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

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



Michael

As you were - so we are entirely in disagreement, then.

For me the E-V and U-V of a dialogic exchange has nothing essentially to
do with the sensual and super sensual moments of the 'word' as per
Vygotsky. And I don't see at all how these really confer 'value' in any
Marxist sense of the term on speech/utterance (etc etc).

I am guessing that we are back with analogy of 'commodity' and 'word' in
dialogue, rather than a holistic understanding of discourse in the
totality of social-economic relations, and so we have made no progress
here.

We can take this up another time perhaps.

Julian



On 22/04/2017 19:47, "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of
Wolff-Michael Roth" <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of
wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote:

>Julian,
>E-V and U-V, but not of the kind that you are talking about, the abstract
>.
>. . You can look at it like LSV, who emphasizes that the word has a
>sensible (material) part and a supersensual (ideal) part, not in the
>abstract, but concretely realized in every exchange. Michael
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>------
>Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor
>Applied Cognitive Science
>MacLaurin Building A567
>University of Victoria
>Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2
>http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth <http://education2.uvic.ca/faculty/mroth/>
>
>New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics
><https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/new-directions-in-mat
>hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of-mathematics/>*
>
>On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 11:38 AM, Julian Williams <
>julian.williams@manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>> M.
>>
>> Um, hang on a minute - I agree with everything you said here (I
>>think..).
>>
>> So I suppose this means you agree(d) with me; een though I thought I was
>> challenging your view. I thought you were trying to find E-V and U-V in
>> the dialogue-in-itself, where I think it's value has to be understood by
>> the way it is mediated through the wider field of discourse/practice
>>(i.e.
>> In its meaning/sense in terms of the real exchanges taking place in
>> practice).
>>
>> So the point is that one can only understand the exchanges taking place
>> within the wider context- the worker exchanges 10 hours of labour for
>>the
>> commodities required to keep themselves alive for a day … but this has
>>to
>> be understood within the system that allows the capitalist to exploit
>> those 10 hours for a profit, and pay wages that do not allow the worker
>>to
>> purchase the goods they this produce (or their equivalent)…. There are
>> obvious analogies in discourse too.
>>
>> Julian
>>
>> Ps I see I have raised 'mediation' now - oops.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 22/04/2017 19:15, "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of
>> Wolff-Michael Roth" <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of
>> wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Julian,
>> >My sense is that you are referring to macro-issues, you need to stand
>> >back,
>> >abstract, and look from the outside at a system, let it unfold in
>>front of
>> >your eyes.
>> >
>> >I am concerned with the actual constitution of society in individual
>> >exchanges, actual relations between two or more people, the "ensemble"
>>of
>> >which constitutes society (Marx, Vygotsky, Leont'ev). I am thus
>>concerned
>> >with actual exchange relations, the kind Marx refers to in the first
>>100
>> >pages of das Kapital, where he has the tailor exchange a coat with the
>> >weaver receiving two yards of cloth . . . The tailor exchanges his/her
>> >cloth with others, like the farmer, for 40 bushels of grain . . .  In
>>my
>> >work, I am following them around, concerned not with "meaning" or
>>"ideal"
>> >in the abstract but as realized in every THIS occasion of a social
>> >relation.
>> >
>> >My sense is that the differences you point out (attempt to) lie
>> >there---perhaps.
>> >
>> >Michael
>> >
>> >-----------------------------------------------------------
>> ---------------
>> >------
>> >Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor
>> >Applied Cognitive Science
>> >MacLaurin Building A567
>> >University of Victoria
>> >Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2
>> >http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth <http://education2.uvic.ca/faculty/mroth/>
>> >
>> >New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics
>> ><https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/new-
>> directions-in-mat
>> >hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of-mathematics/>*
>> >
>> >On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 10:24 AM, Julian Williams <
>> >julian.williams@manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Michael
>> >>
>> >> Going back many, many posts now: almost 24 hours worth, I think.
>> >>
>> >> When I wrote this:
>> >>
>> >> 'Thus, I suggest, the 'exchange/use value' of an utterance/dialogic
>> >> exchange maybe ought to be examined in the ideological context of its
>> >> relationship with the 'whole' of social re/production where class
>>power
>> >> becomes visible. I don't know how to do this, but the argument is
>>there
>> >>in
>> >> Bourdieu: the power relations between people are part of the
>> >> capital-mediated structure of relations in a field (including the
>>field
>> >>of
>> >> opinion/discourse), and this explains the forms of discourse that
>> >>express
>> >> these power relationships and help to hold powerful positions in
>>place
>> >>in
>> >> the field. In this view it is not possible to identify the 'value'
>>of an
>> >> utterance or a sign outside of this wider analysis… and an analysis
>>of
>> >>the
>> >> particular discursive/cultural field within its wider sociality.'
>> >>
>> >> The sort of thing I had in mind was this 'word/utterance/statement'
>>of
>> >> yours (I care not at the moment which of these is chosen - in this
>> >>context
>> >> I am not clear it matters, though I recognise that every work was
>>once
>> >>an
>> >> utterance and a speech act… and that parsing into words is a
>>relatively
>> >> recent cultural artifice):
>> >>
>> >> '…. My personal inclination would be to take Ricœur as more
>> >>authoritative
>> >> on the subject than any or most of us' (see below)
>> >>
>> >> I think the 'value' (i.e. exchange value) of this statement of yours
>>in
>> >>my
>> >> frame has to be understood in the context of its function/workthe
>> >> academic field (or this section of it), how power is exerted here
>> >>through
>> >> reference to 'authorities' like Ricoeur (NB not just 'authors' like
>>the
>> >> rest of us? ), whether this is really useful in helping the
>>community to
>> >> progress its understanding of the issue for practical purposes (e.g.
