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

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



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 <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:
> 
> Hi David -
> 
> Thanks for correction of primitive. Preliterate will do. I figured your
> observations applied to adults. They certainly applied to adults,
> non-literate or literate in Vai in the later work I did with Sylvia
> Scribner.
> 
> OK. I will not read Roy Harris instead of David Kellogg and those members
> of xmca who have it figured out! Sheesh.
> 
> I do not know Cole and Gay, 1972. In Cole, Gay, Glick, and Sharp (1971)
> we wrote:
> 
> Cultural differences reside more in the differences in situations to which
> cultural groups apply their skills than to differences in the skills
> possessed by the groups in question.
> 
> 
> I do not have Cole&Scribner to hand. What page was that quotation from? A
> shortcoming of our work back in those days and in more recent work as well
> was our failure to fully consider and understand the role
> of values and normativity in human culture, so it would help to have the
> context to see why we did not use the cole et al ideas which we were still
> working past in the 1980's.
> 
> Looking for that quotation from Cole et al. 1971 i came across the one
> page, attached, commentary on those early works that is very short, but
> gives the essence of Gay and Cole, the starting point in my own involvement
> in those issues.
> 
> Word meaning develops in ontogeny.  :-)
> mike
> 
> 
> On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 2:18 PM, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Mike:  I think what I said was "preliterate" children and not "primitive"
>> children. But what I said is true of preliterate adults as well: they are
>> often unable to say how many words there are in a sentence, just as
>> literate speakers of English find it hard to say how many syllables there
>> are "upholstery" or how many morphemes there are in "nuclear".
>> 
>> I don't think we need Roy Harris to "prove" that "word" is ineffable. Yes,
>> a definition is made of words. So when you define a word, you simply
>> replace one word with many. Anybody who has tried to learn a language with
>> a monolingual dictionary knows this. And because "word" is itself a
>> word, the same thing happens when you define "word".
>> 
>> That doesn't mean linguistics is useless; it only means that linguistics
>> doesn't have some privileged ontological, quasi-metaphysical status: it is
>> just language turned back on itself, as Firth used to say. But so what?
>> Psychology is consciousness turned back on itself. Chemical and physical
>> experiments are matter turned back on itself.
>> 
>> And we keep finding that some ways of turning language back on itself are
>> more useful than others. The word "word" all by itself is not very useful
>> because it is a little like Bakhtin's "utterance". It's the space between
>> two spaces on a typewriter, just as the word "utterance" is the space
>> between two changes of speaker. It's phenomenological, in the sense of
>> pre-analytical.
>> 
>> But "wording" is not a word all by itself; it's part of a system of
>> concepts. A "morpheme", a "word", a "group", a "clause" or a "clause
>> complex" is not "in between" the utterance on the one hand and the
>> statement on the other. All of them are distinct, but linked, levels of
>> structure. A word ("worker") is made up of one or more morphemes ("work",
>> "~er"), a group is made up of one or more words ("workers and peasants"), a
>> clause is made up of one more word groups ("the means of production belongs
>> to the workers and peasants") and a clause complex of one or more clauses
>> ("Socialism is possible in the USSR because the means of production belongs
>> to the workers and peasants").
>> 
>> Vygotsky says that word meanings develop. That's true. But the specific way
>> in which we watch this development in data is neither through counting
>> morphemes (Brown) or trying to observe "meanings" (Freud) but rather
>> through wordings. We need a view of grammar that will allow us to do that.
>> 
>> Ruqaiya Hasan criticizes Cole and Gay (1972), and later Cole and Scribner
>> (1974), for saying "The reasoning and thinking processes of different
>> people in different cultures do not differ--just their value, beliefs, and
>> ways of classifying differ." Ruqaiya asks--how could one differ and not the
>> other? And how would you know that was the case?
>> 
>> David Kellogg
>> Macquarie University
>> 
>> gropu
>> 
>> On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 2:05 AM, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:
>> 
>>> Thanks for the tip on the Harris book, David. I know his work mostly
>>> through his book on the origin of writing.
>>> 
>>> Which reminds me of a question for David K. Why is it that you make
>>> reference to primitive children, David? Why not primitive adults as well?
>>> 
>>> mike
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 12:10 AM, WEBSTER, DAVID S. <
>>> d.s.webster@durham.ac.uk> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Reflexivity and the thorny question of metalanguage seems to be at
>> issue
>>>> here: might I suggest that the late Roy Harris's book 'The Language
>>>> Connection' might set the scene. Harris's description of how
>> Linguistics
>>>> constantly fails to define the word 'word' is wonderful.
