?. > > Peg?s metaphor of leaving loose threads for others to return to expresses > a temporal sense ability at odds with high impact journals. > > > Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > From: mike cole > Sent: April 25, 2017 11:02 AM > To: Larry Purss > Cc: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value' > > Right Larry. A lot of high impact journals (not all) are deeply > a-historical. > > When my wife and I were writing a textbook, we had, with each addition, > to cut out older refs. To be allow to refer to Gesell, Rousseau in a > serious manner was a constant battle. > > But what the heck. In a lot of classes that use the textbook, students are > not required to remember or re-cover material from the mid-term on the > final exam. In a course on development in a field that makes a big deal of > sequence and growth over time. Live for the moment, no need to know the > history of behavior in order to understand it. > > Yes, mediation has not gone away, despite its claimed ailments and devious > traps. :-) > > mike > > On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 2:00 PM, wrote: > So... If more than 10 years old makes thinking and thought anethema WHAT > does that say about the scope of thinking of high impact journals? > > When returning to wording, statement, and utterance I hope we also turn > back to ?mediation?. > I have this definition of mediation to consider: (carrying across -within > back/forth) BOTH (giving/receiving) within a singular relation > This is felt differently than mediation: (carrying over to the other side) > which may imply bridges required for joining or linking two pre-existing > sides (first one and then the other). > > > Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > From: mike cole > Sent: April 23, 2017 9:54 AM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value' > > Hi David et al -- > > Found my copy of Cole and Scribner! To my relief, it appears that somewhere > along the way there was a misattribution of that quote you posted that > Hasan criticized and that I wanted to disavow (but there it was in black > and white!). > > So, apropos, we have a problem of context here. If you look at p. 25 of > Scribner and Cole, you will find that the quotation was in a paper by Cole > and Gay (1972) (A paper on culture and memory in the American > Anthropologist I had did not recall the date of. If you go just one > sentence above the quotation you find the following: > > *For instance, one anthropologist commented, upon hearing about the results > of our first research in this area (Gay and Cole 1967): The reasoning and > thinking processes of different people in different cultures don't differ . > . . just their values, beliefs, and ways of classifying differ [personal > correspondence ].* > > > We were *contesting *this statement which was the anthropological consensus > at the time. For those interested in our own views at the time, > > it is best to consult Chapter 8 of that book by Cole and Scribner on > *Culture > and Thought. *(Its all antiquarian stuff anyway. Its now 50 years since the > first publication of that line of work! References more than 10 years old > are anethema to HIGH IMPACT journals! :-) and :-( > > > mike > > > Which takes the discussion back to the discussion of wording, stating, and > uttering. > > On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Wolff-Michael Roth < > wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Julian, > > I suggest reading Rossi-Landi, and Italian Marxist scholar, where I have > > taken this: > > > > Like other products of labor, signs, words, expressions, > > and messages have use value in communication and are subject to exchange, > > distribution, and consumption; the markets within which these > > products circulate as commodities are linguistic communities (Rossi- > > Landi 1983). > > > > An appreciation of his contributions by Cianca Bianchi states: "Through > his > > "homological schema", > > material and linguistic production are conceived to be the result of a > > single process > > that is particular to human beings and that can best be understood in > terms > > of work > > and trade. " > > > > Cheers, > > > > Michael > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > -------------------- > > Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor > > Applied Cognitive Science > > MacLaurin Building A567 > > University of Victoria > > Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 > > http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth > > > > New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > > 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" > > 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 > > > > > > > >New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > > > > > 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" > > >> 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 faculty/mroth/> > > > >> > > > > >> >New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > > >> > > > >> 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 Ric?ur 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" of > > > >> >> wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> >> > > > >> >> >Ric?ur (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 [*?nociation*] and > > > >>statement [ > > > >> >> >*?nonc?*]." > > > >> >> >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 Ric?ur 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 > faculty/mroth/ > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> >New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > > >> >> > > > >> >> directions-in-mat > > > >> >> >hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of- > mathematics/>* > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> >On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 10:38 PM, David Kellogg > > > >> > > > >> >> >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 > > > >>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 > > > >> >> > > > >> >> >> > 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 > > > >> >> > > > >> >> >> > 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" > 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 > > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > >> >> >> > > > >>> ections-in-mat > > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > >> >> >>hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of- > mathematics/>* > > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 8:18 AM, Andy Blunden > > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > 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 > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> *Sent: *April 17, 2017 11:54 PM > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> *To: *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" > > > >> > > >> >>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 > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>> 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 things? 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 > > > >> >> >> > .. > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>> '?? > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> ? ' > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> 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 field? 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 say?) when I have thought about this a > > bit > > > >> >>more > > > >> >> >>- > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>> maybe in > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> 2018? we should pick up! :-) > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> On 17/04/2017 18:22, > > > >>"xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > >> >>on > > > >> >> >> > behalf > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> of Wolff-Michael Roth" > > > >> >> > > >> >> >>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 > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> "r?le". I am quoting from p. 178: > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> Marx joins Hegel as regards terminology, and > not > > > >> >>Kant or > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> Fichte, who tried to solve the problem of > > > >>?ideality? > > > >> >> >>(i.e., > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> activity) > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> while > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> remaining ?inside > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> consciousness?, 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 > > > >>?ideality? > > > >> >> >>takes > > > >> >> >> > in > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> the > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> whole > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> range of phenomena > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> within which the ?ideal?, 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 ?moment? 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 > > > >> >>people?s > > > >> >> >> eyes, > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> the commodity-form of the product, > particularly > > in > > > >> >>its > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> dazzling money-form, in the form > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> of > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> the > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> notorious ?real > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> talers?, ?real roubles?, or ?real dollars?, > > things > > > >> >> >>which, > > > >> >> >> as > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> soon > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> as > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> we > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> have the slightest > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> theoretical understanding of them, immediately > > > >>turn > > > >> >>out > > > >> >> >>to > > > >> >> >> be > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> not > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> ?real? > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> at > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> all, but ?ideal? > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> through and through, things whose category > quite > > > >> >> >> > unambiguously > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> includes > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> words, the > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> units of language, and many other ?things?. > > Things > > > >> >>that, > > > >> >> >> > while > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> being > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> wholly > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> ?material?, > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> palpable-corporeal formations, acquire all > their > > > >> >> >>?meaning? > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> (function > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> and > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> r?le) from ?spirit?, > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> >from ?thought? 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 > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> directions-in-mat > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> hematics-and-science- > > > education/the-mathematics-of- > > > >> >> >> > mathematics/ > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> >* On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 8:31 AM, > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> I am attempting to follow Wolff-Michael?s > > > >> >>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 > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> ?use-value? > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> & > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> sign > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> complex ?value?. > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> His methodology is to read Marx > ?substituting? > > > >>the > > > >> >>word > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> ?SIGN? > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> (implying > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> sign complex) FOR ?commodity? 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: ?natural signs? such as animal > > > >> >>footprints > > > >> >> >> are > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> useful/functional to the hunter inherently; > > they > > > >>do > > > >> >>NOT > > > >> >> >> have > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> ?value? > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> (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 ?value? > > > >> >> >> (exchangeable). > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> Someone > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> who > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> satisfies HER needs through her product > > produces > > > >> >> >> ?use-value? > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> but > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> NOT > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> ?value?. > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> b) VALUE: (exchangeable). To produce SIGNS > > > >> >>(complexes), > > > >> >> >> she > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> has > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> to > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> produce > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> not only ?use-value? but use-value FOR > others. > > > >>She > > > >> >>has > > > >> >> >>to > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> produce ?societal? use-values.... To be/come > > > >> >> >> (exchangeable) > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> SIGN, the > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> product > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> HAS > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> TO BE TRANSFERRED to another, FOR whom the > SIGN > > > >> >>complex > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> ?constitutes? > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> use-value. > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> The production of signs that produce no > ?value? > > > >> >>that is > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> exchangeable > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> FOR > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> others leads to personal notes often having NO > > > >> >> >>use-value to > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> others. > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> To > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> trans/form use-value to BE come ?value? > 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 > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> ?use-value? & ?value? > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> (exchangeable) > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> My morning musement > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>> > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From vwilk@inf.shizuoka.ac.jp Tue Apr 25 18:20:14 2017 From: vwilk@inf.shizuoka.ac.jp (Wilkinson) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 10:20:14 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value' In-Reply-To: <58ffcd1f.0c05240a.13c7f.e958@mx.google.com> References: <58f4dfe0.5a45620a.c2a11.c004@mx.google.com> <58fe679e.e0096b0a.a0a68.9cf7@mx.google.com> <58ff9619.8427630a.82c24.69ee@mx.google.com> <58ffcd1f.0c05240a.13c7f.e958@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <94c53faf-f43b-fa53-0624-d95259cb9375@inf.shizuoka.ac.jp> Hullo, friends. Just a quick in-and-out from Vandy@GST Dipping in to the conversation randomly here at XMCA is precisely and cogently connected to teaching for 22 years at a Faculty of Informatics for 22 years. I grew up in "the desconstruction" phase of literary criticism, after the structuralist wave. We were dealing (or not dealing so well) with "the death of the AUTHOR." The resistance was encoded for my by Stanley Fish, reader-response theory, and a long Christmas vacation analysis for a graduate school class in 1979 of *Pale Fire* by Nabokov. (Sneak in New Criticism, close reading of the text, Merleau Ponty) Then I came to Japan ... Technology and science is all about formula, protocol, presentation of results. All slicked-down and "hollowed out." It is No country for OLD SCHOLARS (but so many English scholars found space to do great stuff here. Empson *Seven Types of Ambiguity*) What contradictions! The suberb finesse of the electronic steel railed ultramodern city vs the deep culture of beauty, history, religion, all deeply entwined. As soon as I got the job at Informatics "real time learning" became my keyword and passion. It is one thing to propose and sketch-in; quite another to walk to the counter and fill in the documents, on foot, face-to-face, with staff and admin. educating (utilizing) students, and NOT doing it all myself. I clung to William Blake's "I must create my system or be enslaved by another man's," Korzybski's "The map is not the territory," and Edward Said's "The World, The Text, and the Critic" like a rosary. I have been trying to find a voice and a legitimate sphere to weave my reflections with my experiences and the real experiences of the many people and cultures with whom I interact to draft a stance of worth to the technologists and scientists who do not feel the need to listen. Now we are talking NARRATIVE! What's the story? Theory is all well and good, but when I suddenly find myself in Vietnam, visiting four universities in four cities with no time to write up what I lived through there and only sketchy ideas about how to activate and actualize my potential value to that interconnected world when I myself have been limping around with a poor self-image and a chip on my shoulder (Sisyphean). This is not the time or place but it has to be, because I have tons to do today, schedules to meet, classes to teach, but I went to Vietnam because I have two women graduate students from Vietnam with me and Helena Worthen opened the door for me to visit the TDTU Faculty of Labor Relations and Trade Unions. If real time learning matters, then the actual people I met and interacted with are the text and data of the narrative I must construct to become the interface engineer among living organic systems of persons, departments, organizations, populations and life on the street in Danang, Hue, Hanoi, Ho Chi Minh City and Hamamatsu, Tokyo, Nagasaki, etc. etc. One thing I need to do is utilize my long term relationships in Informatics to get the procedural assistance I need to transition my position to Adhesive Agent of Change, Bridges, Velcro, and Zippers. On 2017/04/26 7:26, lpscholar2@gmail.com wrote: > David, > Let?s pause at your opening up ?the living of life? that follows on after your memory of Ricoeur teaching at Chicago. > Reflecting on your exploring ?living? and ?life? and their relation. > Life being de-historicized, de-memorized, de-humanized. > Something must be added to life FOR life to become ?living?: (historicized, memorized, humanized). > > Now this something we add to life is temporality; that qualia that expresses and under lights ?living? (the process under discussion). > > Now, if this relation of ?living? and ?life? is accepted?? > We can return to Ricouer?s notion (and Gadamer?s) that ?human? memory goes through ?stages? (medieval annals, renaissance chronicles, nineteen century narrative) but All sharing temporality in common. > > In other words humanITY is ?living? > OF > Life. > > Or at least this expresses a Particular temporal qualia of ?living? moving beyond ?life?. Ricouer?s project (in 3 volumes) exploring this relation of being human and temporality within cultural memory. > Exploring ?the living? form. > > > Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > From: David Kellogg > Sent: April 25, 2017 2:15 PM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value' > > I remember Paul Ricoeur. He taught at a seminary at the University of > Chicago when I