>>How
>> >> many of the readers of this post have seriously read Ricoeur enough
>>to
>> >>get
>> >> the point?).
>> >>
>> >> How our community of discourse comes to be structured so that power
>> >> 'works' like this - that is a wider issue - and  here it does get
>>hard
>> >>for
>> >> us academics to see ourselves as we perhaps could or should be seen.
>> >>
>> >> Michael: I hope you don't take this cheeky affront too personally: I
>> >>could
>> >> do the same to most of the posts that one reads on xmca, and probably
>> >>my
>> >> own-  I don't mean to suggest that they have no use-value, and
>>certainly
>> >> not that the collective dialogue has no use value. Yet still… we
>>should
>> >> recognise that there is a power game in this field of
>>discourse/opinion,
>> >> if we are to understand one another well. It may even be argued (with
>> >>some
>> >> merit?) that a quote appealing to Marx - or even Ricoeur - has some
>>use
>> >>as
>> >> well as exchange value (or lets say merit) in linking ideas to a
>>body of
>> >> previous revolutionary work.
>> >>
>> >> Hugs!
>> >>
>> >> Julian
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On 21/04/2017 16:53, "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of
>> >> Wolff-Michael Roth" <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of
>> >> wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Ricœur (1985), in *Time and Narrative 2*, uses the following
>> >>distinction
>> >> >for the purposes of theorizing the difference between narrated time
>>and
>> >> >time of narration. Accordingly, "narrative posses" "the remarkable
>> >> >property" "of being split into utterance [*énociation*] and
>>statement [
>> >> >*énoncé*]."
>> >> >To introduce this distinction, it suffices to recall that the
>> >> >configurating
>> >> >act presiding
>> >> >over emplotment is a judicative act, involving a "grasping
>>together."
>> >>More
>> >> >precisely, this act belongs to the family of reflective judgments.1
>>We
>> >> >have
>> >> >been
>> >> >led to say therefore that to narrate a story is already to "reflect
>> >>upon"
>> >> >the event
>> >> >narrated. For this reason, narrative "grasping together" carries
>>with
>> >>it
>> >> >the capacity
>> >> >for distancing itself from its own production and in this way
>>dividing
>> >> >itself in two. (p. 61)
>> >> >
>> >> >My personal inclination would be to take Ricœur as more
>>authoritative
>> >>on
>> >> >the subject than any or most of us.
>> >> >
>> >> >Michael
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >-----------------------------------------------------------
>> >> ---------------
>> >> >------
>> >> >Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor
>> >> >Applied Cognitive Science
>> >> >MacLaurin Building A567
>> >> >University of Victoria
>> >> >Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2
>> >> >http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth <http://education2.uvic.ca/faculty/mroth/>
>> >> >
>> >> >New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics
>> >> ><https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/new-
>> >> directions-in-mat
>> >> >hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of-mathematics/>*
>> >> >
>> >> >On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 10:38 PM, David Kellogg
>><dkellogg60@gmail.com>
>> >> >wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> I think that "statement" is too tight, and "utterance" is too
>>loose.
>> >>A
>> >> >> statement is an indicative-declarative wording of some kind: we
>>don't
>> >> >> usually refer to commands (imperatives), questions
>> >> >> (indicative-interrogatives), or exclamations as "statements"
>>because
>> >> >>their
>> >> >> primary purpose is not to state facts (that is, if there are
>>facts,
>> >>they
>> >> >> are ancillary, and not constitutive: we can have a command, a
>> >>question,
>> >> >>or
>> >> >> an exclamation without any statement of any state of affairs, e.g.
>> >>"Look
>> >> >> out!" "Why?" "Oh, no!"). So "statement" is too narrow.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> An utterance, as Bakhtin defines it, is simply the stretch of
>> >>language
>> >> >>we
>> >> >> find between two changes in speaker (this is why a book is a
>>single
>> >> >> utterance). This is an entirely descriptive unit: if I give you a
>> >>tape
>> >> >>of
>> >> >> listening test dialogues for the Test of Proficiency in Korean,
>>you
>> >> >>will be
>> >> >> able to tell me exactly how many utterances there are in each
>> >>dialogue,
>> >> >>and
>> >> >> even whether the speakers are men or women, without understanding
>> >>any of
>> >> >> the language. As a link between thinking and speech, such a unit
>>is
>> >> >>beside
>> >> >> the point. So "utterance" is too broad.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> And linking thinking and speech IS the point. I think you and
>> >>Vygotsky
>> >> >>are
>> >> >> using the word "holophrase" somewhat teleologically, like a fond,
>>but
>> >> >> expectant, grandpa. You both think that the baby who says "mama"
>> >>really
>> >> >> means a holophrase like "Mama, put me in the high chair". It's not
>> >>the
>> >> >>case
>> >> >> that "Mama" is a reduction of a full sentence (like "Fine, thanks,
>> >>and
>> >> >> you?"). It's more like the Ur Wir, or "Grandwe", the "we" that
>> >> >>pre-exists
>> >> >> "me" and "you" the way that my grandpa pre-existed me. I am also
>> >>using
>> >> >>the
>> >> >> word "wording" teleologically, you notice: "Mama" is, from the
>> >>child's
>> >> >> point of view, meaning and sounding, but not wording at all. But
>> >> >>teleology
>> >> >> is very useful here; indeed, I think that teleology in speech
>> >> >>ontogenesis
>> >> >> is a more useful principle than evolution: there is, after all, a
>> >> >>"complete
>> >> >> form" right there in the environment.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The problem with Thinking and Speech is that, unlike Capital, the
>> >>author
>> >> >> died in the middle of writing it, and it had to be eked out with
>>his
>> >>old
>> >> >> articles. So although Chapter One and Chapter Seven really do use
>> >> >>wording
>> >> >> and not word as a unit of analysis (and the "phoneme" is really
>>the
>> >> >> morpho-phoneme, e.g. a Russian case ending, something Vygotsky
>> >>probably
>> >> >> learned all about from his old professor Trubetskoy and his
>> >>classmate at
>> >> >> Moscow University Jakobson). you also have Chapter Five, which our
>> >>late,
>> >> >> beloved friend Paula Towsey loved so much.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> She had reason: Chapter Five is Vygotsky, and so it's brilliant.