>>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@
>>>> mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of mike cole
>>>> Sent: 21 April 2017 01:47
>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value'
>>>> 
>>>> Choosing your wording carefully, David, you come up with "wording" to
>>>> describe what I think of as the holophrases in question. To help me
>>> clarify
>>>> your point for myself, and to use your way of communicating about it,
>>> how
>>>> does the wording "wording" relate to the wordings "statement" or
>>>> "utterance" offered by Michael in the first case and by others in the
>>> group
>>>> on behalf of Bakhtin?
>>>> 
>>>> is there a holphorastic rendering/wording that might help us out here?
>>>> 
>>>> Mike
>>>> 
>>>> PS- As an afterthought, the examples feel like an utterance to me. But
>>>> that might make a liar out of me too :-)
>>>> 
>>>> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 4:33 PM, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> In English, the number of syllables or morphemes in a word is often
>>>>> unclear, while the number of words in a sentence is always fairly
>>> clear.
>>>>> This isn't true for preliterate children, who have a hard time
>>>>> understanding that "a" and "of" are actually words. It's true enough
>>>>> for people who can read and write, but its really an accident of
>>>>> orthography (notice that "it's" appears to be one syllable but two
>>>>> morphemes, and it's not really clear, even to the normally quite
>>>>> overwheening "wordcount" function in Word, how many words are
>> actually
>>>>> there.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Other languages are not like English. So for example in Chinese (a
>>>>> non-alphabetic language), the number of syllables and morphemes is
>>>>> always clear, but the number of words in a sentence is quite unclear
>>>>> (when you read a page of Chinese, there are no spaces between
>>>>> morpho-syllables that mark out "words". Chinese poetry, and classical
>>>>> Chinese, plays with this a lot: the unit is the morpheme rather than
>>>>> the word, and the overall effect (at least on me) is a stream of
>>>>> syllables and morphemes and meanings but not words.
>>>>> 
>>>>> So I think the place to look for Vygotsky's unit of analysis is not
>> in
>>>>> the actual word "word" or "word meaning" (slovo or znachenie slova).
>>>>> Holbrook Mahn has proposed translating "znachenie slova" as "verbal
>>>>> meaning", and although this isn't exactly an accurate way of
>>>>> presenting how Russian grammar really works, it IS a good way of
>>>>> getting around the trap set for those who are only going by the
>> English
>>>> word meaning of "word meaning".
>>>>> 
>>>>> I think the place to look is in Vygotsky's examples. In the first
>> part
>>>>> of Thinking and Speech, for example, Vygotsky agrees with Stern that
>>>>> the child's first "word" has to be construed as not a word but a
>> whole
>>>> wording.
>>>>> He goes even further: he says it's a whole "wording-in-context", that
>>>>> is, a meaning. (And remember, Vygotsky NEVER agrees with Stern about
>>>>> ANYTHING unless he absolutely has to!) And in the LAST part of
>>>>> Thinking and Speech, Vygotsky gives many examples: 'the clock fell",
>>>>> "the tram B is arriving", "Would you like some tea"? What all of
>> these
>>>>> examples have in common is that they are not single words but they
>> are
>>>> single wordings.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Remember that Russian has no articles; this is something that Andy
>>>>> himself points out with respect to whether "perezhivanie" should be
>> "a
>>>>> perizhivanie" or just "perizhivanie". I think Andy's observation is
>>>>> essentially correct (although of course we undo part of his insight
>>>>> when we insist that all languages must "really" have an article of
>>>>> some kind). But it needs to be generalized: Vygotsky could NOT have
>>>>> ever written that the unit of analysis is "a" word meaning, simply
>>>>> because "a", as any preliterate child will tell you, is not a word
>>>>> (and certainly not a Russian word).
>>>>> 
>>>>> David Kellogg
>>>>> Macquarie University
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 5:19 PM, WEBSTER, DAVID S. <
>>>>> d.s.webster@durham.ac.uk
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Re the development of punctuation and the origin of 'words' see
>>>>>> http://www.cogsci.ecs.soton.ac.uk/cgi/psyc/newpsy?3.61
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@
>>>>>> mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of mike cole
>>>>>> Sent: 20 April 2017 01:45
>>>>>> To: Andy Blunden; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value'
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> "the word" in Russian, Andy, has shades of meaning tending toward
>>>>>> the biblical from current common understandings of the term as a
>>>>>> sort
>>>>> "lexical
>>>>>> object."  The Vai didnotmakethesamedistinction when writing and
>>>>>> neithr
>>>>> did
>>>>>> the Greeks.
>>>>>> I believe there are those who would include the utterance in its
>>>>>> meaning as used by Vygotsky. Slippery these translation problems!