was an undergraduate. I was a member of the campus Spartacus > Youth Club, and it was the only place that would allow us a public space > for meetings. I tried to sell him a copy of "Young Spartacus" once: I can't > remember if he bought it or not. But I remember him as a French gentleman, > personally quite conservative, but not at all put off by the presence of > a screaming red nineteen year old who for inexplicable reasons had > a Parisian accent and spoke the argot of the Versailles banlieue. Maybe he > bought our French paper, Le Bolchevik. > > I have been reading a symposium "On Narrative" that was going on at UC when > I was organizing against Milton Friedman's Nobel Prize (he was also a > professor there at the time--he won the prize the same year that Saul > Bellow, another UC professor, did). Ricoeur, Derrida, and Hayden White all > took part. > > It was the heyday of structuralism, and Ricoeur's contribution is > interesting because it's quite ANTI-structuralist: he points out that the > effect of structuralism on narrative studies has been to de-historicize, > de-memorize, dehumanize; to convert stories into exchange values rather > than use values. So the elements that Propp discovers in Ludmilla and > Ruslan (and the Firebird and its variants) can come in any order. In > contrast, even the simplest act of repetition is historicized, humanized, > and memorable. A use value and not an exchange value. > > Derrida ignores everybody else and embarks on his usual verbal > pyrotechnics, but Hayden White develops Ricoeur's idea in a way I think I > actually used in my "Thinking of Feeling" paper: human memory goes through > stages: medieval annals, Renaissance chronicles, and the nineteenth century > narrative, each of which adds something distinctive and makes the > meta-narrative that they form together into something non-reversible and > developmental. But now I see that the reviewers made me remove all that (it > is just as well: sociogenesis is one story and ontogenesis quite another). > > Ruqaiya Hasan used to say that there is a certain unity imposed on > experience by language, from "the living of life" to the child's first real > morpho-phoneme. If you take the phrase "the living of life" just as an > example, you can see some of what Ricoeur is trying to get at. On the face > of it, the phrase is redundant: the word "life" seems to contain absolutely > nothing that isn't already there in "living". Yet "of life" must mean > something, otherwise it would not enable us to add the specifier "the" to > "living". > > I think Ricoeur would say that "life" is a kind of de-historicized, > de-memorized, de-humanized "living", one that is turned from process into > entity, and made synoptical, like the various retellings in different > orders of the four Gospels. Yes, it's a powerful way of speaking, but it is > powerful the way that sculpture is rather than the way that painting is. > And the power is not in the word, but in the wording. > > David Kellogg > Macquarie University > > > > > On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 4:31 AM, wrote: > >> Mike, >> There is a particular example that occurred here when Wolff-Michael >> referenced Ricouer?s 3 volume project exploring metaphor and narrativity >> and their common unifying theme existing within human temporality >> (finitude). >> Is there an expectation for ?us? to go back and reference Ricouer?s >> exploration of this relation in depth? Through reading and re-reading these >> works of scholarship. >> I myself turned to the preface of Ricouer?s 3 volume exploration of this >> particular relation, metaphor/narrativity:: Temporality. >> >> Without human temporality, narrativity and metaphor would not exist. >> >> On this listserve there was a glance or nod in Ricouer?s direction and >> then???. >> >> This month we are recycling themes which already exist in the archive, but >> is this recycling just repetition,, or renovation, or innovation?. >> >> Peg?s metaphor of leaving loose threads for others to return to expresses >> a temporal sense ability at odds with high impact journals. >> >> >> Sent from my Windows 10 phone >> >> From: mike cole >> Sent: April 25, 2017 11:02 AM >> To: Larry Purss >> Cc: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value' >> >> Right Larry. A lot of high impact journals (not all) are deeply >> a-historical. >> >> When my wife and I were writing a textbook, we had, with each addition, >> to cut out older refs. To be allow to refer to Gesell, Rousseau in a >> serious manner was a constant battle. >> >> But what the heck. In a lot of classes that use the textbook, students are >> not required to remember or re-cover material from the mid-term on the >> final exam. In a course on development in a field that makes a big deal of >> sequence and growth over time. Live for the moment, no need to know the >> history of behavior in order to understand it. >> >> Yes, mediation has not gone away, despite its claimed ailments and devious >> traps. :-) >> >> mike >> >> On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 2:00 PM, wrote: >> So... If more than 10 years old makes thinking and thought anethema WHAT >> does that say about the scope of thinking of high impact journals? >> >> When returning to wording, statement, and utterance I hope we also turn >> back to ?mediation?. >> I have this definition of mediation to consider: (carrying across -within >> back/forth) BOTH (giving/receiving) within a singular relation >> This is felt differently than mediation: (carrying over to the other side) >> which may imply bridges required for joining or linking two pre-existing >> sides (first one and then the other). >> >> >> Sent from my Windows 10 phone >> >> From: mike cole >> Sent: April 23, 2017 9:54 AM >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value' >> >> Hi David et al -- >> >> Found my copy of Cole and Scribner! To my relief, it appears that somewhere >> along the way there was a misattribution of that quote you posted that >> Hasan criticized and that I wanted to disavow (but there it was in black >> and white!). >> >> So, apropos, we have a problem of context here. If you look at p. 25 of >> Scribner and Cole, you will find that the quotation was in a paper by Cole >> and Gay (1972) (A paper on culture and memory in the American >> Anthropologist I had did not recall the date of. If you go just one >> sentence above the quotation you find the following: >> >> *For instance, one anthropologist commented, upon hearing about the results >> of our first research in this area (Gay and Cole 1967): The reasoning and >> thinking processes of different people in different cultures don't differ . >> . . just their values, beliefs, and ways of classifying differ [personal >> correspondence ].* >> >> >> We were *contesting *this statement which was the anthropological consensus >> at the time. For those interested in our own views at the time, >> >> it is best to consult Chapter 8 of that book by Cole and Scribner on >> *Culture >> and Thought. *(Its all antiquarian stuff anyway. Its now 50 years since the >> first publication of that line of work! References more than 10 years old >> are anethema to HIGH IMPACT journals! :-) and :-( >> >> >> mike >> >> >> Which takes the discussion back to the discussion of wording, stating, and >> uttering. >> >> On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Wolff-Michael Roth < >> wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Julian, >>> I suggest reading Rossi-Landi, and Italian Marxist scholar, where I have >>> taken this: >>> >>> Like other products of labor, signs, words, expressions, >>> and messages have use value in communication and are subject to exchange, >>> distribution, and consumption; the markets within which these >>> products circulate as commodities are linguistic communities (Rossi- >>> Landi 1983). >>> >>> An appreciation of his contributions by Cianca Bianchi states: "Through >> his >>> "homological schema", >>> material and linguistic production are conceived to be the result of a >>> single process >>> that is particular to human beings and that can best be understood in >> terms >>> of work >>> and trade. " >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Michael >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>> -------------------- >>> Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor >>> Applied Cognitive Science >>> MacLaurin Building A567 >>> University of Victoria >>> Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 >>> http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth >>> >>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >>> >> 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" >>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >>>>> >>> 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" >>>>> 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 > faculty/mroth/> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >>>>>>> >>>>> 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 Ric?ur 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" > of >>>>>>>> wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Ric?ur (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 [*?nociation*] and >>>>>> statement [ >>>>>>>>> *?nonc?*]." >>>>>>>>> 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 Ric?ur 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 >> faculty/mroth/ >>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> directions-in-mat >>>>>>>>> hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of- >> mathematics/>* >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 10:38 PM, David Kellogg >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 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" >> 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ections-in-mat >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of- >> mathematics/>* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 8:18 AM, Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Sent: *April 17, 2017 11:54 PM >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *To: *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" >>>>>> >>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 things? 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 >>>>>>>>>>> .. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> '?? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ? ' >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 field? 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 say?) when I have thought about this a >>> bit >>>>>>>> more >>>>>>>>>> - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maybe in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2018? we should pick up! :-) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/04/2017 18:22, >>>>>> "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>>>>> behalf >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Wolff-Michael Roth" >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "r?le". I am quoting from p. 178: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Marx joins Hegel as regards terminology, and >> not >>>>>>>> Kant or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fichte, who tried to solve the problem of >>>>>> ?ideality? >>>>>>>>>> (i.e., >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> activity) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> while >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remaining ?inside >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consciousness?, 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 >>>>>> ?ideality? >>>>>>>>>> takes >>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whole >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> range of phenomena >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> within which the ?ideal?, 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 ?moment? 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 >>>>>>>> people?s >>>>>>>>>> eyes, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the commodity-form of the product, >> particularly >>> in >>>>>>>> its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dazzling money-form, in the form >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> notorious ?real >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talers?, ?real roubles?, or ?real dollars?, >>> things >>>>>>>>>> which, >>>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> soon >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have the slightest >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theoretical understanding of them, immediately >>>>>> turn >>>>>>>> out >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?real? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all, but ?ideal? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through and through, things whose category >> quite >>>>>>>>>>> unambiguously >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> includes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words, the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> units of language, and many other ?things?. >>> Things >>>>>>>> that, >>>>>>>>>>> while >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wholly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?material?, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> palpable-corporeal formations, acquire all >> their >>>>>>>>>> ?meaning? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (function >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> r?le) from ?spirit?, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >from ?thought? 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> directions-in-mat >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hematics-and-science- >>>> education/the-mathematics-of- >>>>>>>>>>> mathematics/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 8:31 AM, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am attempting to follow Wolff-Michael?s >>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?use-value? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> & >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sign >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complex ?value?. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> His methodology is to read Marx >> ?substituting? >>>>>> the >>>>>>>> word >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?SIGN? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (implying >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sign complex) FOR ?commodity? 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: ?natural signs? such as animal >>>>>>>> footprints >>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> useful/functional to the hunter inherently; >>> they >>>>>> do >>>>>>>> NOT >>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?value? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (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 ?value? >>>>>>>>>> (exchangeable). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Someone >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> satisfies HER needs through her product >>> produces >>>>>>>>>> ?use-value? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NOT >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?value?. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> b) VALUE: (exchangeable). To produce SIGNS >>>>>>>> (complexes), >>>>>>>>>> she >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> produce >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not only ?use-value? but use-value FOR >> others. >>>>>> She >>>>>>>> has >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> produce ?societal? use-values.... To be/come >>>>>>>>>> (exchangeable) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SIGN, the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> product >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HAS >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TO BE TRANSFERRED to another, FOR whom the >> SIGN >>>>>>>> complex >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?constitutes? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use-value. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The production of signs that produce no >> ?value? >>>>>>>> that is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exchangeable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FOR >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> others leads to personal notes often having NO >>>>>>>>>> use-value to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> others. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trans/form use-value to BE come ?value? >> 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?use-value? & ?value? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (exchangeable) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My morning musement >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> >> > > > > -- Valerie Anne Wilkinson, PhD Professor of Communication Faculty of Informatics The Integrated Graduate School of Science and Technology Shizuoka University email: vwilk@inf.shizuoka.ac.jp tel.: 81(53)478-1529 WEBPAGE: http://www.inf.shizuoka.ac.jp/english/labs/society_detail.html?UC=vwilk From ablunden@mira.net Tue Apr 25 18:42:22 2017 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 11:42:22 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value' In-Reply-To: References: <58f4dfe0.5a45620a.c2a11.c004@mx.google.com> <58fe679e.e0096b0a.a0a68.9cf7@mx.google.com> <58ff9619.8427630a.82c24.69ee@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <69279808-ff88-e2a5-354a-5b699e069edb@mira.net> David, after reading this fascinating 2-page narrative about Ricoeur and the structuralists out of the blue we get the conclusion: "And the power is not in the word, but in the wording." Have I missed something? Is "wording" ineffable? Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://home.mira.net/~andy http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making On 26/04/2017 7:13 AM, David Kellogg wrote: > I remember Paul Ricoeur. He taught at a seminary at the University of > Chicago when I was an undergraduate. I was a member of the campus Spartacus > Youth Club, and it was the only place that would allow us a public space > for meetings. I tried to sell him a copy of "Young Spartacus" once: I can't > remember if he bought it or not. But I remember him as a French gentleman, > personally quite conservative, but not at all put off by the presence of > a screaming red nineteen year old who for inexplicable reasons had > a Parisian accent and spoke the argot of the Versailles banlieue. Maybe he > bought our French paper, Le Bolchevik. > > I have been reading a symposium "On Narrative" that was going on at UC when > I was organizing against Milton Friedman's Nobel Prize (he was also a > professor there at the time--he won the prize the same year that Saul > Bellow, another UC professor, did). Ricoeur, Derrida, and Hayden White all > took part. > > It was the heyday of structuralism, and Ricoeur's contribution is > interesting because it's quite ANTI-structuralist: he points out that the > effect of structuralism on narrative studies has been to de-historicize, > de-memorize, dehumanize; to convert stories into exchange values rather > than use values. So the elements that Propp discovers in Ludmilla and > Ruslan (and the Firebird and its variants) can come in any order. In > contrast, even the simplest act of repetition is historicized, humanized, > and memorable. A use value and not an exchange value. > > Derrida ignores everybody else and embarks on his usual verbal > pyrotechnics, but Hayden White develops Ricoeur's idea in a way I think I > actually used in my "Thinking of Feeling" paper: human memory goes through > stages: medieval annals, Renaissance chronicles, and the nineteenth century > narrative, each of which adds something distinctive and makes the > meta-narrative that they form together into something non-reversible and > developmental. But now I see that the reviewers made me remove all that (it > is just as well: sociogenesis is one story and ontogenesis quite another). > > Ruqaiya Hasan used to say that there is a certain unity imposed on > experience by language, from "the living of life" to the child's first real > morpho-phoneme. If you take the phrase "the living of life" just as an > example, you can see some of what Ricoeur is trying to get at. On the face > of it, the phrase is redundant: the word "life" seems to contain absolutely > nothing that isn't already there in "living". Yet "of life" must mean > something, otherwise it would not enable us to add the specifier "the" to > "living". > > I think Ricoeur would say that "life" is a kind of de-historicized, > de-memorized, de-humanized "living", one that is turned from process into > entity, and made synoptical, like the various retellings in different > orders of the four Gospels. Yes, it's a powerful way of speaking, but it is > powerful the way that sculpture is rather than the way that painting is. > And the power is not in the word, but in the wording. > > David Kellogg > Macquarie University > > > > > On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 4:31 AM, wrote: > >> Mike, >> There is a particular example that occurred here when Wolff-Michael >> referenced Ricouer?s 3 volume project exploring metaphor and narrativity >> and their common unifying theme existing within human temporality >> (finitude). >> Is there an expectation for ?us? to go back and reference Ricouer?s >> exploration of this relation in depth? Through reading and re-reading these >> works of scholarship. >> I myself turned to the preface of Ricouer?s 3 volume exploration of this >> particular relation, metaphor/narrativity:: Temporality. >> >> Without human temporality, narrativity and metaphor would not exist. >> >> On this listserve there was a glance or nod in Ricouer?s direction and >> then???. >> >> This month we are recycling themes which already exist in the archive, but >> is this recycling just repetition,, or renovation, or innovation?. >> >> Peg?s metaphor of leaving loose threads for others to return to expresses >> a temporal sense ability at odds with high impact journals. >> >> >> Sent from my Windows 10 phone >> >> From: mike cole >> Sent: April 25, 2017 11:02 AM >> To: Larry Purss >> Cc: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value' >> >> Right Larry. A lot of high impact journals (not all) are deeply >> a-historical. >> >> When my wife and I were writing a textbook, we had, with each addition, >> to cut out older refs. To be allow to refer to Gesell, Rousseau in a >> serious manner was a constant battle. >> >> But what the heck. In a lot of classes that use the textbook, students are >> not required to remember or re-cover material from the mid-term on the >> final exam. In a course on development in a field that makes a big deal of >> sequence and growth over time. Live for the moment, no need to know the >> history of behavior in order to understand it. >> >> Yes, mediation has not gone away, despite its claimed ailments and devious >> traps. :-) >> >> mike >> >> On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 2:00 PM, wrote: >> So... If more than 10 years old makes thinking and thought anethema WHAT >> does that say about the scope of thinking of high impact journals? >> >> When returning to wording, statement, and utterance I hope we also turn >> back to ?mediation?. >> I have this definition of mediation to consider: (carrying across -within >> back/forth) BOTH (giving/receiving) within a singular relation >> This is felt differently than mediation: (carrying over to the other side) >> which may imply bridges required for joining or linking two pre-existing >> sides (first one and then the other). >> >> >> Sent from my Windows 10 phone >> >> From: mike cole >> Sent: April 23, 2017 9:54 AM >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value' >> >> Hi David et al -- >> >> Found my copy of Cole and Scribner! To my relief, it appears that somewhere >> along the way there was a misattribution of that quote you posted that >> Hasan criticized and that I wanted to disavow (but there it was in black >> and white!). >> >> So, apropos, we have a problem of context here. If you look at p. 25 of >> Scribner and Cole, you will find that the quotation was in a paper by Cole >> and Gay (1972) (A paper on culture and memory in the American >> Anthropologist I had did not recall the date of. If you go just one >> sentence above the quotation you find the following: >> >> *For instance, one anthropologist commented, upon hearing about the results >> of our first research in this area (Gay and Cole 1967): The reasoning and >> thinking processes of different people in different cultures don't differ . >> . . just their values, beliefs, and ways of classifying differ [personal >> correspondence ].* >> >> >> We were *contesting *this statement which was the anthropological consensus >> at the time. For those interested in our own views at the time, >> >> it is best to consult Chapter 8 of that book by Cole and Scribner on >> *Culture >> and Thought. *(Its all antiquarian stuff anyway. Its now 50 years since the >> first publication of that line of work! References more than 10 years old >> are anethema to HIGH IMPACT journals! :-) and :-( >> >> >> mike >> >> >> Which takes the discussion back to the discussion of wording, stating, and >> uttering. >> >> On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Wolff-Michael Roth < >> wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Julian, >>> I suggest reading Rossi-Landi, and Italian Marxist scholar, where I have >>> taken this: >>> >>> Like other products of labor, signs, words, expressions, >>> and messages have use value in communication and are subject to exchange, >>> distribution, and consumption; the markets within which these >>> products circulate as commodities are linguistic communities (Rossi- >>> Landi 1983). >>> >>> An appreciation of his contributions by Cianca Bianchi states: "Through >> his >>> "homological schema", >>> material and linguistic production are conceived to be the result of a >>> single process >>> that is particular to human beings and that can best be understood in >> terms >>> of work >>> and trade. " >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Michael >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>> -------------------- >>> Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor >>> Applied Cognitive Science >>> MacLaurin Building A567 >>> University of Victoria >>> Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 >>> http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth >>> >>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >>> >> 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" >>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >>>>> >>> 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" >>>>> 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 > faculty/mroth/> >>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >>>>>>> >>>>> 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 Ric?ur 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" > of >>>>>>>> wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Ric?ur (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 [*?nociation*] and >>>>>> statement [ >>>>>>>>> *?nonc?*]." >>>>>>>>> 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 Ric?ur 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 >> faculty/mroth/ >>>>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> directions-in-mat >>>>>>>>> hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of- >> mathematics/>* >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 10:38 PM, David Kellogg >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 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" >> 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ections-in-mat >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of- >> mathematics/>* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 8:18 AM, Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Sent: *April 17, 2017 11:54 PM >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *To: *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" >>>>>> >>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 things? 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 >>>>>>>>>>> .. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> '?? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ? ' >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 field? 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 say?) when I have thought about this a >>> bit >>>>>>>> more >>>>>>>>>> - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maybe in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2018? we should pick up! :-) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/04/2017 18:22, >>>>>> "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>>>>> behalf >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Wolff-Michael Roth" >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "r?le". I am quoting from p. 178: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Marx joins Hegel as regards terminology, and >> not >>>>>>>> Kant or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fichte, who tried to solve the problem of >>>>>> ?ideality? >>>>>>>>>> (i.e., >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> activity) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> while >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remaining ?inside >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consciousness?, 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 >>>>>> ?ideality? >>>>>>>>>> takes >>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whole >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> range of phenomena >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> within which the ?ideal?, 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 ?moment? 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 >>>>>>>> people?s >>>>>>>>>> eyes, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the commodity-form of the product, >> particularly >>> in >>>>>>>> its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dazzling money-form, in the form >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> notorious ?real >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talers?, ?real roubles?, or ?real dollars?, >>> things >>>>>>>>>> which, >>>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> soon >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have the slightest >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theoretical understanding of them, immediately >>>>>> turn >>>>>>>> out >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?real? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all, but ?ideal? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through and through, things whose category >> quite >>>>>>>>>>> unambiguously >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> includes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words, the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> units of language, and many other ?things?. >>> Things >>>>>>>> that, >>>>>>>>>>> while >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wholly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?material?, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> palpable-corporeal formations, acquire all >> their >>>>>>>>>> ?meaning? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (function >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> r?le) from ?spirit?, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >from ?thought? 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> directions-in-mat >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hematics-and-science- >>>> education/the-mathematics-of- >>>>>>>>>>> mathematics/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 8:31 AM, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am attempting to follow Wolff-Michael?s >>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?use-value? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> & >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sign >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complex ?value?. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> His methodology is to read Marx >> ?substituting? >>>>>> the >>>>>>>> word >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?SIGN? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (implying >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sign complex) FOR ?commodity? 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: ?natural signs? such as animal >>>>>>>> footprints >>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> useful/functional to the hunter inherently; >>> they >>>>>> do >>>>>>>> NOT >>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?value? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (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 ?value? >>>>>>>>>> (exchangeable). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Someone >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> satisfies HER needs through her product >>> produces >>>>>>>>>> ?use-value? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NOT >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?value?. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> b) VALUE: (exchangeable). To produce SIGNS >>>>>>>> (complexes), >>>>>>>>>> she >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> produce >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not only ?use-value? but use-value FOR >> others. >>>>>> She >>>>>>>> has >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> produce ?societal? use-values.... To be/come >>>>>>>>>> (exchangeable) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SIGN, the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> product >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HAS >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TO BE TRANSFERRED to another, FOR whom the >> SIGN >>>>>>>> complex >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?constitutes? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use-value. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The production of signs that produce no >> ?value? >>>>>>>> that is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exchangeable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FOR >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> others leads to personal notes often having NO >>>>>>>>>> use-value to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> others. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trans/form use-value to BE come ?value? >> 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?use-value? & ?value? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (exchangeable) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My morning musement >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >> >> >> > From dkellogg60@gmail.com Tue Apr 25 18:56:59 2017 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 11:56:59 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value' In-Reply-To: <69279808-ff88-e2a5-354a-5b699e069edb@mira.net> References: <58f4dfe0.5a45620a.c2a11.c004@mx.google.com> <58fe679e.e0096b0a.a0a68.9cf7@mx.google.com> <58ff9619.8427630a.82c24.69ee@mx.google.com> <69279808-ff88-e2a5-354a-5b699e069edb@mira.net> Message-ID: Andy-- Are "life" and "living" two different words, or are they two different wordings of the same word? David Kellogg Macquarie University On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Andy Blunden wrote: > David, after reading this fascinating 2-page narrative about Ricoeur and > the structuralists out of the blue we get the conclusion: "And the power is > not in the word, but in the wording." Have I missed something? Is "wording" > ineffable? > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://home.mira.net/~andy > http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making > On 26/04/2017 7:13 AM, David Kellogg wrote: > >> I remember Paul Ricoeur. He taught at a seminary at the University of >> Chicago when I was an undergraduate. I was a member of the campus >> Spartacus >> Youth Club, and it was the only place that would allow us a public space >> for meetings. I tried to sell him a copy of "Young Spartacus" once: I >> can't >> remember if he bought it or not. But I remember him as a French gentleman, >> personally quite conservative, but not at all put off by the presence of >> a screaming red nineteen year old who for inexplicable reasons had >> a Parisian accent and spoke the argot of the Versailles banlieue. Maybe he >> bought our French paper, Le Bolchevik. >> >> I have been reading a symposium "On Narrative" that was going on at UC >> when >> I was organizing against Milton Friedman's Nobel Prize (he was also a >> professor there at the time--he won the prize the same year that Saul >> Bellow, another UC professor, did). Ricoeur, Derrida, and Hayden White all >> took part. >> >> It was the heyday of structuralism, and Ricoeur's contribution is >> interesting because it's quite ANTI-structuralist: he points out that the >> effect of structuralism on narrative studies has been to de-historicize, >> de-memorize, dehumanize; to convert stories into exchange values rather >> than use values. So the elements that Propp discovers in Ludmilla and >> Ruslan (and the Firebird and its variants) can come in any order. In >> contrast, even the simplest act of repetition is historicized, humanized, >> and memorable. A use value and not an exchange value. >> >> Derrida ignores everybody else and embarks on his usual verbal >> pyrotechnics, but Hayden White develops Ricoeur's idea in a way I think I >> actually used in my "Thinking of Feeling" paper: human memory goes through >> stages: medieval annals, Renaissance chronicles, and the nineteenth >> century >> narrative, each of which adds something distinctive and makes the >> meta-narrative that they form together into something non-reversible and >> developmental. But now I see that the reviewers made me remove all that >> (it >> is just as well: sociogenesis is one story and ontogenesis quite another). >> >> Ruqaiya Hasan used to say that there is a certain unity imposed on >> experience by language, from "the living of life" to the child's first >> real >> morpho-phoneme. If you take the phrase "the living of life" just as an >> example, you can see some of what Ricoeur is trying to get at. On the face >> of it, the phrase is redundant: the word "life" seems to contain >> absolutely >> nothing that isn't already there in "living". Yet "of life" must mean >> something, otherwise it would not enable us to add the specifier "the" to >> "living". >> >> I think Ricoeur would say that "life" is a kind of de-historicized, >> de-memorized, de-humanized "living", one that is turned from process into >> entity, and made synoptical, like the various retellings in different >> orders of the four Gospels. Yes, it's a powerful way of speaking, but it >> is >> powerful the way that sculpture is rather than the way that painting is. >> And the power is not in the word, but in the wording. >> >> David Kellogg >> Macquarie University >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 4:31 AM, wrote: >> >> Mike, >>> There is a particular example that occurred here when Wolff-Michael >>> referenced Ricouer?s 3 volume project exploring metaphor and narrativity >>> and their common unifying theme existing within human temporality >>> (finitude). >>> Is there an expectation for ?us? to go back and reference Ricouer?s >>> exploration of this relation in depth? Through reading and re-reading >>> these >>> works of scholarship. >>> I myself turned to the preface of Ricouer?s 3 volume exploration of this >>> particular relation, metaphor/narrativity:: Temporality. >>> >>> Without human temporality, narrativity and metaphor would not exist. >>> >>> On this listserve there was a glance or nod in Ricouer?s direction and >>> then???. >>> >>> This month we are recycling themes which already exist in the archive, >>> but >>> is this recycling just repetition,, or renovation, or innovation?. >>> >>> Peg?s metaphor of leaving loose threads for others to return to expresses >>> a temporal sense ability at odds with high impact journals. >>> >>> >>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone >>> >>> From: mike cole >>> Sent: April 25, 2017 11:02 AM >>> To: Larry Purss >>> Cc: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>> Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value' >>> >>> Right Larry. A lot of high impact journals (not all) are deeply >>> a-historical. >>> >>> When my wife and I were writing a textbook, we had, with each addition, >>> to cut out older refs. To be allow to refer to Gesell, Rousseau in a >>> serious manner was a constant battle. >>> >>> But what the heck. In a lot of classes that use the textbook, students >>> are >>> not required to remember or re-cover material from the mid-term on the >>> final exam. In a course on development in a field that makes a big deal >>> of >>> sequence and growth over time. Live for the moment, no need to know the >>> history of behavior in order to understand it. >>> >>> Yes, mediation has not gone away, despite its claimed ailments and >>> devious >>> traps. :-) >>> >>> mike >>> >>> On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 2:00 PM, wrote: >>> So... If more than 10 years old makes thinking and thought anethema WHAT >>> does that say about the scope of thinking of high impact journals? >>> >>> When returning to wording, statement, and utterance I hope we also turn >>> back to ?mediation?. >>> I have this definition of mediation to consider: (carrying across -within >>> back/forth) BOTH (giving/receiving) within a singular relation >>> This is felt differently than mediation: (carrying over to the other >>> side) >>> which may imply bridges required for joining or linking two pre-existing >>> sides (first one and then the other). >>> >>> >>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone >>> >>> From: mike cole >>> Sent: April 23, 2017 9:54 AM >>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value' >>> >>> Hi David et al -- >>> >>> Found my copy of Cole and Scribner! To my relief, it appears that >>> somewhere >>> along the way there was a misattribution of that quote you posted that >>> Hasan criticized and that I wanted to disavow (but there it was in black >>> and white!). >>> >>> So, apropos, we have a problem of context here. If you look at p. 25 of >>> Scribner and Cole, you will find that the quotation was in a paper by >>> Cole >>> and Gay (1972) (A paper on culture and memory in the American >>> Anthropologist I had did not recall the date of. If you go just one >>> sentence above the quotation you find the following: >>> >>> *For instance, one anthropologist commented, upon hearing about the >>> results >>> of our first research in this area (Gay and Cole 1967): The reasoning and >>> thinking processes of different people in different cultures don't >>> differ . >>> . . just their values, beliefs, and ways of classifying differ [personal >>> correspondence ].