>>But
>> >> >>it's
>> >> >> OLD Vygotsky, 1928-1929 Vygotsky (that was the year that
>>Trubetskoy
>> >>and
>> >> >> Jakobson left Moscow for Prague and set up the Prague Linguistic
>> >>Circle
>> >> >> which eventually became systemic-functional linguistics). Chapter
>>5
>> >> >> is based on something from the German idealist psychologists
>>Reimat
>> >>and
>> >> >> Ach, who really DID believe in one-word concepts. And so we have
>>this
>> >> >>weird
>> >> >> block-like model of word meaning. Vygotsky tries to disenchant and
>> >> >> de-fetishize the blocks by saying the concept is really the
>>process
>> >>of
>> >> >> relating the word meaning to the block, but that still means that
>>a
>> >> >>concept
>> >> >> is an abstraction and a generalization of some block-like quality.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Chapter Six is better, because here the "model" of word meaning
>>is a
>> >> >> RELATOR, like "because" or "although". Notice that these are the
>> >>kinds
>> >> >>of
>> >> >> words that preliterate children do not consider words. And in fact
>> >> >>that's
>> >> >> why Piaget got the results he did--the kids really couldn't figure
>> >>out
>> >> >>what
>> >> >> he meant when he asked them to explain what the word "because"
>>meant
>> >>in
>> >> >>a
>> >> >> particular sentence--they assumed he wanted to know what the
>>sentence
>> >> >> meant, because asking what a word like "because" means in a
>>sentence
>> >> >> without the rest of the sentence is really a little like asking if
>> >>there
>> >> >> are more white flowers or more flowers in a bouquet of red and
>>white
>> >> >> flowers. But suppose (over a period of some years) we give the kid
>> >>the
>> >> >> following
>> >> >> 
>>utterances-cum-statement/wordings-cum-wordgroup/wordings-cum-words.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> a) A rational, designed, and planned economy is possible in the
>>USSR.
>> >> >>(Why
>> >> >> is that, Teacher?) Oh, it is just because all the means of
>>production
>> >> >> belong to the workers and peasants.
>> >> >> b) Planned economy is possible in the USSR because all the means
>>of
>> >> >> production belong to the workers and peasants.
>> >> >> c) All the means of production belong to the workers and peasants
>>so
>> >> >> economic planning is possible in the USSR.
>> >> >> d) Workers and peasant's ownership of the means of production
>>means
>> >> >> socialist construction is possible.
>> >> >> e) Public ownership of production enables social construction.
>> >> >> f) the proprietary preconditions of construction
>> >> >> g) socialist property forms
>> >> >> h) socialist property
>> >> >> i) socialism
>> >> >>
>> >> >> By the time the child is the age when children beget other
>>children,
>> >> >> this child will see that the clause wording "all the means of
>> >>production
>> >> >> belong to the workers and peasants" has become a nominal group
>> >>wording
>> >> >> "public ownership", and the nominal group wording "a rational,
>> >>designed,
>> >> >> and planned economy" has become a single, block-like word
>> >>"socialism".
>> >> >>And
>> >> >> because for Vygotsky the "internal" really means the
>>psychological,
>> >> >>while
>> >> >> the "external" really just means the interpersonal, and because
>> >>wording
>> >> >>is
>> >> >> inversely proportional to the internalization of inner speech, I
>> >>think
>> >> >>we
>> >> >> can see that e) is a kind of internalization of a) and I) is an
>> >> >> internalization of e).
>> >> >>
>> >> >> But neither tight knickers nor baggy trousers will show this. We
>>will
>> >> >>need
>> >> >> a theory of grammar that can make fine distinctions between
>> >>clause-level
>> >> >> wording, group-level wording, and word-level wording in order to
>> >> >>describe
>> >> >> and explain it, much less intervene in it and promote it.
>>Otherwise,
>> >>not
>> >> >> only will our model of the concept look like a wooden block, our
>> >>model
>> >> >>of
>> >> >> "internalization" will look like a "suture" or  an "ingrowing"
>>(c.f.
>> >> >>end of
>> >> >> HDHMF Chapter Five). No fond, expectant, grandpa wants a
>>grandchild's
>> >> >> mind covered with scars.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> David Kellogg
>> >> >> Macquarie University
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 10:47 AM, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu>
>>wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Choosing your wording carefully, David, you come up with
>>"wording"
>> >>to
>> >> >> > describe what I think of as the holophrases in question. To
>>help me
>> >> >> clarify
>> >> >> > your point for myself, and to use your way of communicating
>>about
>> >>it,
>> >> >> how
>> >> >> > does the wording "wording" relate to the wordings "statement" or
>> >> >> > "utterance" offered by Michael in the first case and by others
>>in
>> >>the
>> >> >> group
>> >> >> > on behalf of Bakhtin?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > is there a holphorastic rendering/wording that might help us out
>> >>here?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Mike
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > PS- As an afterthought, the examples feel like an utterance to
>>me.