>>>>>> But discussion
>>>>> of
>>>>>> them often reveals clarification of the various concepts involved
>> as
>>>>>> they appear in different peoples' vocabularies. Mediation has some
>>>>>> of those properties.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The polysemy of just one language is enough for one poor translator
>>>>>> to deal with! The polsyemic playing field when you cross
>>>>>> language/cultural systems is what gives academics something to do.
>>>>>> :-)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> mike
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> mike
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 5:26 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> and as a further note of caution, the unit in "Thinking and
>>>>>>> Speech" is a word, not an utterance, and yet it is utterance
>> which
>>>>>>> seems to be analogous to "commodity."
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> Andy Blunden
>>>>>>> http://home.mira.net/~andy
>>>>>>> http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-
>> decision-mak
>>>>>>> ing On 20/04/2017 7:01 AM, Julian Williams wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Michael/all
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I  go back a few posts (as ever being a bit slower than this
>>>>>>>> list-serve demands - let me do this before the discussion moves
>>>>>>>> to 'binocular
>>>>>>>> vision') and challenge the metaphor of commodity/utterance: I
>> can
>>>>>>>> see it has merit but also I want to look at the limitations.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> You say: 'the sign is to the verbal exchange what the commodity
>>>>>>>> is to the Commodity-exchange' … But I think I was asking for a
>>>>>>>> characterisation of the larger totality involved - e.g. The
>>>>>>>> 'economy/mode of production and its contradictions/collapse' and
>>>>>>>> 'what
>>>>>> - dialogue?'
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> And I think Andy B agrees with you when he says 'both take an
>>>>>>>> artefact-mediated relation between individuals as the unit'… But
>>>>>>>> suggests he recognises my problem when he refers to 'its
>> language'
>>>>>>>> (or I might say 'consciousness', 'discourse'  or maybe
>>>> 'intercourse').
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> But - as I argued in critique of the metaphor 'labour =
>>>>>>>> learning', this mapping only goes so far, and has certain
>>>>>>>> dangers. The relation between commodity/economy (and the mode of
>>>>>>>> production) and utterance/discourse (and the ideological
>>>>>>>> super/infra-structure) is much more interesting in the concrete
>>>>>>>> relations of history. I refer to Marx (the German ideology) and
>>>> Volosinov.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> In reality the relation between commodity production and
>>>>>>>> 'sign-related/mediated' discourse (Marx calls 'intercourse') is
>>>>>>>> dialectical. Each 'mediates' the other in historical
>> development,
>>>>>>>> and even in collective production-and-dialogue.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Thus, I suggest, the 'exchange/use value' of an
>>>>>>>> utterance/dialogic exchange maybe ought to be examined in the
>>>>>>>> ideological context of its relationship with the 'whole' of
>>>>>>>> social re/production where class power becomes visible. I don't
>>>>>>>> know how to do this, but the argument is there in
>>>>>>>> Bourdieu: the power relations between people are part of the
>>>>>>>> capital-mediated structure of relations in a field (including
>> the
>>>>>>>> field of opinion/discourse), and this explains the forms of
>>>>>>>> discourse that express these power relationships and help to
>> hold
>>>>>>>> powerful positions in place in the field. In this view it is not
>>>>>>>> possible to identify the 'value' of an utterance or a sign
>>>>>>>> outside of this wider analysis… and an analysis of the
>> particular
>>>>>>>> discursive/cultural field
>>>>>> within its wider sociality.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Sorry this is a bit prolix and so likely to provoke tangential
>>>>>> responses:
>>>>>>>> I did not have time tonight to write a shorter more focussed
>> post.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Best wishes
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Julian
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Ps The separate discussion on mediation: this might be another
>>>>>>>> thread. I only want to note here that the mediation of the
>>>>>>>> 'intercourse' through its 'other' in the material form of
>>>>>>>> 'production' (I call the economy above) and vice versa does not
>>>>>>>> involve a mediator 'between' the two, but is purely hegelian in
>>>>>>>> seeing the mediation of 'x' through 'not x' in a totality.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On 18/04/2017 16:34, "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf
>>>>>>>> of Wolff-Michael Roth" <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on
>> behalf
>>>>>>>> of wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Larry, do not be confused. Take it with Bateson (Mind and
>>>>>>>> Nature), and see
>>>>>>>>> Andy and Michael as two eyes. You then get this:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> It is correct (and a great improvement) to begin to think of
>> the
>>>>>>>>> two parties to the interaction as two eyes , each giving a
>>>>>>>>> monocular view of what goes on and , together , giving a
>>>>>>>>> binocular view in depth. This double view is the relationship .