* >>> >>> >>> We were *contesting *this statement which was the anthropological >>> consensus >>> at the time. For those interested in our own views at the time, >>> >>> it is best to consult Chapter 8 of that book by Cole and Scribner on >>> *Culture >>> and Thought. *(Its all antiquarian stuff anyway. Its now 50 years since >>> the >>> first publication of that line of work! References more than 10 years old >>> are anethema to HIGH IMPACT journals! :-) and :-( >>> >>> >>> mike >>> >>> >>> Which takes the discussion back to the discussion of wording, stating, >>> and >>> uttering. >>> >>> On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Wolff-Michael Roth < >>> wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Julian, >>>> I suggest reading Rossi-Landi, and Italian Marxist scholar, where I have >>>> taken this: >>>> >>>> Like other products of labor, signs, words, expressions, >>>> and messages have use value in communication and are subject to >>>> exchange, >>>> distribution, and consumption; the markets within which these >>>> products circulate as commodities are linguistic communities (Rossi- >>>> Landi 1983). >>>> >>>> An appreciation of his contributions by Cianca Bianchi states: "Through >>>> >>> his >>> >>>> "homological schema", >>>> material and linguistic production are conceived to be the result of a >>>> single process >>>> that is particular to human beings and that can best be understood in >>>> >>> terms >>> >>>> of work >>>> and trade. " >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> Michael >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> -------------------- >>>> Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor >>>> Applied Cognitive Science >>>> MacLaurin Building A567 >>>> University of Victoria >>>> Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 >>>> http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth >>>> >>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >>>> >>> 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" >>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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" >>>>>> 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 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> faculty/mroth/> >>> >>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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 Ric?ur 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" >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> of >>> >>>> wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Ric?ur (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 [*?nociation*] and >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> statement [ >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *?nonc?*]." >>>>>>>>>> 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 Ric?ur 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 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> faculty/mroth/ >>>> >>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> directions-in-mat >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of- >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> mathematics/>* >>> >>>> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 10:38 PM, David Kellogg >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> From ablunden@mira.net Tue Apr 25 19:05:47 2017 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 12:05:47 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value' In-Reply-To: References: <58f4dfe0.5a45620a.c2a11.c004@mx.google.com> <58fe679e.e0096b0a.a0a68.9cf7@mx.google.com> <58ff9619.8427630a.82c24.69ee@mx.google.com> <69279808-ff88-e2a5-354a-5b699e069edb@mira.net> Message-ID: Since you answer my question with a question, I take it that the answer is "yes." Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://home.mira.net/~andy http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making On 26/04/2017 11:56 AM, David Kellogg wrote: > Andy-- > > Are "life" and "living" two different words, or are they > two different wordings of the same word? > > David Kellogg > Macquarie University > > On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Andy Blunden > > wrote: > > David, after reading this fascinating 2-page narrative > about Ricoeur and the structuralists out of the blue > we get the conclusion: "And the power is not in the > word, but in the wording." Have I missed something? Is > "wording" ineffable? > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://home.mira.net/~andy > http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making > > > On 26/04/2017 7:13 AM, David Kellogg wrote: > > I remember Paul Ricoeur. He taught at a seminary > at the University of > Chicago when I was an undergraduate. I was a > member of the campus Spartacus > Youth Club, and it was the only place that would > allow us a public space > for meetings. I tried to sell him a copy of "Young > Spartacus" once: I can't > remember if he bought it or not. But I remember > him as a French gentleman, > personally quite conservative, but not at all put > off by the presence of > a screaming red nineteen year old who for > inexplicable reasons had > a Parisian accent and spoke the argot of the > Versailles banlieue. Maybe he > bought our French paper, Le Bolchevik. > > I have been reading a symposium "On Narrative" > that was going on at UC when > I was organizing against Milton Friedman's Nobel > Prize (he was also a > professor there at the time--he won the prize the > same year that Saul > Bellow, another UC professor, did). Ricoeur, > Derrida, and Hayden White all > took part. > > It was the heyday of structuralism, and Ricoeur's > contribution is > interesting because it's quite ANTI-structuralist: > he points out that the > effect of structuralism on narrative studies has > been to de-historicize, > de-memorize, dehumanize; to convert stories into > exchange values rather > than use values. So the elements that Propp > discovers in Ludmilla and > Ruslan (and the Firebird and its variants) can > come in any order. In > contrast, even the simplest act of repetition is > historicized, humanized, > and memorable. A use value and not an exchange value. > > Derrida ignores everybody else and embarks on his > usual verbal > pyrotechnics, but Hayden White develops Ricoeur's > idea in a way I think I > actually used in my "Thinking of Feeling" paper: > human memory goes through > stages: medieval annals, Renaissance chronicles, > and the nineteenth century > narrative, each of which adds something > distinctive and makes the > meta-narrative that they form together into > something non-reversible and > developmental. But now I see that the reviewers > made me remove all that (it > is just as well: sociogenesis is one story and > ontogenesis quite another). > > Ruqaiya Hasan used to say that there is a certain > unity imposed on > experience by language, from "the living of life" > to the child's first real > morpho-phoneme. If you take the phrase "the living > of life" just as an > example, you can see some of what Ricoeur is > trying to get at. On the face > of it, the phrase is redundant: the word "life" > seems to contain absolutely > nothing that isn't already there in "living". Yet > "of life" must mean > something, otherwise it would not enable us to add > the specifier "the" to > "living". > > I think Ricoeur would say that "life" is a kind of > de-historicized, > de-memorized, de-humanized "living", one that is > turned from process into > entity, and made synoptical, like the various > retellings in different > orders of the four Gospels. Yes, it's a powerful > way of speaking, but it is > powerful the way that sculpture is rather than the > way that painting is. > And the power is not in the word, but in the wording. > > David Kellogg > Macquarie University > > > > > On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 4:31 AM, > > wrote: > > Mike, > There is a particular example that occurred > here when Wolff-Michael > referenced Ricouer?s 3 volume project > exploring metaphor and narrativity > and their common unifying theme existing > within human temporality > (finitude). > Is there an expectation for ?us? to go back > and reference Ricouer?s > exploration of this relation in depth? Through > reading and re-reading these > works of scholarship. > I myself turned to the preface of Ricouer?s 3 > volume exploration of this > particular relation, metaphor/narrativity:: > Temporality. > > Without human temporality, narrativity and > metaphor would not exist. > > On this listserve there was a glance or nod in > Ricouer?s direction and > then???. > > This month we are recycling themes which > already exist in the archive, but > is this recycling just repetition,, or > renovation, or innovation?. > > Peg?s metaphor of leaving loose threads for > others to return to expresses > a temporal sense ability at odds with high > impact journals. > > > Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > From: mike cole > Sent: April 25, 2017 11:02 AM > To: Larry Purss > Cc: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting > 'use-value' & 'value' > > Right Larry. A lot of high impact journals > (not all) are deeply > a-historical. > > When my wife and I were writing a textbook, we > had, with each addition, > to cut out older refs. To be allow to refer to > Gesell, Rousseau in a > serious manner was a constant battle. > > But what the heck. In a lot of classes that > use the textbook, students are > not required to remember or re-cover material > from the mid-term on the > final exam. In a course on development in a > field that makes a big deal of > sequence and growth over time. Live for the > moment, no need to know the > history of behavior in order to understand it. > > Yes, mediation has not gone away, despite its > claimed ailments and devious > traps. :-) > > mike > > On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 2:00 PM, > > wrote: > So... If more than 10 years old makes thinking > and thought anethema WHAT > does that say about the scope of thinking of > high impact journals? > > When returning to wording, statement, and > utterance I hope we also turn > back to ?mediation?. > I have this definition of mediation to > consider: (carrying across -within > back/forth) BOTH (giving/receiving) within a > singular relation > This is felt differently than mediation: > (carrying over to the other side) > which may imply bridges required for joining > or linking two pre-existing > sides (first one and then the other). > > > Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > From: mike cole > Sent: April 23, 2017 9:54 AM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' > & 'value' > > Hi David et al -- > > Found my copy of Cole and Scribner! To my > relief, it appears that somewhere > along the way there was a misattribution of > that quote you posted that > Hasan criticized and that I wanted to disavow > (but there it was in black > and white!). > > So, apropos, we have a problem of context > here. If you look at p. 25 of > Scribner and Cole, you will find that the > quotation was in a paper by Cole > and Gay (1972) (A paper on culture and memory > in the American > Anthropologist I had did not recall the date > of. If you go just one > sentence above the quotation you find the > following: > > *For instance, one anthropologist commented, > upon hearing about the results > of our first research in this area (Gay and > Cole 1967): The reasoning and > thinking processes of different people in > different cultures don't differ . > . . just their values, beliefs, and ways of > classifying differ [personal > correspondence ].* > > > We were *contesting *this statement which was > the anthropological consensus > at the time. For those interested in our own > views at the time, > > it is best to consult Chapter 8 of that book > by Cole and Scribner on > *Culture > and Thought. *(Its all antiquarian stuff > anyway. Its now 50 years since the > first publication of that line of work! > References more than 10 years old > are anethema to HIGH IMPACT journals! :-) > and :-( > > > mike > > > Which takes the discussion back to the > discussion of wording, stating, and > uttering. > > On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Wolff-Michael > Roth < > wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com > > wrote: > > Julian, > I suggest reading Rossi-Landi, and Italian > Marxist scholar, where I have > taken this: > > Like other products of labor, signs, > words, expressions, > and messages have use value in > communication and are subject to exchange, > distribution, and consumption; the markets > within which these > products circulate as commodities are > linguistic communities (Rossi- > Landi 1983). > > An appreciation of his contributions by > Cianca Bianchi states: "Through > > his > > "homological schema", > material and linguistic production are > conceived to be the result of a > single process > that is particular to human beings and > that can best be understood in > > terms > > of work > and trade. " > > Cheers, > > Michael > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > -------------------- > Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor > Applied Cognitive Science > MacLaurin Building A567 > University of Victoria > Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 > http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth > > > > > New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > 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" > > 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 > > > > > New book: *The Mathematics of > Mathematics > > > 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" > > 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 > > > faculty/mroth/> > > New book: *The Mathematics > of Mathematics > > > 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 Ric?ur 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" > > on behalf > > of > > wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com > > > wrote: > > Ric?ur (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 > [*?nociation*] and > > statement [ > > *?nonc?*]." > 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 Ric?ur > 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 > > > faculty/mroth/ > > New book: *The > Mathematics of > Mathematics > > > directions-in-mat > > hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of- > > mathematics/>* > > On Thu, Apr 20, > 2017 at 10:38 PM, > David Kellogg > > > > > 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 > > From dkellogg60@gmail.com Tue Apr 25 19:23:51 2017 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 12:23:51 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value' In-Reply-To: References: <58f4dfe0.5a45620a.c2a11.c004@mx.google.com> <58fe679e.e0096b0a.a0a68.9cf7@mx.google.com> <58ff9619.8427630a.82c24.69ee@mx.google.com> <69279808-ff88-e2a5-354a-5b699e069edb@mira.net> Message-ID: Sometimes the answer to a question depends on the answer to a question. Like: A: Can I have a beer? B: Are you eighteen? So if you tell me that "life" and "living" are two different words, then I will tell you that they are not ineffable: you can say for example that a "life" is an instance of "living", or perhaps that "living" is an instance of "life", and the explanation isn't circular. But if you tell me that "life" and "living" are just two different wordings of the same meaning, then I will say that word meaning is ineffable, in the sense that the only way to define it is in terms of itself. All word meanings are ineffable in this rather general sense. In order to explain them, we need other words and other word meanings. Teachers run into this problem all the time when they try to teach words with flashcards: If I am teaching the word "kick" and I have a flashcard with a foot kicking a ball, the child really doesn't know if I am teaching the meaning "foot", or "ball" or "football" or whatever. The only way to disambiguate the picture is with words, and that's true of any word meaning you care to think of. Wittgenstein has a somewhat more elaborate version of this argument, but I prefer to stick to situations I myself have experienced (meaning situations that, as Vandy says, I myself have transformed into a system of word meanings). We have a system of wordings that tends to privilege entities over processes. Halliday says that dynamism and synopticity are complementary: there isn't any sense in which "living" is somehow closer to reality than "life", and so there also isn't any sense in which one is closer to idealization than the other. Nevertheless, as Virginia Woolf knew, "Life stand still here" is a much harder trick to pull off, and it takes kids many more years to master it. David Kellogg Macquarie University On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 12:05 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: > Since you answer my question with a question, I take it that the answer is > "yes." > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://home.mira.net/~andy > http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making > On 26/04/2017 11:56 AM, David Kellogg wrote: > >> Andy-- >> >> Are "life" and "living" two different words, or are they two different >> wordings of the same word? >> >> David Kellogg >> Macquarie University >> >> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Andy Blunden > > wrote: >> >> David, after reading this fascinating 2-page narrative >> about Ricoeur and the structuralists out of the blue >> we get the conclusion: "And the power is not in the >> word, but in the wording." Have I missed something? Is >> "wording" ineffable? >> >> Andy >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> Andy Blunden >> http://home.mira.net/~andy >> http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making >> > decision-making> >> >> On 26/04/2017 7:13 AM, David Kellogg wrote: >> >> I remember Paul Ricoeur. He taught at a seminary >> at the University of >> Chicago when I was an