>> >>But
>> >> >> that
>> >> >> > might make a liar out of me too :-)
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 4:33 PM, David Kellogg
>> >><dkellogg60@gmail.com>
>> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > > In English, the number of syllables or morphemes in a word is
>> >>often
>> >> >> > > unclear, while the number of words in a sentence is always
>>fairly
>> >> >> clear.
>> >> >> > > This isn't true for preliterate children, who have a hard time
>> >> >> > > understanding that "a" and "of" are actually words. It's true
>> >>enough
>> >> >> for
>> >> >> > > people who can read and write, but its really an accident of
>> >> >> > > orthography (notice that "it's" appears to be one syllable but
>> >>two
>> >> >> > > morphemes, and it's not really clear, even to the normally
>>quite
>> >> >> > > overwheening "wordcount" function in Word, how many words are
>> >> >> > > actually there.
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > Other languages are not like English. So for example in
>>Chinese
>> >>(a
>> >> >> > > non-alphabetic language), the number of syllables and
>>morphemes
>> >>is
>> >> >> > > always clear, but the number of words in a sentence is quite
>> >>unclear
>> >> >> > (when
>> >> >> > > you read a page of Chinese, there are no spaces between
>> >> >> morpho-syllables
>> >> >> > > that mark out "words". Chinese poetry, and classical Chinese,
>> >>plays
>> >> >> with
>> >> >> > > this a lot: the unit is the morpheme rather than the word, and
>> >>the
>> >> >> > overall
>> >> >> > > effect (at least on me) is a stream of syllables and morphemes
>> >>and
>> >> >> > meanings
>> >> >> > > but not words.
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > So I think the place to look for Vygotsky's unit of analysis
>>is
>> >>not
>> >> >>in
>> >> >> > the
>> >> >> > > actual word "word" or "word meaning" (slovo or znachenie
>>slova).
>> >> >> Holbrook
>> >> >> > > Mahn has proposed translating "znachenie slova" as "verbal
>> >>meaning",
>> >> >> and
>> >> >> > > although this isn't exactly an accurate way of presenting how
>> >> >>Russian
>> >> >> > > grammar really works, it IS a good way of getting around the
>>trap
>> >> >>set
>> >> >> for
>> >> >> > > those who are only going by the English word meaning of "word
>> >> >>meaning".
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > I think the place to look is in Vygotsky's examples. In the
>>first
>> >> >>part
>> >> >> of
>> >> >> > > Thinking and Speech, for example, Vygotsky agrees with Stern
>>that
>> >> >>the
>> >> >> > > child's first "word" has to be construed as not a word but a
>> >>whole
>> >> >> > wording.
>> >> >> > > He goes even further: he says it's a whole
>>"wording-in-context",
>> >> >>that
>> >> >> > is, a
>> >> >> > > meaning. (And remember, Vygotsky NEVER agrees with Stern about
>> >> >>ANYTHING
>> >> >> > > unless he absolutely has to!) And in the LAST part of Thinking
>> >>and
>> >> >> > Speech,
>> >> >> > > Vygotsky gives many examples: 'the clock fell", "the tram B is
>> >> >> arriving",
>> >> >> > > "Would you like some tea"? What all of these examples have in
>> >> >>common is
>> >> >> > > that they are not single words but they are single wordings.
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > Remember that Russian has no articles; this is something that
>> >>Andy
>> >> >> > himself
>> >> >> > > points out with respect to whether "perezhivanie" should be "a
>> >> >> > > perizhivanie" or just "perizhivanie". I think Andy's
>>observation
>> >>is
>> >> >> > > essentially correct (although of course we undo part of his
>> >>insight
>> >> >> when
>> >> >> > we
>> >> >> > > insist that all languages must "really" have an article of
>>some
>> >> >>kind).
>> >> >> > But
>> >> >> > > it needs to be generalized: Vygotsky could NOT have ever
>>written
>> >> >>that
>> >> >> > > the unit of analysis is "a" word meaning, simply because "a",
>>as
>> >>any
>> >> >> > > preliterate child will tell you, is not a word (and certainly
>> >>not a
>> >> >> > Russian
>> >> >> > > word).
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > David Kellogg
>> >> >> > > Macquarie University
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 5:19 PM, WEBSTER, DAVID S. <
>> >> >> > > d.s.webster@durham.ac.uk
>> >> >> > > > wrote:
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > > Re the development of punctuation and the origin of 'words'
>>see
>> >> >> > > > http://www.cogsci.ecs.soton.ac.uk/cgi/psyc/newpsy?3.61
>> >> >> > > >
>> >> >> > > > -----Original Message-----
>> >> >> > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>[mailto:xmca-l-bounces@
>> >> >> > > > mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of mike cole
>> >> >> > > > Sent: 20 April 2017 01:45
>> >> >> > > > To: Andy Blunden; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>> >> >> > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value'
>> >> >> > > >
>> >> >> > > > "the word" in Russian, Andy, has shades of meaning tending
>> >>toward
>> >> >>the
>> >> >> > > > biblical from current common understandings of the term as a
>> >>sort
>> >> >> > > "lexical
>> >> >> > > > object."  The Vai didnotmakethesamedistinction when writing
>>and
>> >> >> neithr
>> >> >> > > did
>> >> >> > > > the Greeks.
>> >> >> > > > I believe there are those who would include the utterance in
>> >>its
>> >> >> > meaning
>> >> >> > > > as used by Vygotsky. Slippery these translation problems!
>>But
>> >> >> > discussion
>> >> >> > > of
>> >> >> > > > them often reveals clarification of the various concepts
>> >>involved
>> >> >>as
>> >> >> > they
>> >> >> > > > appear in different peoples' vocabularies. Mediation has
>>some
>> >>of
>> >> >> those
>> >> >> > > > properties.