>>>>>>>>> (p.133)
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> What is gained by comparing the data collected by one eye with
>>>>>>>>> the data collected by the other? Typically , both eyes are
>> aimed
>>>>>>>>> at the same region of the surrounding universe, and this might
>>>>>>>>> seem to be a wasteful use of the sense organs. But the anatomy
>>>>>>>>> indicates that very considerable advantage must accrue from
>> this
>>>>>>>>> usage. The innervation of the two retinas and the creation at
>>>>>>>>> the optic chiasma of pathways for the redistribution of
>>>>>>>>> information is such an extraordinary feat of morphogenesis as
>>>>>>>>> must surely denote great evolutionary advantage . (p.69)
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Michael
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>> --------------
>>>>>>>>> ------
>>>>>>>>> Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor Applied Cognitive
>>>>>>>>> Science MacLaurin Building A567 University of Victoria
>> Victoria,
>>>>>>>>> BC, V8P 5C2 http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth
>>>>>>>>> <http://education2.uvic.ca/faculty/mroth/>
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics
>>>>>>>>> <https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/new-dir
>>>>>>>>> ections-in-mat
>>>>>>>>> hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of-
>> mathematics/>*
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 8:18 AM, Andy Blunden
>>>>>>>>> <ablunden@mira.net>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> different trajectories, Larry.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>> Andy Blunden
>>>>>>>>>> http://home.mira.net/~andy
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-
>> decision-
>>>>>>>>>> maki ng On 18/04/2017 11:44 PM, lpscholar2@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Andy, Julian, Michael,
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> My learning curve at this moment is in the way of Michael
>>>>>>>>>>> describing the back and forth double movement. That is both
>>>>>>>>>>> giving/receiving, both
>>>>>>>>>>> (expressing/listening) occurring WITHIN our relationship.
>> This
>>>>>>>>>>> prior to or more primordial then taking the individual stance
>>>>>>>>>>> as primary and the relation as derivative.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> So... In this ‘spirit’ I will pose a question?
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Andy says: ‘artefact mediated relation BETWEEN INDIVIDUALS as
>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>> unit.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Michael says: You remain with back-and-forth movement that is
>>>>>>>>>>> NEVER action but IS transcation. Here the back-and-forth
>>>>>>>>>>> ‘relation’ is the UNIT, and the individuals emerge from
>> WITHIN
>>>>>>>>>>> this primordial double relation.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Are Andy and Michael on the same trajectory, shifting the
>>>>>>>>>>> accent, or are imdividuals situated differently in the
>>>>>>>>>>> comtrasting notions of units.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> In particular does Andy ‘figure’ bridges whereas Michael
>>>> ‘figures’
>>>>>>>>>>> gaps in the notion of BETWEEN.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Pursuing my growing edge, going out on a limb
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> *From: *Andy Blunden <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>
>>>>>>>>>>> *Sent: *April 17, 2017 11:54 PM
>>>>>>>>>>> *To: *xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.
>> edu>
>>>>>>>>>>> *Subject: *[Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value'
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Julian/Michael,
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> I remember getting very excited back in the early '80s when
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> I spotted the symmetry between the first chapters of Capital
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> and Marx's critique of algebra in his Mathematical
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Manuscripts. That lasted about a week. The symmetry between
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Vygotsky's analysis of speech and Marx's analysis of
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> production is a strong one because both take an
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> artefact-mediated relation between individuals as the unit.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> There is a symmetry at the level of the molar unit as well,
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> which, so far as I know has been neglected. But this
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> structural symmetry cannot usefully be taken too far. The
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> "point" is that the unit is a unit of a whole, and the
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> productive activity of a community is not the same as its
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> language, which as Marx said "the philosophers are bound to
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> make into an independent realm." Concretely, speaking is not
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> producing. But like all human activities, both are subject
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> to analysis by units of artefact-mediated actions.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Andy Blunden
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> http://home.mira.net/~andy
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-
>> decision
>>>>>>>>>>> -mak
>>>>>>>>>>> ing
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/04/2017 7:01 AM, Julian Williams wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Michael
>>>>>>>>>>>> In principle I am Ok with the idea of the unit that contains
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> essential
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> contradictions… but of what?
>>>>>>>>>>>> For Marx the whole point of commodity exchange/value is that
>>>>>>>>>>>> it is
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> beginning of an explanation of the 'economy', capitalism, and
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> labour
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> theory of value is the key to its collapse …
>>>>>>>>>>>> What is the equivalent 'point' of sign exchange in dialogue?
>>>>>>>>>>>> And
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> where
>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> the equivalent of the theory of value? I think the
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> sensuous/supersensuous
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> is a distraction from the 'point'.