undergraduate. I was a >> member of the campus Spartacus >> Youth Club, and it was the only place that would >> allow us a public space >> for meetings. I tried to sell him a copy of "Young >> Spartacus" once: I can't >> remember if he bought it or not. But I remember >> him as a French gentleman, >> personally quite conservative, but not at all put >> off by the presence of >> a screaming red nineteen year old who for >> inexplicable reasons had >> a Parisian accent and spoke the argot of the >> Versailles banlieue. Maybe he >> bought our French paper, Le Bolchevik. >> >> I have been reading a symposium "On Narrative" >> that was going on at UC when >> I was organizing against Milton Friedman's Nobel >> Prize (he was also a >> professor there at the time--he won the prize the >> same year that Saul >> Bellow, another UC professor, did). Ricoeur, >> Derrida, and Hayden White all >> took part. >> >> It was the heyday of structuralism, and Ricoeur's >> contribution is >> interesting because it's quite ANTI-structuralist: >> he points out that the >> effect of structuralism on narrative studies has >> been to de-historicize, >> de-memorize, dehumanize; to convert stories into >> exchange values rather >> than use values. So the elements that Propp >> discovers in Ludmilla and >> Ruslan (and the Firebird and its variants) can >> come in any order. In >> contrast, even the simplest act of repetition is >> historicized, humanized, >> and memorable. A use value and not an exchange value. >> >> Derrida ignores everybody else and embarks on his >> usual verbal >> pyrotechnics, but Hayden White develops Ricoeur's >> idea in a way I think I >> actually used in my "Thinking of Feeling" paper: >> human memory goes through >> stages: medieval annals, Renaissance chronicles, >> and the nineteenth century >> narrative, each of which adds something >> distinctive and makes the >> meta-narrative that they form together into >> something non-reversible and >> developmental. But now I see that the reviewers >> made me remove all that (it >> is just as well: sociogenesis is one story and >> ontogenesis quite another). >> >> Ruqaiya Hasan used to say that there is a certain >> unity imposed on >> experience by language, from "the living of life" >> to the child's first real >> morpho-phoneme. If you take the phrase "the living >> of life" just as an >> example, you can see some of what Ricoeur is >> trying to get at. On the face >> of it, the phrase is redundant: the word "life" >> seems to contain absolutely >> nothing that isn't already there in "living". Yet >> "of life" must mean >> something, otherwise it would not enable us to add >> the specifier "the" to >> "living". >> >> I think Ricoeur would say that "life" is a kind of >> de-historicized, >> de-memorized, de-humanized "living", one that is >> turned from process into >> entity, and made synoptical, like the various >> retellings in different >> orders of the four Gospels. Yes, it's a powerful >> way of speaking, but it is >> powerful the way that sculpture is rather than the >> way that painting is. >> And the power is not in the word, but in the wording. >> >> David Kellogg >> Macquarie University >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 4:31 AM, >> > > wrote: >> >> Mike, >> There is a particular example that occurred >> here when Wolff-Michael >> referenced Ricouer?s 3 volume project >> exploring metaphor and narrativity >> and their common unifying theme existing >> within human temporality >> (finitude). >> Is there an expectation for ?us? to go back >> and reference Ricouer?s >> exploration of this relation in depth? Through >> reading and re-reading these >> works of scholarship. >> I myself turned to the preface of Ricouer?s 3 >> volume exploration of this >> particular relation, metaphor/narrativity:: >> Temporality. >> >> Without human temporality, narrativity and >> metaphor would not exist. >> >> On this listserve there was a glance or nod in >> Ricouer?s direction and >> then???. >> >> This month we are recycling themes which >> already exist in the archive, but >> is this recycling just repetition,, or >> renovation, or innovation?. >> >> Peg?s metaphor of leaving loose threads for >> others to return to expresses >> a temporal sense ability at odds with high >> impact journals. >> >> >> Sent from my Windows 10 phone >> >> From: mike cole >> Sent: April 25, 2017 11:02 AM >> To: Larry Purss >> Cc: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting >> 'use-value' & 'value' >> >> Right Larry. A lot of high impact journals >> (not all) are deeply >> a-historical. >> >> When my wife and I were writing a textbook, we >> had, with each addition, >> to cut out older refs. To be allow to refer to >> Gesell, Rousseau in a >> serious manner was a constant battle. >> >> But what the heck. In a lot of classes that >> use the textbook, students are >> not required to remember or re-cover material >> from the mid-term on the >> final exam. In a course on development in a >> field that makes a big deal of >> sequence and growth over time. Live for the >> moment, no need to know the >> history of behavior in order to understand it. >> >> Yes, mediation has not gone away, despite its >> claimed ailments and devious >> traps. :-) >> >> mike >> >> On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 2:00 PM, >> > > wrote: >> So... If more than 10 years old makes thinking >> and thought anethema WHAT >> does that say about the scope of thinking of >> high impact journals? >> >> When returning to wording, statement, and >> utterance I hope we also turn >> back to ?mediation?. >> I have this definition of mediation to >> consider: (carrying across -within >> back/forth) BOTH (giving/receiving) within a >> singular relation >> This is felt differently than mediation: >> (carrying over to the other side) >> which may imply bridges required for joining >> or linking two pre-existing >> sides (first one and then the other). >> >> >> Sent from my Windows 10 phone >> >> From: mike cole >> Sent: April 23, 2017 9:54 AM >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' >> & 'value' >> >> Hi David et al -- >> >> Found my copy of Cole and Scribner! To my >> relief, it appears that somewhere >> along the way there was a misattribution of >> that quote you posted that >> Hasan criticized and that I wanted to disavow >> (but there it was in black >> and white!). >> >> So, apropos, we have a problem of context >> here. If you look at p. 25 of >> Scribner and Cole, you will find that the >> quotation was in a paper by Cole >> and Gay (1972) (A paper on culture and memory >> in the American >> Anthropologist I had did not recall the date >> of. If you go just one >> sentence above the quotation you find the >> following: >> >> *For instance, one anthropologist commented, >> upon hearing about the results >> of our first research in this area (Gay and >> Cole 1967): The reasoning and >> thinking processes of different people in >> different cultures don't differ . >> . . just their values, beliefs, and ways of >> classifying differ [personal >> correspondence ].* >> >> >> We were *contesting *this statement which was >> the anthropological consensus >> at the time. For those interested in our own >> views at the time, >> >> it is best to consult Chapter 8 of that book >> by Cole and Scribner on >> *Culture >> and Thought. *(Its all antiquarian stuff >> anyway. Its now 50 years since the >> first publication of that line of work! >> References more than 10 years old >> are anethema to HIGH IMPACT journals! :-) >> and :-( >> >> >> mike >> >> >> Which takes the discussion back to the >> discussion of wording, stating, and >> uttering. >> >> On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Wolff-Michael >> Roth < >> wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com >> > wrote: >> >> Julian, >> I suggest reading Rossi-Landi, and Italian >> Marxist scholar, where I have >> taken this: >> >> Like other products of labor, signs, >> words, expressions, >> and messages have use value in >> communication and are subject to exchange, >> distribution, and consumption; the markets >> within which these >> products circulate as commodities are >> linguistic communities (Rossi- >> Landi 1983). >> >> An appreciation of his contributions by >> Cianca Bianchi states: "Through >> >> his >> >> "homological schema", >> material and linguistic production are >> conceived to be the result of a >> single process >> that is particular to human beings and >> that can best be understood in >> >> terms >> >> of work >> and trade. " >> >> Cheers, >> >> Michael >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> ------------------------------ >> -------------------- >> Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor >> Applied Cognitive Science >> MacLaurin Building A567 >> University of Victoria >> Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 >> http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth >> >> > > >> >> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >> > > > >> 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" >> > >> 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 >> >> > > >> >> New book: *The Mathematics of >> Mathematics >> > om/catalogs/bookseries/new- >> > om/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" >> > >> 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 >> >> > >> faculty/mroth/> >> >> New book: *The Mathematics >> of Mathematics >> > om/catalogs/bookseries/new- >> > om/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 Ric?ur 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 >> > .ucsd.edu> >> on behalf >> >> of >> >> Wolff-Michael Roth" >> > > .ucsd.edu> >> on behalf >> >> of >> >> wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com >> > >> wrote: >> >> Ric?ur (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 >> [*?nociation*] and >> >> statement [ >> >> *?nonc?*]." >> 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 Ric?ur >> 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 >> >> > >> faculty/mroth/ >> >> New book: *The >> Mathematics of >> Mathematics >> > om/catalogs/bookseries/new- >> > om/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 >> >> > > >> >> 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" > > From lpscholar2@gmail.com Tue Apr 25 19:36:27 2017 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (lpscholar2@gmail.com) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 19:36:27 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value' In-Reply-To: References: <58f4dfe0.5a45620a.c2a11.c004@mx.google.com> <58fe679e.e0096b0a.a0a68.9cf7@mx.google.com> <58ff9619.8427630a.82c24.69ee@mx.google.com> <69279808-ff88-e2a5-354a-5b699e069edb@mira.net> Message-ID: <590007c3.4537630a.942c.b68a@mx.google.com> And then we also have ?the living word? expressing a qualia of our temporal human/ity. ?living? possibly expressing David?s ?wording?? Also we might consider ?the inner word? and this notions relation to wording. Inner as applied where? The person? The community? The singular plural? An open inquiry Sent from my Windows 10 phone From: Andy Blunden Sent: April 25, 2017 7:07 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value' Since you answer my question with a question, I take it that the answer is "yes." Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://home.mira.net/~andy http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making On 26/04/2017 11:56 AM, David Kellogg wrote: > Andy-- > > Are "life" and "living" two different words, or are they > two different wordings of the same word? > > David Kellogg > Macquarie University > > On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Andy Blunden > > wrote: > > David, after reading this fascinating 2-page narrative > about Ricoeur and the structuralists out of the blue > we get the conclusion: "And the power is not in the > word, but in the wording." Have I missed something? Is > "wording" ineffable? > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://home.mira.net/~andy > http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making > > > On 26/04/2017 7:13 AM, David Kellogg wrote: > > I remember Paul Ricoeur. He taught at a seminary > at the University of > Chicago when I was an undergraduate. I was a > member of the campus Spartacus > Youth Club, and it was the only place that would > allow us a public space > for meetings. I tried to sell him a copy of "Young > Spartacus" once: I can't > remember if he bought it or not. But I remember > him as a French gentleman, > personally quite conservative, but not at all put > off by the presence of > a screaming red nineteen year old who for > inexplicable reasons had > a Parisian accent and spoke the argot of the > Versailles banlieue. Maybe he > bought our French paper, Le Bolchevik. > > I have been reading a symposium "On Narrative" > that was going on at UC when > I was organizing against Milton Friedman's Nobel > Prize (he was also a > professor there at the time--he won the prize the > same year that Saul > Bellow, another UC professor, did). Ricoeur, > Derrida, and Hayden White all > took part. > > It was the heyday of structuralism, and Ricoeur's > contribution is > interesting because it's quite ANTI-structuralist: > he points out that the > effect of structuralism on narrative studies has > been to de-historicize, > de-memorize, dehumanize; to convert stories into > exchange values rather > than use values. So the elements that Propp > discovers in Ludmilla and > Ruslan (and the Firebird and its variants) can > come in any order. In > contrast, even the simplest act of repetition is > historicized, humanized, > and memorable. A use value and not an exchange value. > > Derrida ignores everybody else and embarks on his > usual verbal > pyrotechnics, but Hayden White develops Ricoeur's > idea in a way I think I > actually used in my "Thinking of Feeling" paper: > human memory goes through > stages: medieval annals, Renaissance chronicles, > and the nineteenth century > narrative, each of which adds something > distinctive and makes the > meta-narrative that they form together into > something non-reversible and > developmental. But now I see that the reviewers > made me remove all that (it > is just as well: sociogenesis is one story and > ontogenesis quite another). > > Ruqaiya Hasan used to say that there is a certain > unity imposed on > experience by language, from "the living of life" > to the child's first real > morpho-phoneme. If you take the phrase "the living > of life" just as an > example, you can see some of what Ricoeur is > trying to get at. On the face > of it, the phrase is redundant: the word "life" > seems to contain absolutely > nothing that isn't already there in "living". Yet > "of life" must mean > something, otherwise it would not enable us to add > the specifier "the" to > "living". > > I think Ricoeur would say that "life" is a kind of > de-historicized, > de-memorized, de-humanized "living", one that is > turned from process into > entity, and made synoptical, like the various > retellings in different > orders of the four Gospels. Yes, it's a powerful > way of speaking, but it is > powerful the way that sculpture is rather than the > way that painting is. > And the power is not in the word, but in the wording. > > David Kellogg > Macquarie University > > > > > On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 4:31 AM, > > wrote: > > Mike, > There is a particular example that occurred > here when Wolff-Michael > referenced Ricouer?s 3 volume project > exploring metaphor and narrativity > and their common unifying theme existing > within human temporality > (finitude). > Is there an expectation for ?us? to go back > and reference Ricouer?s > exploration of this relation in depth? Through > reading and re-reading these > works of scholarship. > I myself turned to the preface of Ricouer?s 3 > volume exploration of this > particular relation, metaphor/narrativity:: > Temporality. > > Without human temporality, narrativity and > metaphor would not exist. > > On this listserve there was a glance or nod in > Ricouer?s direction and > then???. > > This month we are recycling themes which > already exist in the archive, but > is this recycling just repetition,, or > renovation, or innovation?. > > Peg?s metaphor of leaving loose threads for > others to return to expresses > a temporal sense ability at odds with high > impact journals. > > > Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > From: mike cole > Sent: April 25, 2017 11:02 AM > To: Larry Purss > Cc: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting > 'use-value' & 'value' > > Right Larry. A lot of high impact journals > (not all) are deeply > a-historical. > > When my wife and I were writing a textbook, we > had, with each addition, > to cut out older refs. To be allow to refer to > Gesell, Rousseau in a > serious manner was a constant battle. > > But what the heck. In a lot of classes that > use the textbook, students are > not required to remember or re-cover material > from the mid-term on the > final exam. In a course on development in a > field that makes a big deal of > sequence and growth over time. Live for the > moment, no need to know the > history of behavior in order to understand it. > > Yes, mediation has not gone away, despite its > claimed ailments and devious > traps. :-) > > mike > > On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 2:00 PM, > > wrote: > So... If more than 10 years old makes thinking > and thought anethema WHAT > does that say about the scope of thinking of > high impact journals? > > When returning to wording, statement, and > utterance I hope we also turn > back to ?mediation?. > I have this definition of mediation to > consider: (carrying across -within > back/forth) BOTH (giving/receiving) within a > singular relation > This is felt differently than mediation: > (carrying over to the other side) > which may imply bridges required for joining > or linking two pre-existing > sides (first one and then the other). > > > Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > From: mike cole > Sent: April 23, 2017 9:54 AM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' > & 'value' > > Hi David et al -- > > Found my copy of Cole and Scribner! To my > relief, it appears that somewhere > along the way there was a misattribution of > that quote you posted that > Hasan criticized and that I wanted to disavow > (but there it was in black > and white!). > > So, apropos, we have a problem of context > here. If you look at p. 25 of > Scribner and Cole, you will find that the > quotation was in a paper by Cole > and Gay (1972) (A paper on culture and memory > in the American > Anthropologist I had did not recall the date > of. If you go just one > sentence above the quotation you find the > following: > > *For instance, one anthropologist commented, > upon hearing about the results > of our first research in this area (Gay and > Cole 1967): The reasoning and > thinking processes of different people in > different cultures don't differ . > . . just their values, beliefs, and ways of > classifying differ [personal > correspondence ].* > > > We were *contesting *this statement which was > the anthropological consensus > at the time. For those interested in our own > views at the time, > > it is best to consult Chapter 8 of that book > by Cole and Scribner on > *Culture > and Thought. *(Its all antiquarian stuff > anyway. Its now 50 years since the > first publication of that line of work! > References more than 10 years old > are anethema to HIGH IMPACT journals! :-) > and :-( > > > mike > > > Which takes the discussion back to the > discussion of wording, stating, and > uttering. > > On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Wolff-Michael > Roth < > wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com > > wrote: > > Julian, > I suggest reading Rossi-Landi, and Italian > Marxist scholar, where I have > taken this: > > Like other products of labor, signs, > words, expressions, > and messages have use value in > communication and are subject to exchange, > distribution, and consumption; the markets > within which these > products circulate as commodities are > linguistic communities (Rossi- > Landi 1983). > > An appreciation of his contributions by > Cianca Bianchi states: "Through > > his > > "homological schema", > material and linguistic production are > conceived to be the result of a > single process > that is particular to human beings and > that can best be understood in > > terms > > of work > and trade. " > > Cheers, > > Michael > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > -------------------- > Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor > Applied Cognitive Science > MacLaurin Building A567 > University of Victoria > Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 > http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth > > > > > New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > 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" > > 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 > > > > > New book: *The Mathematics of > Mathematics > > > 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" > > 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 > > > faculty/mroth/> > > New book: *The Mathematics > of Mathematics > > > 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 Ric?ur 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" > > on behalf > > of > > wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com > > > wrote: > > Ric?ur (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 > [*?nociation*] and > > statement [ > > *?nonc?