>> >> >> > > >
>> >> >> > > > The polysemy of just one language is enough for one poor
>> >> >>translator
>> >> >> to
>> >> >> > > > deal with! The polsyemic playing field when you cross
>> >> >> language/cultural
>> >> >> > > > systems is what gives academics something to do.  :-)
>> >> >> > > >
>> >> >> > > > mike
>> >> >> > > >
>> >> >> > > > mike
>> >> >> > > >
>> >> >> > > > On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 5:26 PM, Andy Blunden
>> >><ablunden@mira.net>
>> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> > > >
>> >> >> > > > > and as a further note of caution, the unit in "Thinking
>>and
>> >> >>Speech"
>> >> >> > is
>> >> >> > > > > a word, not an utterance, and yet it is utterance which
>>seems
>> >> >>to be
>> >> >> > > > > analogous to "commodity."
>> >> >> > > > >
>> >> >> > > > > Andy
>> >> >> > > > >
>> >> >> > > > > 
>>------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> >> > > > > Andy Blunden
>> >> >> > > > > http://home.mira.net/~andy
>> >> >> > > > > http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-
>> >> >> > decision-making
>> >> >> > > > > On 20/04/2017 7:01 AM, Julian Williams wrote:
>> >> >> > > > >
>> >> >> > > > >> Michael/all
>> >> >> > > > >>
>> >> >> > > > >> I  go back a few posts (as ever being a bit slower than
>>this
>> >> >> > > > >> list-serve demands - let me do this before the discussion
>> >> >>moves to
>> >> >> > > > >> 'binocular
>> >> >> > > > >> vision') and challenge the metaphor of
>>commodity/utterance:
>> >>I
>> >> >>can
>> >> >> > see
>> >> >> > > > >> it has merit but also I want to look at the limitations.
>> >> >> > > > >>
>> >> >> > > > >> You say: 'the sign is to the verbal exchange what the
>> >> >>commodity is
>> >> >> > to
>> >> >> > > > >> the Commodity-exchange' … But I think I was asking for a
>> >> >> > > > >> characterisation of the larger totality involved - e.g.
>>The
>> >> >> > > > >> 'economy/mode of production and its
>>contradictions/collapse'
>> >> >>and
>> >> >> > 'what
>> >> >> > > > - dialogue?'
>> >> >> > > > >>
>> >> >> > > > >> And I think Andy B agrees with you when he says 'both
>>take
>> >>an
>> >> >> > > > >> artefact-mediated relation between individuals as the
>>unit'…
>> >> >>But
>> >> >> > > > >> suggests he recognises my problem when he refers to 'its
>> >> >>language'
>> >> >> > > > >> (or I might say 'consciousness', 'discourse'  or maybe
>> >> >> > 'intercourse').
>> >> >> > > > >>
>> >> >> > > > >> But - as I argued in critique of the metaphor 'labour =
>> >> >>learning',
>> >> >> > > > >> this mapping only goes so far, and has certain dangers.
>>The
>> >> >> relation
>> >> >> > > > >> between commodity/economy (and the mode of production)
>>and
>> >> >> > > > >> utterance/discourse (and the ideological
>> >> >>super/infra-structure) is
>> >> >> > > > >> much more interesting in the concrete relations of
>>history.
>> >>I
>> >> >> refer
>> >> >> > > > >> to Marx (the German ideology) and Volosinov.
>> >> >> > > > >>
>> >> >> > > > >> In reality the relation between commodity production and
>> >> >> > > > >> 'sign-related/mediated' discourse (Marx calls
>> >>'intercourse') is
>> >> >> > > > >> dialectical. Each 'mediates' the other in historical
>> >> >>development,
>> >> >> > and
>> >> >> > > > >> even in collective production-and-dialogue.
>> >> >> > > > >>
>> >> >> > > > >> Thus, I suggest, the 'exchange/use value' of an
>> >> >>utterance/dialogic
>> >> >> > > > >> exchange maybe ought to be examined in the ideological
>> >>context
>> >> >>of
>> >> >> > its
>> >> >> > > > >> relationship with the 'whole' of social re/production
>>where
>> >> >>class
>> >> >> > > > >> power becomes visible. I don't know how to do this, but
>>the
>> >> >> argument
>> >> >> > > > >> is there in
>> >> >> > > > >> Bourdieu: the power relations between people are part of
>>the
>> >> >> > > > >> capital-mediated structure of relations in a field
>> >>(including
>> >> >>the
>> >> >> > > > >> field of opinion/discourse), and this explains the forms
>>of
>> >> >> > discourse
>> >> >> > > > >> that express these power relationships and help to hold
>> >> >>powerful
>> >> >> > > > >> positions in place in the field. In this view it is not
>> >> >>possible
>> >> >> to
>> >> >> > > > >> identify the 'value' of an utterance or a sign outside of
>> >>this
>> >> >> wider
>> >> >> > > > >> analysis… and an analysis of the particular
>> >>discursive/cultural
>> >> >> > field
>> >> >> > > > within its wider sociality.
>> >> >> > > > >>
>> >> >> > > > >> Sorry this is a bit prolix and so likely to provoke
>> >>tangential
>> >> >> > > > responses:
>> >> >> > > > >> I did not have time tonight to write a shorter more
>>focussed
>> >> >>post.
