The one area where I see the value/use value equivalent is in the use
of language to articulate myself and in the articulation do double
Language as the sign more generally appears to me like the commodity.
As Peirce showed, no sign can actually achieve what it is intended for,
namely the reference--this is also Derrida's position in my reading.
Therefore, the relationship between reference and sign is continuously
elaborated, a process semioticians call semiosis, which is an unlimited
process. Don Cunningham has probably more to say on this. However many
interpretants you generate, that is, how ever many interpretant-sign
relationships, you can never achieve or reach the promise of the sign.
So you get development because each new interpretant not only
elaborates the sign but also all previous interpretant sign
As to the proximal and distal contradictions, Holzkamp suggests that
the individual probably sees/experiences the proximal contradictions,
but that these may have their causes in distal (systemic)
contradictions; but these (see Davydov) are not given to the individual
at first sight, they need to be critically analyzed. It is only by
addressing the systemic contradictions that the individual can make
lasting change. Removal of proximal contradictions may just deal with
I think that in the work of Ole Dreier and others from the Berlin
school, there are some examples of counseling work where this
distinction is worked out. At least, I vaguely remember in one of his
(subsequently published) talks, Holzkamp uses an example from Ole or
I think Marx said that Identity is continuously made and remade--I
show in a new chapter how this is the case and how emotion is part of
the equation drawing on an ethnography in a hatchery--I will send it to
any interested person.
On 24-Sep-04, at 11:23 AM, Mike Cole wrote:
> Why people do things. Reading and re-reading about Critobal and Ya-meer
> and listening to the voices in this discussion, I am trying to think
> the dynamics of change and, if not "causes," then pivotal events. I am
> also trying to think about proximal causes, Holzkamp/Roth point versus
> more distal contradictions (use value/exchange value) vis a vis
> identitities and change.
> The other side of the coin from conflict is coordination. There is
> intense positive, emotional impact of coordination, "flow," which in
> case appears to hinge upon respect. Respect.grade.self understanding.
> understanding of other cumulate in identities?
> Gotta run, but there is a lot to think about here. Food for the mind
> while my butt is on the road!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Nov 09 2004 - 11:43:04 PST