*]." > 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 Ric?ur > 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 > > > faculty/mroth/ > > New book: *The > Mathematics of > Mathematics > > > directions-in-mat > > hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of- > > mathematics/>* > > On Thu, Apr 20, > 2017 at 10:38 PM, > David Kellogg > > > > > 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 > > From lpscholar2@gmail.com Wed Apr 26 07:33:01 2017 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (lpscholar2@gmail.com) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 07:33:01 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] The blow-it-all-up billionaires by Vicky Ward - The Huffington Post Message-ID: <5900afb3.dd95620a.fc515.16d8@mx.google.com> TO give one more lens or perspective on the back and forth leading to Trump?s being ?in the loop?. Extends what was offered last month on this topic. Money, Malice, Mercers: The Megadonors Who Want To Blow Up The System Even Trump isn't safe. http://highline.huffingtonpost.com/articles/en/mercers/ Sent from my Windows 10 phone From mcole@ucsd.edu Thu Apr 27 08:34:46 2017 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 15:34:46 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Fwd: Saddening, maddening and unacceptable -- but we're not surprised. In-Reply-To: <4f707d94-b617-452d-9a02-827f66c96593@xtnvmta1355.xt.local> References: <4f707d94-b617-452d-9a02-827f66c96593@xtnvmta1355.xt.local> Message-ID: Seems important to all the members of xmca Mike ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Mark Surman, Mozilla Date: Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 8:27 AM Subject: Saddening, maddening and unacceptable -- but we're not surprised. To: At stake: free speech, innovation, education and cat videos [image: Mozilla] Dear Michael, It's been a while since we've talked about net neutrality. Big things are happening in Washington right now, so let's get caught up. *Yesterday afternoon, the Federal Communications Commission's new Chairman Ajit Pai announced a proposal to gut net neutrality.* If you need a refresher on what net neutrality means, here is the John Oliver video that broke it down and then broke it out into the mainstream. [image: FCC Chairman announces plans to reverse U.S. net neutrality protections] We've got a fight on our hands if we want to protect our ability to say, watch and make what we want online without interference from corporate interests. Without this basic principle, the Internet could break down into fast lanes for the rich and slow lanes for everyone else. Two years ago, the Federal Communications Commission passed rules protecting net neutrality. A lot can change in two years. *Now, net neutrality is threatened by that same agency.* Chairman Pai is proposing to seek public comment on undoing the FCC's 2015 order, including both net neutrality rules and the clear legal authority on which they relied. That proposal will be voted on at the FCC's next meeting on May 18th. This all means that we need to act immediately and rally the millions of voices who care about the Internet to remind Chairman Pai and the FCC it is their job to protect net neutrality. And when we say rally voices, we mean VOICES. We're going old school in the battle to protect net neutrality. We're fighting to save the Internet with voicemail! *Here's what we need you to do: * 1. Pick up your phone. 2. Dial (888) 534-6762. 3. Wait for the beep. 4. When you hear that beep, start talking. Tell Chairman Pai why net neutrality is important to you.* *Need a few reminders of how net neutrality makes the Internet better? * Here you go: - *For concerned Internet users:* Net neutrality is fundamental to free speech. Without net neutrality, big companies could censor your voice and make it harder to speak up online. Net neutrality has been called the "First Amendment of the Internet." - *For web developers and small business owners:* Net neutrality is fundamental to innovation. Without net neutrality, big Internet service providers can choose which services and content load quickly, and which move at a glacial pace. That means the big guys can afford to buy their way in, while the little guys don't stand a chance. - *For teachers and students:* Net neutrality is fundamental to quality education. Without net neutrality, ISPs could block resources that compete with their own offerings, letting them choose the sources you can use for research, perhaps based on who is willing or able to pay an extra fee. - *For people who love cat videos:* Net neutrality is fundamental to a healthy Internet. Without net neutrality, ISPs could decide you watched too many cat videos in one day and throttle your Internet speeds leaving you behind on the latest Maru memes. There are a million reasons why we must protect net neutrality. Record a voicemail and give Chairman Pai yours. We'll deliver everyone's messages straight to the FCC. We plan to play them in public in advance of their big meeting in May. Thank you, Mark Surman Mozilla P.S. Can't get to a phone to leave a voicemail? Go to the FCC's comment page to send a written message to FCC Chairman Pai. * Mozilla will record your voice messages and send them in an audio file to the FCC. Messages left at this number for any other purpose will not be returned. Message content must comply with Mozilla's Conditions of Use. Do not include personal information in your voice message. Connect with us [image: Facebook] [image: Twitter] Thanks for reading! You're receiving this email because you subscribed to receive email newsletters and information from Mozilla. If you do not wish to receive these newsletters, please unsubscribe or modify your preferences . Mozilla 331 E. Evelyn Avenue Mountain View CA 94041 Read the Mozilla Privacy Notice . From lisayl@utk.edu Thu Apr 27 08:48:49 2017 From: lisayl@utk.edu (Yamagata-Lynch, Lisa (Lisa Yamagata-Lynch)) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 15:48:49 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Saddening, maddening and unacceptable -- but we're not surprised. In-Reply-To: References: <4f707d94-b617-452d-9a02-827f66c96593@xtnvmta1355.xt.local> Message-ID: Michael and others, I hope that this is ok to share to this group. My research team at the University of Tennessee have 2 articles, one that just came out and another in press about Net Neutrality and studying about it from a CHAT perspective. We had a hard time finding the right homes for these articles primarily because reviewers did not see Net Neutrality as a relevant topic in education. If the two articles are not interesting to many in this community I apologize for mass sharing. Both journals are Open Access journals. The IJQM (http://journals.sagepub.com/home/ijq) article is already free to the public as long as you are able to access the Internet, and the IRRODL (http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl) article will be free to the public as well when it comes out will be free to the public as well. We will be at the Jean Piaget Society Conference in June to present our work on this. Lisa YL Lisa Yamagata-Lynch, Associate Professor Psychology and Counseling http://www.lisayamagatalynch.net IT Online Program Coordinator http://itonline.utk.edu/ https://www.facebook.com/utkitonline http://epc.utk.edu/files/2017/01/IT-Online-Program-at-a-Glance.pdf On Apr 27, 2017, 11:37 AM -0400, mike cole , wrote: Seems important to all the members of xmca Mike ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Mark Surman, Mozilla . Mozilla 331 E. Evelyn Avenue Mountain View CA 94041 Read the Mozilla Privacy Notice References: <4f707d94-b617-452d-9a02-827f66c96593@xtnvmta1355.xt.local> Message-ID: Hi Lisa-- Thanks for sharing. Next time try MCA! :-) I will be at Piaget Society meetings, and perhaps other xmca-o-philes. I look forward to seeing you there. Seems like the wider distribution this message gets, the better. mike On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 8:48 AM, Yamagata-Lynch, Lisa (Lisa Yamagata-Lynch) wrote: > Michael and others, > > I hope that this is ok to share to this group. My research team at the > University of Tennessee have 2 articles, one that just came out and another > in press about Net Neutrality and studying about it from a CHAT > perspective. We had a hard time finding the right homes for these articles > primarily because reviewers did not see Net Neutrality as a relevant topic > in education. If the two articles are not interesting to many in this > community I apologize for mass sharing. > > Both journals are Open Access journals. The IJQM ( > http://journals.sagepub.com/home/ijq) article is already free to the > public as long as you are able to access the Internet, and the IRRODL ( > http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl) article will be free to the > public as well when it comes out will be free to the public as well. > > We will be at the Jean Piaget Society Conference in June to present our > work on this. > > Lisa YL > > > Lisa Yamagata-Lynch, Associate Professor > > Psychology and Counseling > > http://www.lisayamagatalynch.net > > IT Online Program Coordinator > > http://itonline.utk.edu/ > > https://www.facebook.com/utkitonline > > http://epc.utk.edu/files/2017/01/IT-Online-Program-at-a-Glance.pdf > > On Apr 27, 2017, 11:37 AM -0400, mike cole , wrote: > Seems important to all the members of xmca > Mike > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: Mark Surman, Mozilla Date: Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 8:27 AM > Subject: Saddening, maddening and unacceptable -- but we're not surprised. > To: > > At stake: free speech, innovation, education and cat videos > [image: Mozilla] > 20eb81ccad4a00102ee918add1f0d0125e2e99aab822844697e894d4a5f4 > 72032f33296a603e26070d > > Dear Michael, > > It's been a while since we've talked about net neutrality. Big things are > happening in Washington right now, so let's get caught up. > > *Yesterday afternoon, the Federal Communications Commission's new Chairman > Ajit Pai announced a proposal to gut net neutrality.* > > If you need a refresher on what net neutrality means, here is the John > Oliver video > 46c5cc933ccd703156df00c9d10b4302f40af4c7322049fe99cf8d7a3364 > f3d1632e9677b164ed4c2c > that broke it down and then broke it out into the mainstream. > > [image: FCC Chairman announces plans to reverse U.S. net neutrality > protections] > acb7b331f3f650a5eecfb2aa1e09257c07562a1a7ed30b69581134f678bb > f324715cf565207c03c59a > We've got a fight on our hands if we want to protect our ability to say, > watch and make what we want online without interference from corporate > interests. Without this basic principle, the Internet could break down into > fast lanes for the rich and slow lanes for everyone else. > > Two years ago, the Federal Communications Commission passed rules > protecting net neutrality. A lot can change in two years. *Now, net > neutrality is threatened by that same agency.* Chairman Pai is proposing to > seek public comment on undoing the FCC's 2015 order, including both net > neutrality rules and the clear legal authority on which they relied. That > proposal will be voted on at the FCC's next meeting on May 18th. > > This all means that we need to act immediately and rally the millions of > voices who care about the Internet to remind Chairman Pai and the FCC it is > their job to protect net neutrality. And when we say rally voices, we mean > VOICES. We're going old school in the battle to protect net neutrality. > We're fighting to save the Internet with voicemail! > > *Here's what we need you to do: * > > > 1. Pick up your phone. > 2. Dial (888) 534-6762. > 3. Wait for the beep. > 4. When you hear that beep, start talking. Tell Chairman Pai why net > neutrality is important to you.* > > > *Need a few reminders of how net neutrality makes the Internet better? * > Here you go: > > > - *For concerned Internet users:* Net neutrality is fundamental to free > speech. Without net neutrality, big companies could censor your voice and > make it harder to speak up online. Net neutrality has been called the > "First Amendment of the Internet." > - *For web developers and small business owners:* Net neutrality is > fundamental to innovation. Without net neutrality, big Internet service > providers can choose which services and content load quickly, and which > move at a glacial pace. That means the big guys can afford to buy their way > in, while the little guys don't stand a chance. > - *For teachers and students:* Net neutrality is fundamental to quality > education. Without net neutrality, ISPs could block resources that compete > with their own offerings, letting them choose the sources you can use for > research, perhaps based on who is willing or able to pay an extra fee. > - *For people who love cat videos:* Net neutrality is fundamental to a > healthy Internet. Without net neutrality, ISPs could decide you watched too > many cat videos in one day and throttle your Internet speeds leaving you > behind on the latest Maru memes. > > > There are a million reasons why we must protect net neutrality. Record a > voicemail and give Chairman Pai yours. We'll deliver everyone's messages > straight to the FCC. We plan to play them in public in advance of their big > meeting in May. > > Thank you, > > Mark Surman > Mozilla > > P.S. Can't get to a phone to leave a voicemail? Go to the FCC's comment > page > acb7b331f3f650a5eecfb2aa1e09257c07562a1a7ed30b69581134f678bb > f324715cf565207c03c59a > to send a written message to FCC Chairman Pai. > > > * Mozilla will record your voice messages and send them in an audio file to > the FCC. Messages left at this number for any other purpose will not be > returned. Message content must comply with Mozilla's Conditions of Use. > aa19cd060c519678fb63ebdcd8ea123315572e9c3f55ef6c150ac611ffa0 > 6fa2205356ab65c2abedc6 > Do not include personal information in your voice message. > > > > Connect with us > [image: Facebook] > c761c198375952b267dc48e7d038a1bb75da36fb0e573337b51a38df62f1 > bf51cbf93fda06c5f2d9a1 > [image: > Twitter] > 516b646222304295107c8fcdf90bbd328371b7b0bd980c40341062002b59 > 104d7e28d0bb0ee5ca35c6 > > Thanks for reading! > You're receiving this email because you subscribed to receive email > newsletters and information from Mozilla. If you do not wish to receive > these newsletters, please unsubscribe > ab1d83e62055a0e59f26b8ee22b96507fcc871da37d3400e6ea258178439 > af6dc2ec93f391dacd9584 > or modify your preferences > 35c0258a449e239cf8977d8fcf8efdfea3aa9a576a174b2aa313884b02d5 > ce0c0238aaaa0b1d8044fd>. > > > Mozilla > 331 E. Evelyn Avenue Mountain View CA 94041 > Read the Mozilla Privacy Notice > 8f1d6a30660c570091612d271beb1956c5b832bb820ebce84242af4e5e48 > af9064096c95b3fa1cdea6 > . > From glassman.13@osu.edu Thu Apr 27 09:21:30 2017 From: glassman.13@osu.edu (Glassman, Michael) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 16:21:30 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Saddening, maddening and unacceptable -- but we're not surprised. In-Reply-To: References: <4f707d94-b617-452d-9a02-827f66c96593@xtnvmta1355.xt.local> Message-ID: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F90EBF0DDF@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> Hi Lisa and others, The fact that educators do not see Net Neutrality as important in education is in itself sad and does not bode well for education as a field. The ideas behind Net Neutrality permeate I think the thinking of the generation that has grown up using the Web. One poignant example was when Charles Murray came to talk at Middlebury College and there were large scale protests forcing him off campus. Many tsked tsked and portrayed it as a free speech issue. Reading the words of some of the students who had protested I didn't think so, it was much closer to the idea of Net Neutrality, that each person has equal access to voice. The argument was that Murray could speak as much as he wants he just shouldn't be supported by the administration in his speaking because that gave him an unfair advantage in his voice. Why was the administration giving that advantage against the wishes of the community. Try as they might the students could not convince people who argued that all ideas should be given a platform and Murray shouldn't be denied simply could not get this wasn't a free speech issue to them, that there was a difference. I wonder if much of the same thing going on. Do people really understand the meaning of Net Neutrality and a shared online Commons that cannot really be controlled? It is often presented in terms of commerce (to be fair when Tim Wu coined the phrase he did so in terms of commerce, which was a mistake I fear, and we need to find another way to talking about it maybe). I fear that those who have found voice will see this as yet another betrayal by an older generation that does not understand them and does not care about them. The fact Lisa that you have such a hard time finding homes speaks to this as well. Do we even know what we are doing anymore? Michael -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Yamagata-Lynch, Lisa (Lisa Yamagata-Lynch) Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2017 11:49 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Saddening, maddening and unacceptable -- but we're not surprised. Michael and others, I hope that this is ok to share to this group. My research team at the University of Tennessee have 2 articles, one that just came out and another in press about Net Neutrality and studying about it from a CHAT perspective. We had a hard time finding the right homes for these articles primarily because reviewers did not see Net Neutrality as a relevant topic in education. If the two articles are not interesting to many in this community I apologize for mass sharing. Both journals are Open Access journals. The IJQM (http://journals.sagepub.com/home/ijq) article is already free to the public as long as you are able to access the Internet, and the IRRODL (http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl) article will be free to the public as well when it comes out will be free to the public as well. We will be at the Jean Piaget Society Conference in June to present our work on this. Lisa YL Lisa Yamagata-Lynch, Associate Professor Psychology and Counseling http://www.lisayamagatalynch.net IT Online Program Coordinator http://itonline.utk.edu/ https://www.facebook.com/utkitonline http://epc.utk.edu/files/2017/01/IT-Online-Program-at-a-Glance.pdf On Apr 27, 2017, 11:37 AM -0400, mike cole , wrote: Seems important to all the members of xmca Mike ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Mark Surman, Mozilla . Mozilla 331 E. Evelyn Avenue Mountain View CA 94041 Read the Mozilla Privacy Notice References: <4f707d94-b617-452d-9a02-827f66c96593@xtnvmta1355.xt.local> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F90EBF0DDF@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> Message-ID: Net Neutrality as a topic I believe is very confusing to the public, and perhaps to academics as well. It is a free speech, social justice, economic, political, technological, legal, and government issue all packaged in one, and the sound bites about it or social media posts about it in some cases are designed to throw people off track on what the point of maintaining