>> >> >> > > > >>
>> >> >> > > > >> Best wishes
>> >> >> > > > >>
>> >> >> > > > >> Julian
>> >> >> > > > >>
>> >> >> > > > >> Ps The separate discussion on mediation: this might be
>> >>another
>> >> >> > > > >> thread. I only want to note here that the mediation of
>>the
>> >> >> > > > >> 'intercourse' through its 'other' in the material form of
>> >> >> > > > >> 'production' (I call the economy above) and vice versa
>>does
>> >>not
>> >> >> > > > >> involve a mediator 'between' the two, but is purely
>> >>hegelian in
>> >> >> > > > >> seeing the mediation of 'x' through 'not x' in a
>>totality.
>> >> >> > > > >>
>> >> >> > > > >>
>> >> >> > > > >>
>> >> >> > > > >>
>> >> >> > > > >> On 18/04/2017 16:34, "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on
>> >> behalf
>> >> >> of
>> >> >> > > > >> Wolff-Michael Roth" <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on
>> >>behalf
>> >> >>of
>> >> >> > > > >> wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> > > > >>
>> >> >> > > > >> Larry, do not be confused. Take it with Bateson (Mind and
>> >> >>Nature),
>> >> >> > > > >> and see
>> >> >> > > > >>> Andy and Michael as two eyes. You then get this:
>> >> >> > > > >>>
>> >> >> > > > >>> It is correct (and a great improvement) to begin to
>>think
>> >>of
>> >> >>the
>> >> >> > two
>> >> >> > > > >>> parties to the interaction as two eyes , each giving a
>> >> >>monocular
>> >> >> > > > >>> view of what goes on and , together , giving a binocular
>> >>view
>> >> >>in
>> >> >> > > > >>> depth. This double view is the relationship . (p.133)
>> >> >> > > > >>>
>> >> >> > > > >>> What is gained by comparing the data collected by one
>>eye
>> >>with
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> > > > >>> data collected by the other? Typically , both eyes are
>> >>aimed
>> >> >>at
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> > > > >>> same region of the surrounding universe, and this might
>> >>seem
>> >> >>to
>> >> >> be
>> >> >> > a
>> >> >> > > > >>> wasteful use of the sense organs. But the anatomy
>>indicates
>> >> >>that
>> >> >> > > > >>> very considerable advantage must accrue from this usage.
>> >>The
>> >> >> > > > >>> innervation of the two retinas and the creation at the
>> >>optic
>> >> >> > chiasma
>> >> >> > > > >>> of pathways for the redistribution of information is
>>such
>> >>an
>> >> >> > > > >>> extraordinary feat of morphogenesis as must surely
>>denote
>> >> >>great
>> >> >> > > > >>> evolutionary advantage . (p.69)
>> >> >> > > > >>>
>> >> >> > > > >>> Michael
>> >> >> > > > >>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>
>> >>------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> >> > > > >>> --------------
>> >> >> > > > >>> ------
>> >> >> > > > >>> Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor Applied
>>Cognitive
>> >> >>Science
>> >> >> > > > >>> MacLaurin Building A567 University of Victoria Victoria,
>> >>BC,
>> >> >>V8P
>> >> >> > 5C2
>> >> >> > > > >>> http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth <http://education2.uvic.ca/
>> >> >> > faculty/mroth/>
>> >> >> > > > >>>
>> >> >> > > > >>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics
>> >> >> > > > >>>
>> >><https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/new-dir
>> >> >> > > > >>> ections-in-mat
>> >> >> > > > >>>
>> >> >>hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of-mathematics/>*
>> >> >> > > > >>>
>> >> >> > > > >>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 8:18 AM, Andy Blunden
>> >> >><ablunden@mira.net
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > > > wrote:
>> >> >> > > > >>>
>> >> >> > > > >>> different trajectories, Larry.
>> >> >> > > > >>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>> a
>> >> >> > > > >>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>
>> >>------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> >> > > > >>>> Andy Blunden
>> >> >> > > > >>>> http://home.mira.net/~andy
>> >> >> > > > >>>> http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-
>> >> >> > decision-maki
>> >> >> > > > >>>> ng On 18/04/2017 11:44 PM, lpscholar2@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> >> > > > >>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>> Andy, Julian, Michael,
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> My learning curve at this moment is in the way of
>>Michael
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> describing the back and forth double movement. That is
>> >>both
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> giving/receiving, both
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> (expressing/listening) occurring WITHIN our
>>relationship.
>> >> >>This
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> prior to or more primordial then taking the individual
>> >> >>stance
>> >> >> as
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> primary and the relation as derivative.
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> So... In this ‘spirit’ I will pose a question?
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> Andy says: ‘artefact mediated relation BETWEEN
>> >>INDIVIDUALS
>> >> >>as a
>> >> >> > > unit.
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> Michael says: You remain with back-and-forth movement
>> >>that
>> >> >>is
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> NEVER action but IS transcation. Here the 
>>back-and-forth
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> ‘relation’ is the UNIT, and the individuals emerge 
>>from
>> >> >>WITHIN
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> this primordial double relation.
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> Are Andy and Michael on the same trajectory, shifting 
>>the
>> >> >> accent,
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> or are imdividuals situated differently in the
>> >>comtrasting
>> >> >> > notions
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> of units.
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> In particular does Andy ‘figure’ bridges whereas 
>>Michael
>> >> >> > ‘figures’
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> gaps in the notion of BETWEEN.
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> Pursuing my growing edge, going out on a limb
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> *From: *Andy Blunden <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> *Sent: *April 17, 2017 11:54 PM
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> *To: *xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> >> >><mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> *Subject: *[Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 
>>'value'
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> Julian/Michael,
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> I remember getting very excited back in the early '80s
>> >>when
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> I spotted the symmetry between the first chapters of
>> >>Capital
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> and Marx's critique of algebra in his Mathematical
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> Manuscripts. That lasted about a week. The symmetry
>> >>between
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> Vygotsky's analysis of speech and Marx's analysis of
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> production is a strong one because both take an
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> artefact-mediated relation between individuals as the
>> >>unit.
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> There is a symmetry at the level of the molar unit as
>> >>well,
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> which, so far as I know has been neglected. But this
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> structural symmetry cannot usefully be taken too far. 
>>The
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> "point" is that the unit is a unit of a whole, and the
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> productive activity of a community is not the same as 
>>its
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> language, which as Marx said "the philosophers are 
>>bound
>> >>to
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> make into an independent realm." Concretely, speaking 
>>is
>> >>not
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> producing. But like all human activities, both are
>> >>subject
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> to analysis by units of artefact-mediated actions.
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> Andy
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> ------------------------------
>> >> ------------------------------
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> Andy Blunden
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> http://home.mira.net/~andy
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-
>> >> >> > decision-mak
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> ing
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> On 18/04/2017 7:01 AM, Julian Williams wrote:
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> Michael
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>> In principle I am Ok with the idea of the unit that
>> >> >>contains
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> essential
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> contradictions… but of what?
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>> For Marx the whole point of commodity exchange/value 
>>is
>> >> >>that
>> >> >> it
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>> is
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> the
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> beginning of an explanation of the 'economy', 
>>capitalism,
>> >> >>and
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> labour
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> theory of value is the key to its collapse …
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>> What is the equivalent 'point' of sign exchange in
>> >> >>dialogue?
>> >> >> And
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> where
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> is
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> the equivalent of the theory of value? I think the
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> sensuous/supersensuous
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> is a distraction from the 'point'.
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>> That’s my puzzle.
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>> Julian
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>> On 17/04/2017 21:49, "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> on
>> >> >> behalf
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>> of Wolff-Michael Roth" 
>><xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> >>on
>> >> >> > behalf
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>> of wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>> Hi Julian,
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>> the sign is to the verbal exchange what the 
>>commodity
>> >>is
>> >> >>to
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>> commodity
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> exchange--both the sensuous and supersensuous parts 
>>are
>> >> >>there
>> >> >> > that
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>> Marx
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> and
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>> Vygotsky are writing about. :-)
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>> Michael
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>
>> >> >>------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>> --------------
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> ------
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>> Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor Applied
>> >>Cognitive
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>> Science MacLaurin Building A567 University of 
>>Victoria
>> >> >> > Victoria,
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>> BC, V8P 5C2 http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>> <http://education2.uvic.ca/faculty/mroth/>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>
>> >> >><https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/new-dir
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>> ections-in-mat
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of-
>> >> >> mathematics/>*
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 12:11 PM, Julian Williams <
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>> julian.williams@manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> Michael and all
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> I am coming late to this discussion and maybe have
>> >>been
>> >> >> > missing
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>> some
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> important thingsŠ but I want to see a few issues
>> >>addressed
>> >> >>by
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> Functor:
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> Commodity => Sign: my skepticism follows to some
>> >>extent
>> >> >>the
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>> critique I
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> wrote of the mapping 'labor = learning' that you are
>> >> >>familiar
>> >> >> > with:
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>> but
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> in
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> some ways I am even more skeptical of this 
>>metaphor.
>> >>So:
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> Commodity to sign, is a unit of a totality as in
>> >> >>'economy'
>> >> >> to
>> >> >> > ..
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>> 'Š?
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> Š '
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> What ? Maybe 'dialogue/discourse'?
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> What is the 'value' that is exchanged in discourse,
>> >>and
>> >> >>how
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> does it ultimately realise its 'use value' in some
>> >>sort
>> >> >>of
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> dialogic 'consumption'
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> of useful understanding?
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> How does the producer of value 'labour' to produce 
>>it,
>> >> >>and
>> >> >> how
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> is
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>> the
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> 'labour time' related to the 'exchange value' of the 
>>sign
>> >> >>that
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>> results?
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> [Bearing in mind that the labour theory of value is
>> >>Marx's
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>> essential
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> contribution.]
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> Then how does this work relate to devious studies: 
>>we
>> >> >> already
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> have
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>> the
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> work of Bourdieu who assigns cultural capital/value to
>> >> >>symbolic
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>> power
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> in
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> the cultural fieldŠ is there a connection here?
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> Best regards as ever
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> Julian
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> Ps I need to come back to you about Hegel (I am far
>> >>from
>> >> >> happy
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> with reading the 'Ideal' as a straightforward
>> >>negation of
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> > > > 'Real'
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>> implicit
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> in what you sayŠ) when I have thought about this a bit
>> >>more
>> >> >>-
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>> maybe in
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> 2018Š we should pick up!   :-)
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> On 17/04/2017 18:22, 
>>"xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> >>on
>> >> >> > behalf
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> of Wolff-Michael Roth"
>> >><xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> >> >>on
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> behalf of wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> Hi Larry,
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> things become easier to think through if you do 
>>not
>> >> >>take an
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> individualist
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> starting point but a relational one---not "she 
>>has to
>> >> >> produce
>> >> >> > > . .
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> ."
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> but
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> look at what is happening in the exchange, where 
>>each
>> >> >> giving
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> also
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> is
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> taking, such that in a commodity exchange, you have
>> >>double
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> giving-taking;
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> in a verbal exchange, each speaking also involves
>> >> >>listening
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> and
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> receiving,
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> and the receiving is for the purpose of giving
>> >> >>(speaking,
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> replying).
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> As
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> soon as you do this, you remain with back-and-forth
>> >> >>movement,
>> >> >> no
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> longer
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> action but transaction.