net neutrality is all about. At the same time, in my observation the people who have the privilege to voice their concerns to the audience (like myself) speak to audiences who take net neutrality for granted like having access to water everyday. It seems to take a lot of work to help people start to see that what they take for granted is truly a privilege that can be taken away. John Oliver did great work on this through comedy letting people see what they were taking for granted. However, the people who cannot even engage in the conversation because they do not have access to quick methods for sharing their voices seem to be quietly silenced. Lisa Yamagata-Lynch, Associate Professor Psychology and Counseling http://www.lisayamagatalynch.net IT Online Program Coordinator http://itonline.utk.edu/ https://www.facebook.com/utkitonline http://epc.utk.edu/files/2017/01/IT-Online-Program-at-a-Glance.pdf On Apr 27, 2017, 12:22 PM -0400, Glassman, Michael , wrote: Hi Lisa and others, The fact that educators do not see Net Neutrality as important in education is in itself sad and does not bode well for education as a field. The ideas behind Net Neutrality permeate I think the thinking of the generation that has grown up using the Web. One poignant example was when Charles Murray came to talk at Middlebury College and there were large scale protests forcing him off campus. Many tsked tsked and portrayed it as a free speech issue. Reading the words of some of the students who had protested I didn't think so, it was much closer to the idea of Net Neutrality, that each person has equal access to voice. The argument was that Murray could speak as much as he wants he just shouldn't be supported by the administration in his speaking because that gave him an unfair advantage in his voice. Why was the administration giving that advantage against the wishes of the community. Try as they might the students could not convince people who argued that all ideas should be given a platform and Murray shouldn't be denied simply could not get this wasn't a free speech issue to them, that there was a difference. I wonder if much of the same thing going on. Do people really understand the meaning of Net Neutrality and a shared online Commons that cannot really be controlled? It is often presented in terms of commerce (to be fair when Tim Wu coined the phrase he did so in terms of commerce, which was a mistake I fear, and we need to find another way to talking about it maybe). I fear that those who have found voice will see this as yet another betrayal by an older generation that does not understand them and does not care about them. The fact Lisa that you have such a hard time finding homes speaks to this as well. Do we even know what we are doing anymore? Michael -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Yamagata-Lynch, Lisa (Lisa Yamagata-Lynch) Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2017 11:49 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity , wrote: Seems important to all the members of xmca Mike ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Mark Surman, Mozilla . Mozilla 331 E. Evelyn Avenue Mountain View CA 94041 Read the Mozilla Privacy Notice References: <4f707d94-b617-452d-9a02-827f66c96593@xtnvmta1355.xt.local> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F90EBF0DDF@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> Message-ID: One thing that we (should be) doing, Michael, is to get people actively lobbying. Its just a phone call or a click away. The wrecking machine has its hands on power. The Mozilla letter has quite explicit info on how this impacts education. Seems like with AERA going on, this would be a live issue. But........ mike On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 9:21 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > Hi Lisa and others, > > The fact that educators do not see Net Neutrality as important in > education is in itself sad and does not bode well for education as a > field. The ideas behind Net Neutrality permeate I think the thinking of > the generation that has grown up using the Web. One poignant example was > when Charles Murray came to talk at Middlebury College and there were large > scale protests forcing him off campus. Many tsked tsked and portrayed it > as a free speech issue. Reading the words of some of the students who had > protested I didn't think so, it was much closer to the idea of Net > Neutrality, that each person has equal access to voice. The argument was > that Murray could speak as much as he wants he just shouldn't be supported > by the administration in his speaking because that gave him an unfair > advantage in his voice. Why was the administration giving that advantage > against the wishes of the community. Try as they might the students could > not convince people who argued that all ideas should be given a platform > and Murray shouldn't be denied simply could not get this wasn't a free > speech issue to them, that there was a difference. I wonder if much of the > same thing going on. Do people really understand the meaning of Net > Neutrality and a shared online Commons that cannot really be controlled? It > is often presented in terms of commerce (to be fair when Tim Wu coined the > phrase he did so in terms of commerce, which was a mistake I fear, and we > need to find another way to talking about it maybe). I fear that those who > have found voice will see this as yet another betrayal by an older > generation that does not understand them and does not care about them. The > fact Lisa that you have such a hard time finding homes speaks to this as > well. Do we even know what we are doing anymore? > > Michael > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@ > mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Yamagata-Lynch, Lisa (Lisa Yamagata-Lynch) > Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2017 11:49 AM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Saddening, maddening and unacceptable -- but > we're not surprised. > > Michael and others, > > I hope that this is ok to share to this group. My research team at the > University of Tennessee have 2 articles, one that just came out and another > in press about Net Neutrality and studying about it from a CHAT > perspective. We had a hard time finding the right homes for these articles > primarily because reviewers did not see Net Neutrality as a relevant topic > in education. If the two articles are not interesting to many in this > community I apologize for mass sharing. > > Both journals are Open Access journals. The IJQM ( > http://journals.sagepub.com/home/ijq) article is already free to the > public as long as you are able to access the Internet, and the IRRODL ( > http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl) article will be free to the > public as well when it comes out will be free to the public as well. > > We will be at the Jean Piaget Society Conference in June to present our > work on this. > > Lisa YL > > > Lisa Yamagata-Lynch, Associate Professor > > Psychology and Counseling > > http://www.lisayamagatalynch.net > > IT Online Program Coordinator > > http://itonline.utk.edu/ > > https://www.facebook.com/utkitonline > > http://epc.utk.edu/files/2017/01/IT-Online-Program-at-a-Glance.pdf > > On Apr 27, 2017, 11:37 AM -0400, mike cole , wrote: > Seems important to all the members of xmca Mike > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: Mark Surman, Mozilla Date: Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 8:27 AM > Subject: Saddening, maddening and unacceptable -- but we're not surprised. > To: > > At stake: free speech, innovation, education and cat videos > [image: Mozilla] > 20eb81ccad4a00102ee918add1f0d0125e2e99aab822844697e894d4a5f4 > 72032f33296a603e26070d > > Dear Michael, > > It's been a while since we've talked about net neutrality. Big things are > happening in Washington right now, so let's get caught up. > > *Yesterday afternoon, the Federal Communications Commission's new Chairman > Ajit Pai announced a proposal to gut net neutrality.* > > If you need a refresher on what net neutrality means, here is the John > Oliver video fb70275726b78662666a979ef248dd46c5cc933ccd703156df00c9d10b43 > 02f40af4c7322049fe99cf8d7a3364f3d1632e9677b164ed4c2c > that broke it down and then broke it out into the mainstream. > > [image: FCC Chairman announces plans to reverse U.S. net neutrality > protections] fb70275726b78662cfbe7534a95d55acb7b331f3f650a5eecfb2aa1e0925 > 7c07562a1a7ed30b69581134f678bbf324715cf565207c03c59a > We've got a fight on our hands if we want to protect our ability to say, > watch and make what we want online without interference from corporate > interests. Without this basic principle, the Internet could break down into > fast lanes for the rich and slow lanes for everyone else. > > Two years ago, the Federal Communications Commission passed rules > protecting net neutrality. A lot can change in two years. *Now, net > neutrality is threatened by that same agency.* Chairman Pai is proposing to > seek public comment on undoing the FCC's 2015 order, including both net > neutrality rules and the clear legal authority on which they relied. That > proposal will be voted on at the FCC's next meeting on May 18th. > > This all means that we need to act immediately and rally the millions of > voices who care about the Internet to remind Chairman Pai and the FCC it is > their job to protect net neutrality. And when we say rally voices, we mean > VOICES. We're going old school in the battle to protect net neutrality. > We're fighting to save the Internet with voicemail! > > *Here's what we need you to do: * > > > 1. Pick up your phone. > 2. Dial (888) 534-6762. > 3. Wait for the beep. > 4. When you hear that beep, start talking. Tell Chairman Pai why net > neutrality is important to you.* > > > *Need a few reminders of how net neutrality makes the Internet better? * > Here you go: > > > - *For concerned Internet users:* Net neutrality is fundamental to free > speech. Without net neutrality, big companies could censor your voice and > make it harder to speak up online. Net neutrality has been called the > "First Amendment of the Internet." > - *For web developers and small business owners:* Net neutrality is > fundamental to innovation. Without net neutrality, big Internet service > providers can choose which services and content load quickly, and which > move at a glacial pace. That means the big guys can afford to buy their way > in, while the little guys don't stand a chance. > - *For teachers and students:* Net neutrality is fundamental to quality > education. Without net neutrality, ISPs could block resources that compete > with their own offerings, letting them choose the sources you can use for > research, perhaps based on who is willing or able to pay an extra fee. > - *For people who love cat videos:* Net neutrality is fundamental to a > healthy Internet. Without net neutrality, ISPs could decide you watched too > many cat videos in one day and throttle your Internet speeds leaving you > behind on the latest Maru memes. > > > There are a million reasons why we must protect net neutrality. Record a > voicemail and give Chairman Pai yours. We'll deliver everyone's messages > straight to the FCC. We plan to play them in public in advance of their big > meeting in May. > > Thank you, > > Mark Surman > Mozilla > > P.S. Can't get to a phone to leave a voicemail? Go to the FCC's comment > page acb7b331f3f650a5eecfb2aa1e09257c07562a1a7ed30b69581134f678bb > f324715cf565207c03c59a > to send a written message to FCC Chairman Pai. > > > * Mozilla will record your voice messages and send them in an audio file > to the FCC. Messages left at this number for any other purpose will not be > returned. Message content must comply with Mozilla's Conditions of Use. > aa19cd060c519678fb63ebdcd8ea123315572e9c3f55ef6c150ac611ffa0 > 6fa2205356ab65c2abedc6 > Do not include personal information in your voice message. > > > > Connect with us > [image: Facebook] > c761c198375952b267dc48e7d038a1bb75da36fb0e573337b51a38df62f1 > bf51cbf93fda06c5f2d9a1 > [image: > Twitter] > 516b646222304295107c8fcdf90bbd328371b7b0bd980c40341062002b59 > 104d7e28d0bb0ee5ca35c6 > > Thanks for reading! > You're receiving this email because you subscribed to receive email > newsletters and information from Mozilla. If you do not wish to receive > these newsletters, please unsubscribe > ab1d83e62055a0e59f26b8ee22b96507fcc871da37d3400e6ea258178439 > af6dc2ec93f391dacd9584 > or modify your preferences > 35c0258a449e239cf8977d8fcf8efdfea3aa9a576a174b2aa313884b02d5 > ce0c0238aaaa0b1d8044fd>. > > > Mozilla > 331 E. Evelyn Avenue Mountain View CA 94041 Read the Mozilla Privacy Notice > 8f1d6a30660c570091612d271beb1956c5b832bb820ebce84242af4e5e48 > af9064096c95b3fa1cdea6 > . > > From glassman.13@osu.edu Thu Apr 27 09:51:03 2017 From: glassman.13@osu.edu (Glassman, Michael) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 16:51:03 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Saddening, maddening and unacceptable -- but we're not surprised. In-Reply-To: References: <4f707d94-b617-452d-9a02-827f66c96593@xtnvmta1355.xt.local> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F90EBF0DDF@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> Message-ID: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F90EBF0E1F@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> Hi Lisa I agree with much of what you said, except I think it's better to think of Net Neutrality as a right rather than a privilege. That I think is what the early developers and the Net and Web had in mind I think. They wanted to establish access to be like water, as you said. You can talk about taking away a privilege, but crushing a right is a little different I think. But you are right, we don't recognize it because it has always been there for us and because people obfuscate it. Michael -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Yamagata-Lynch, Lisa (Lisa Yamagata-Lynch) Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2017 12:40 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Saddening, maddening and unacceptable -- but we're not surprised. Net Neutrality as a topic I believe is very confusing to the public, and perhaps to academics as well. It is a free speech, social justice, economic, political, technological, legal, and government issue all packaged in one, and the sound bites about it or social media posts about it in some cases are designed to throw people off track on what the point of maintaining net neutrality is all about. At the same time, in my observation the people who have the privilege to voice their concerns to the audience (like myself) speak to audiences who take net neutrality for granted like having access to water everyday. It seems to take a lot of work to help people start to see that what they take for granted is truly a privilege that can be taken away. John Oliver did great work on this through comedy letting people see what they were taking for granted. However, the people who cannot even engage in the conversation because they do not have access to quick methods for sharing their voices seem to be quietly silenced. Lisa Yamagata-Lynch, Associate Professor Psychology and Counseling http://www.lisayamagatalynch.net IT Online Program Coordinator http://itonline.utk.edu/ https://www.facebook.com/utkitonline http://epc.utk.edu/files/2017/01/IT-Online-Program-at-a-Glance.pdf On Apr 27, 2017, 12:22 PM -0400, Glassman, Michael , wrote: Hi Lisa and others, The fact that educators do not see Net Neutrality as important in education is in itself sad and does not bode well for education as a field. The ideas behind Net Neutrality permeate I think the thinking of the generation that has grown up using the Web. One poignant example was when Charles Murray came to talk at Middlebury College and there were large scale protests forcing him off campus. Many tsked tsked and portrayed it as a free speech issue. Reading the words of some of the students who had protested I didn't think so, it was much closer to the idea of Net Neutrality, that each person has equal access to voice. The argument was that Murray could speak as much as he wants he just shouldn't be supported by the administration in his speaking because that gave him an unfair advantage in his voice. Why was the administration giving that advantage against the wishes of the community. Try as they might the students could not convince people who argued that all ideas should be given a platform and Murray shouldn't be denied simply could not get this wasn't a free speech issue to them, that there was a difference. I wonder if much of the same thing going on. Do people really understand the meaning of Net Neutrality and a shared online Commons that cannot really be controlled? It is often presented in terms of commerce (to be fair when Tim Wu coined the phrase he did so in terms of commerce, which was a mistake I fear, and we need to find another way to talking about it maybe). I fear that those who have found voice will see this as yet another betrayal by an older generation that does not understand them and does not care about them. The fact Lisa that you have such a hard time finding homes speaks to this as well. Do we even know what we are doing anymore? Michael -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Yamagata-Lynch, Lisa (Lisa Yamagata-Lynch) Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2017 11:49 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity , wrote: Seems important to all the members of xmca Mike ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Mark Surman, Mozilla . Mozilla 331 E. Evelyn Avenue Mountain View CA 94041 Read the Mozilla Privacy Notice References: <4f707d94-b617-452d-9a02-827f66c96593@xtnvmta1355.xt.local> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F90EBF0DDF@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F90EBF0E1F@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> Message-ID: Michael, Thank you for bringing up the point about right and privilege. I agree on your distinction, I agree that when the Internet was originally created and not accessible to all the push was for access to be a right for all. This is just something to think about, I agree that we all have the right to access information, services, and experiences through net neutrality, but somehow once in my mind when that right was extended to a wide audience where now the Internet has become a part of our every day life (something close to what Obama stated while he was president), and yet there are people systematically being disadvantaged from that right because Internet Service Providers (ISP) decided to not extend any services to regions often rural with lower population because it economically does not make sense, and also the same Internet Service Providers will not allow local government entities to lay down high speed Internet infrastructure, then the right for all seem to have become a privilege not extended for all. After saying all of that, I want to make sure not to make ISPs into villains. That is too simple of a way to look at it. Historically, the US government wanted to provide a lucrative business opportunity to ISPs because the government was not going to lay down the infrastructure for the Information Super Highway and instead created a business environments where cable companies would want to take that expense on their own. That was a stream of consciousness?. Lisa Yamagata-Lynch, Associate Professor Psychology and Counseling http://www.lisayamagatalynch.net IT Online Program Coordinator http://itonline.utk.edu/ https://www.facebook.com/utkitonline http://epc.utk.edu/files/2017/01/IT-Online-Program-at-a-Glance.pdf On Apr 27, 2017, 12:52 PM -0400, Glassman, Michael , wrote: Hi Lisa I agree with much of what you said, except I think it's better to think of Net Neutrality as a right rather than a privilege. That I think is what the early developers and the Net and Web had in mind I think. They wanted to establish access to be like water, as you said. You can talk about taking away a privilege, but crushing a right is a little different I think. But you are right, we don't recognize it because it has always been there for us and because people obfuscate it. Michael -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Yamagata-Lynch, Lisa (Lisa Yamagata-Lynch) Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2017 12:40 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity , wrote: Hi Lisa and others, The fact that educators do not see Net Neutrality as important in education is in itself sad and does not bode well for education as a field. The ideas behind Net Neutrality permeate I think the thinking of the generation that has grown up using the Web. One poignant example was when Charles Murray came to talk at Middlebury College and there were large scale protests forcing him off campus. Many tsked tsked and portrayed it as a free speech issue. Reading the words of some of the students who had protested I didn't think so, it was much closer to the idea of Net Neutrality, that each person has equal access to voice. The argument was that Murray could speak as much as he wants he just shouldn't be supported by the administration in his speaking because that gave him an unfair advantage in his voice. Why was the administration giving that advantage against the wishes of the community. Try as they might the students could not convince people who argued that all ideas should be given a platform and Murray shouldn't be denied simply could not get this wasn't a free speech issue to them, that there was a difference. I wonder if much of the same thing going on. Do people really understand the meaning of Net Neutrality and a shared online Commons that cannot really be controlled? It is often presented in terms of commerce (to be fair when Tim Wu coined the phrase he did so in terms of commerce, which was a mistake I fear, and we need to find another way to talking about it maybe). I fear that those who have found voice will see this as yet another betrayal by an older generation that does not understand them and does not care about them. The fact Lisa that you have such a hard time finding homes speaks to this as well. Do we even know what we are doing anymore? Michael -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Yamagata-Lynch, Lisa (Lisa Yamagata-Lynch) Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2017 11:49 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity , wrote: Seems important to all the members of xmca Mike ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Mark Surman, Mozilla . Mozilla 331 E. Evelyn Avenue Mountain View CA 94041 Read the Mozilla Privacy Notice References: <4f707d94-b617-452d-9a02-827f66c96593@xtnvmta1355.xt.local> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F90EBF0DDF@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F90EBF0E1F@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> Message-ID: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F90EBF1E4F@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> Hi Lisa, Great post. But I have absolutely no trouble turning isp's into villains. Their privilege was based on a report to Congress and they were created because the scientists who wrote it were afraid the government would take money away from science. An incredibly short sighted decision. The isps have done so much damage concerning broad band access and pricing, even though they were basically given the ability to print money. The early television networks were much more responsible, although that has changed. There are othere villains for sure, but for me isps are right at the top of the list. Michael -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Yamagata-Lynch, Lisa (Lisa Yamagata-Lynch) Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2017 1:00 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Saddening, maddening and unacceptable -- but we're not surprised. Michael, Thank you for bringing up the point about right and privilege. I agree on your distinction, I agree that when the Internet was originally created and not accessible to all the push was for access to be a right for all. This is just something to think about, I agree that we all have the right to access information, services, and experiences through net neutrality, but somehow once in my mind when that right was extended to a wide audience where now the Internet has become a part of our every day life (something close to what Obama stated while he was president), and yet there are people systematically being disadvantaged from that right because Internet Service Providers (ISP) decided to not extend any services to regions often rural with lower population because it economically does not make sense, and also the same Internet Service Providers will not allow local government entities to lay down high speed Internet infrastructure, then the right for all seem to have become a privilege not extended for all. After saying all of that, I want to make sure not to make ISPs into villains. That is too simple of a way to look at it. Historically, the US government wanted to provide a lucrative business opportunity to ISPs because the government was not going to lay down the infrastructure for the Information Super Highway and instead created a business environments where cable companies would want to take that expense on their own. That was a stream of consciousness?. Lisa Yamagata-Lynch, Associate Professor Psychology and Counseling http://www.lisayamagatalynch.net IT Online Program Coordinator http://itonline.utk.edu/ https://www.facebook.com/utkitonline http://epc.utk.edu/files/2017/01/IT-Online-Program-at-a-Glance.pdf On Apr 27, 2017, 12:52 PM -0400, Glassman, Michael , wrote: Hi Lisa I agree with much of what you said, except I think it's better to think of Net Neutrality as a right rather than a privilege. That I think is what the early developers and the Net and Web had in mind I think. They wanted to establish access to be like water, as you said. You can talk about taking away a privilege, but crushing a right is a little different I think. But you are right, we don't recognize it because it has always been there for us and because people obfuscate it. Michael -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Yamagata-Lynch, Lisa (Lisa Yamagata-Lynch) Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2017 12:40 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity , wrote: Hi Lisa and others, The fact that educators do not see Net Neutrality as important in education is in itself sad and does not bode well for education as a field. The ideas behind Net Neutrality permeate I think the thinking of the generation that has grown up using the Web. One poignant example was when Charles Murray came to talk at Middlebury College and there were large scale protests forcing him off campus. Many tsked tsked and portrayed it as a free speech issue. Reading the words of some of the students who had protested I didn't think so, it was much closer to the idea of Net Neutrality, that each person has equal access to voice. The argument was that Murray could speak as much as he wants he just shouldn't be supported by the administration in his speaking because that gave him an unfair advantage in his voice. Why was the administration giving that advantage against the wishes of the community. Try as they might the students could not convince people who argued that all ideas should be given a platform and Murray shouldn't be denied simply could not get this wasn't a free speech issue to them, that there was a difference. I wonder if much of the same thing going on. Do people really understand the meaning of Net Neutrality and a shared online Commons that cannot really be controlled? It is often presented in terms of commerce (to be fair when Tim Wu coined the phrase he did so in terms of commerce, which was a mistake I fear, and we need to find another way to talking about it maybe). I fear that those who have found voice will see this as yet another betrayal by an older generation that does not understand them and does not care about them. The fact Lisa that you have such a hard time finding homes speaks to this as well. Do we even know what we are doing anymore? Michael -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Yamagata-Lynch, Lisa (Lisa Yamagata-Lynch) Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2017 11:49 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity , wrote: Seems important to all the members of xmca Mike ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Mark Surman, Mozilla . Mozilla 331 E. Evelyn Avenue Mountain View CA 94041 Read the Mozilla Privacy Notice References: <0OP30021S1I7E0@smtp-prod-01.cssd.pitt.edu> Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, See our call for papers and projects below. Ana Ana Marjanovic-Shane Deputy Editor-in-Chief, Dialogic Pedagogy Journal Associate Professor of Education Chestnut Hill College anamshane@gmail.com shaneam@chc.edu 267-334-2905 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Eugene Matusov Date: Apr 27, 2017, 3:15 PM -0400 To: Ana Marjanovic-Shane Subject: [DPJ] 2017 Call for papers and projects > Dialogic Pedagogy: An International Online Journal http://dpj.pitt.edu ISSN 2325-3290 (online) > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > CALL FOR PAPERS: > > Dear colleagues? > > Dialogic Pedagogy Journal (DPJ) is happy to announce a call for 2017 submission of manuscripts. > > DPJ is an international, online, Open Access, free publication, peer-reviewed, academic journal. The targeted audience of the DPJ is educational researchers and innovative educators interested in broadly defined field and practice of Dialogic Pedagogy. Our journal is indexed in many national and international academic databases. > > I. Deciding if your work should be published by the Dialogic Pedagogy International Online Journal > > The purpose of DPJ is to advance international scholarship and pedagogical practice in the area of dialogic pedagogy and education. The journal is multidisciplinary, international, multi-paradigmatic, and multicultural in scope, accepting manuscripts from any scholars and practitioners interested in the dialogic nature of education, teaching, and learning in various formal institutional and informal settings. We encourage any research scholars and practitioners with an interest in dialogue and pedagogy to submit articles for editorial consideration. We loosely define 'dialogic pedagogy' as any scholarship and pedagogical practice, from educational researchers and practitioners, which values and gives priority to 'dialogue' in learning/teaching across a wide range of institutional and non-institutional learning settings". To make a decision about publishing with DPJ, please take your time to evaluate whether or not your manuscript is suitable for the DPJ and the community behind the journal based on the description of the journal?s Focus and Scope . If you are not sure and have questions regarding the journal's aims and scope, we urge you to write to the Main Journal Editors with your questions. > > II. Genres of publications > > DPJ welcomes submissions of manuscripts and multimedia of diverse genres, formats, lengths, and styles. The main peer-reviewed genres of publications are the following: > > The main peer-reviewed genres involve purely or mixed conceptual, empirical, and/or methodological papers > > a) Ethnographic and empirical research with conceptual analysis and "thick descriptions"; > b) Description of and reflection on innovative dialogic educational practices; > c) ?Special issue? ? collection of thematically related papers; > d) Theoretical papers; > > The main non-peer reviewed genres of publication are the following: > > a) Video/audio recorded or transcripts of innovative dialogic educational practices with possibility of fragment-by-fragment analysis of records and their discussions; > b) Invited commentaries on published articles (both impressionistic and focused); > c) Critical book reviews (invited or volunteered); > d) Manuscript work in progress for critical, supportive, non-judgmental peer feedback; > e) Reports about relevant projects and conferences; > f) Announcements relevant to the field of Dialogic Pedagogy or DPJ; > g) Translations of work published in other than English languages; > h) Interviews. > > III. Your next steps > If you plan to submit your manuscript(s) in 2017, please reply to this email and provide to us with the following information: > 1) Tentative title of your paper; > 2) Genre (as listed above or proposed new one); > 3) Tentative list of the authors; > 4) Tentative date of submission. > > For more info about submission, please, see Author Guidelines . > > If you want to submit your manuscript(s) immediately, please go to http://dpj.pitt.edu/ojs/index.php/dpj1/information/authors (it requires registration). > > Also, please, contact us if you have ideas for a special issue or a special project. > > Let us know if you have questions, concerns, suggestions, and/or proposals. Please pass this email to your colleagues who may be interested. > > Sincerely, > > Eugene Matusov, Editor-in-Chief, USA > Ana Marjanovic-Shane, Deputy Editor-in-Chief, USA > Sue Brindley, Deputy Editor-in-Chief, UK > Jim Cresswell, Deputy Editor-in-Chief, Canada > ---------------------------- > Eugene Matusov, PhD > Editor-in-Chief, Dialogic Pedagogy Journal Professor of Education > School of Education > 16 W Main st > University of Delaware > Newark, DE 19716, USA > > Publications: http://ematusov.soe.udel.edu/vita/publications.htm > DiaPed: http://diaped.soe.udel.edu ---------------------------- > ________________________________________________________________________ > Dialogic Pedagogy: An International Online Journal > http://dpj.pitt.edu/ From lpscholar2@gmail.com Sat Apr 29 09:26:04 2017 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (lpscholar2@gmail.com) Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2017 09:26:04 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Peter Jones channeling Herbert Clark & Roy Harris Message-ID: <5904beb4.09c0620a.b8fd0.9886@mx.google.com> This may be considered an extension of the topic (use value) and (exchange value)?? Via another variform Haydi indicated Peter Jones may have something to add via Roy Harris. So I googled (Roy Harris + Peter Jones) and was taken to Peter?s article: (?Coordination? ? Herbert H Clark - , ?Integration? ? Roy Harris -, and the foundations of communication theory: Common ground or competing visions?) I would attach a copy but it is only available for users to download one copy. Others may get their own copy. On page 7 Peter says Clark first used the language of ?intentionality? but subsequently moved away from commitments to intentionality and renovates his position. (what the speaker means) is renovated towards (what the speaker is to be TAKEN to mean). This is a fascinating article. Thanks Haydi, for leading me in this direction Sent from my Windows 10 phone From dkellogg60@gmail.com Sun Apr 30 23:43:47 2017 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Mon, 1 May 2017 16:43:47 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] The Stuff of Words Message-ID: Gordon Wells quotes this from an article Mike wrote in a Festschrift for George Miller. Mike is talking about artefacts: "They are ideal in that they contain in coded form the interactions of which they were previously a part and which they mediate in the present (e.g., the structure of a pencil carries within it the history of certain forms of writing). They are material in that they are embodied in material artifacts. This principle applies with equal force whether one is considering language/speech or the more usually noted forms of artifacts such as tables and knives which constitute material culture. What differentiates a word, such as ?language? from, say, a table. is the relative prominence of their material and ideal aspects. No word exists apart from its material instantiation (as a configuration of sound waves, or hand movements, or as writing, or as neuronal activity), whereas every table embodies an order imposed by thinking human beings." This is the kind of thing that regularly gets me thrown out of journals by the ear. Mike says that the difference between a word and a table is the relative salience of the ideal and the material. Sure--words are full of the ideal, and tables are full of material. Right? Nope. Mike says it's the other way around. Why? Well, because a word without some word-stuff (sound or graphite) just isn't a word. In a word, meaning is solidary with material sounding: change one, and you change the other. But with a table, what you start with is the idea of the table; as soon as you've got that idea, you've got a table. You could change the material to anything and you'd still have a table. Wells doesn't throw Mike out by the ear. But he does ignore the delightful perversity in what Mike is saying, and what he gets out of the quote is just that words are really just like tools. When in fact Mike is saying just the opposite. (The part I don't get is Mike's notion that the structure of a pencil carries within it the history of certain forms of writing. Does he mean that the length of the pencil reflects how often it's been used? Or is he making a more archaeological point about graphite, wood, rubber and their relationship to a certain point in the history of writing and erasing? Actually, pencils are more like tables than like words--the idea has to come first.) David Kellogg Macquarie University From ablunden@mira.net Sun Apr 30 23:58:12 2017 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Mon, 1 May 2017 16:58:12 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Stuff of Words In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: And tables carry with them the practice of eating "at table" and meeting a the board room table etc., it not that the table carries the idea of table but is the bearer of practices, which have refined the size and shape of tables for eating, talking, etc. LIkewise pencils are for cursive writing on paper. not scratching hieroglyphics into clay. Great quote from Mike! There is a LOT of resistance to this idea ... everywhere. It smells of Marxism. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://home.mira.net/~andy http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making On 1/05/2017 4:43 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > Gordon Wells quotes this from an article Mike wrote in a Festschrift for > George Miller. Mike is talking about artefacts: > > "They are ideal in that they contain in coded form the interactions of > which they > were previously a part and which they mediate in the present (e.g., the > structure of > a pencil carries within it the history of certain forms of writing). They > are material > in that they are embodied in material artifacts. This principle applies > with equal > force whether one is considering language/speech or the more usually noted > forms > of artifacts such as tables and knives which constitute material culture. > What > differentiates a word, such as ?language? from, say, a table. is the > relative prominence > of their material and ideal aspects. No word exists apart from its material > instantiation (as a configuration of sound waves, or hand movements, or as > writing, > or as neuronal activity), whereas every table embodies an order imposed by > thinking > human beings." > > This is the kind of thing that regularly gets me thrown out of journals by > the ear. Mike says that the difference between a word and a table is the > relative salience of the ideal and the material. Sure--words are full of > the ideal, and tables are full of material. Right? > > Nope. Mike says it's the other way around. Why? Well, because a word > without some word-stuff (sound or graphite) just isn't a word. In a > word, meaning is solidary with material sounding: change one, and you > change the other. But with a table, what you start with is the idea of the > table; as soon as you've got that idea, you've got a table. You could > change the material to anything and you'd still have a table. > > Wells doesn't throw Mike out by the ear. But he does ignore the delightful > perversity in what Mike is saying, and what he gets out of the quote is > just that words are really just like tools. When in fact Mike is saying > just the opposite. > > (The part I don't get is Mike's notion that the structure of a pencil > carries within it the history of certain forms of writing. Does he mean > that the length of the pencil reflects how often it's been used? Or is he > making a more archaeological point about graphite, wood, rubber and their > relationship to a certain point in the history of writing and erasing? > Actually, pencils are more like tables than like words--the idea has to > come first.) > > David Kellogg > Macquarie University > >