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> The other interesting thing is that the Russian 
>>word
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> znachenie,
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> translated
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> as "meaning" (really, signification) also 
>>translates
>> >>as
>> >> >> > "value"
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> and
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> "magnitude," and Il'enkov (2009) parenthetically adds
>> >> >> "function"
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> and
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> "rôle". I am quoting from p. 178:
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> Marx joins Hegel as regards terminology, and not
>> >>Kant or
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> Fichte, who tried to solve the problem of 
>>Œideality¹
>> >> >>(i.e.,
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> activity)
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> while
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> remaining Œinside
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> consciousness¹, without venturing into the 
>>external
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> sensuously-perceptible
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> corporeal
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> world, the world of the palpable-corporeal forms 
>>and
>> >> >> > relations
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> of
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> things.
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>       This Hegelian definition of the term 
>>Œideality¹
>> >> >>takes
>> >> >> > in
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> the
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> whole
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> range of phenomena
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> within which the Œideal¹, understood as the
>> >>corporeally
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> embodied
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> form
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> of
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> the activity of
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> social man, really exists ­ as activity in the 
>>form
>> >>of
>> >> >>the
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> thing,
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> or
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> conversely, as the thing
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> in the form of activity, as a Œmoment¹ of this
>> >> >>activity, as
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> its
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> fleeting
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> metamorphoses.
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>       Without an understanding of this state of
>> >>affairs
>> >> >>it
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> would be
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> totally
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> impossible to fathom
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> the miracles performed by the commodity before
>> >>people¹s
>> >> >> eyes,
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> the commodity-form of the product, particularly in
>> >>its
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> dazzling money-form, in the form
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> of
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> the
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> notorious Œreal
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> talers¹, Œreal roubles¹, or Œreal dollars¹, things
>> >> >>which,
>> >> >> as
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> soon
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> as
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> we
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> have the slightest
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> theoretical understanding of them, immediately 
>>turn
>> >>out
>> >> >>to
>> >> >> be
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> not
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> Œreal¹
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> at
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> all, but Œideal¹
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> through and through, things whose category quite
>> >> >> > unambiguously
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> includes
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> words, the
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> units of language, and many other Œthings¹. Things
>> >>that,
>> >> >> > while
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> being
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> wholly
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> Œmaterial¹,
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> palpable-corporeal formations, acquire all their
>> >> >>Œmeaning¹
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> (function
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> and
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> rôle) from Œspirit¹,
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> >from Œthought¹ and even owe to it their specific
>> >> >>corporeal
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>> existence.
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> Outside spirit and
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> without it there cannot even be words; there is
>> >>merely a
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> vibration of
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> the
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> air.
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> Michael
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> ------------------------------
>> >> >> -----------------------------
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> ---------------
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> ------
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor Applied
>> >> >>Cognitive
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> Science MacLaurin Building A567 University of
>> >>Victoria
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> <http://education2.uvic.ca/faculty/mroth/>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >><https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/new-
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> directions-in-mat
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of-
>> >> >> > mathematics/
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> >* On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 8:31 AM,
>> >> >><lpscholar2@gmail.com>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> I am attempting to follow Wolff-Michael¹s
>> >>trajectory as
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> presented in
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> his
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> article (A Dialectical Materialist Reading of the
>> >> >>Sign). On
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> page
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> 149
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> he
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> attempts to clarify the difference between sign
>> >>complex
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> Œuse-value¹
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> &
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> sign
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> complex Œvalue¹.
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> His methodology is to read Marx Œsubstituting¹ 
>>the
>> >>word
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> ŒSIGN¹
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> (implying
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> sign complex) FOR Œcommodity¹ and intuites this
>> >>method
>> >> >>will
>> >> >> > be
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> generative.
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Here is his realization through the method of
>> >> >>re-reading
>> >> >> as
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> (trading,
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> translation, transposition) as I am carried along.
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> a) USE-VALUE: Œnatural signs¹ such as animal
>> >>footprints
>> >> >> are
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> useful/functional to the hunter inherently; they 
>>do
>> >>NOT
>> >> >> have
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> Œvalue¹
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> (exchangeble value) though they do have use-value for 
>>the
>> >> >> hunter
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> or
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> hunting
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> party in finding game.  Similarly a sign complex
>> >>can be
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> useful
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> and
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> the
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> product of human labour without being Œvalue¹
>> >> >> (exchangeable).
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> Someone
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> who
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> satisfies HER needs through her product produces
>> >> >> Œuse-value¹
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> but
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> NOT
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> Œvalue¹.
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> b) VALUE: (exchangeable). To produce SIGNS
>> >>(complexes),
>> >> >> she
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> has
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> to
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> produce
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> not only Œuse-value¹ but use-value FOR others. 
>>She
>> >>has
>> >> >>to
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> produce Œsocietal¹ use-values.... To be/come
>> >> >> (exchangeable)
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> SIGN, the
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> product
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> HAS
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> TO BE TRANSFERRED to another, FOR whom the SIGN
>> >>complex
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> Œconstitutes¹
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> use-value.
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> The production of signs that produce no Œvalue¹
>> >>that is
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> exchangeable
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> FOR
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> others leads to personal notes often having NO
>> >> >>use-value to
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> others.
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> To
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> trans/form use-value to BE come Œvalue¹ requires
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> exchangeability
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> under
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> lighting various forms of SIGN (complexes).
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Apologies to Wolff-Michael if my echoing his
>> >>re-reading
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> methodology
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>> garrbled the trans/mission?
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> I offer this because it helps clarify my reading 
>>of
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Œuse-value¹ & Œvalue¹
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> (exchangeable)
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> My morning musement
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >>>>>
>> >> >> > > > >
>> >> >> > > >
>> >> >> > > >
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>>
>>