>>>>>>>>>>>> That’s my puzzle.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Julian
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/04/2017 21:49, "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on
>>>>>>>>>>>> behalf of Wolff-Michael Roth"
>>>>>>>>>>>> <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of
>>>> wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Julian,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the sign is to the verbal exchange what the commodity is to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> commodity
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> exchange--both the sensuous and supersensuous parts are there
>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Marx
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vygotsky are writing about. :-) Michael
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------
>> ------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> --------------
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> ------
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor Applied Cognitive
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Science MacLaurin Building A567 University of Victoria
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://education2.uvic.ca/faculty/mroth/>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/new-
>> dir
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> ections-in-mat
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of-
>> mathematics/
>>>>>>>>>>>> *
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 12:11 PM, Julian Williams <
>>>>>>>>>>>>> julian.williams@manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael and all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am coming late to this discussion and maybe have been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> missing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> important thingsŠ but I want to see a few issues addressed by
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Functor:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Commodity => Sign: my skepticism follows to some extent
>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> critique I
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote of the mapping 'labor = learning' that you are familiar
>>>> with:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some ways I am even more skeptical of this metaphor. So:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Commodity to sign, is a unit of a totality as in 'economy'
>>> to
>>>> ..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'Š?
>>>>>>>>>>> Š '
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> What ? Maybe 'dialogue/discourse'?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What is the 'value' that is exchanged in discourse, and
>> how
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does it ultimately realise its 'use value' in some sort of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dialogic 'consumption'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of useful understanding?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How does the producer of value 'labour' to produce it, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 'labour time' related to the 'exchange value' of the sign
>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> results?
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> [Bearing in mind that the labour theory of value is Marx's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> essential
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> contribution.]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then how does this work relate to devious studies: we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> already have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> work of Bourdieu who assigns cultural capital/value to
>>>>>>>>>>> symbolic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> power
>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> the cultural fieldŠ is there a connection here?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards as ever
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Julian
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ps I need to come back to you about Hegel (I am far from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happy with reading the 'Ideal' as a straightforward
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> negation of the
>>>>>> 'Real'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> implicit
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> in what you sayŠ) when I have thought about this a bit more -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> maybe in
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 2018Š we should pick up!   :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/04/2017 18:22, "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behalf of Wolff-Michael Roth"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of
>>>> wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Larry,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things become easier to think through if you do not take
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> individualist
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> starting point but a relational one---not "she has to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> produce
>>>>> . .
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ."
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> look at what is happening in the exchange, where each
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> giving also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> taking, such that in a commodity exchange, you have double
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> giving-taking;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a verbal exchange, each speaking also involves
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> listening and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> receiving,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the receiving is for the purpose of giving (speaking,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> replying).
>>>>>>>>>>> As
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> soon as you do this, you remain with back-and-forth movement,
>>>>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> longer
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> action but transaction.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The other interesting thing is that the Russian word
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> znachenie,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> translated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as "meaning" (really, signification) also translates as
>>>> "value"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> "magnitude," and Il'enkov (2009) parenthetically adds
>>> "function"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> "rôle". I am quoting from p. 178:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Marx joins Hegel as regards terminology, and not Kant or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fichte, who tried to solve the problem of Œideality¹
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (i.e.,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> activity)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> while
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> remaining Œinside
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consciousness¹, without venturing into the external
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sensuously-perceptible
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> corporeal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> world, the world of the palpable-corporeal forms and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relations of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      This Hegelian definition of the term Œideality¹
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> takes in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whole
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> range of phenomena
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> within which the Œideal¹, understood as the corporeally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embodied
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> form
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the activity of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> social man, really exists ­ as activity in the form of
>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thing,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> conversely, as the thing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the form of activity, as a Œmoment¹ of this activity,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fleeting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> metamorphoses.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      Without an understanding of this state of affairs
>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> totally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> impossible to fathom
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the miracles performed by the commodity before people¹s
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eyes, the commodity-form of the product, particularly in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its dazzling money-form, in the form
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> notorious Œreal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talers¹, Œreal roubles¹, or Œreal dollars¹, things which,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as soon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> have the slightest
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theoretical understanding of them, immediately turn out
>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Œreal¹
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all, but Œideal¹
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through and through, things whose category quite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unambiguously
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> includes
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> words, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> units of language, and many other Œthings¹. Things that,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> while
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> wholly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Œmaterial¹,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> palpable-corporeal formations, acquire all their
>> Œmeaning¹
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (function
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rôle) from Œspirit¹,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from Œthought¹ and even owe to it their specific
>> corporeal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> existence.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Outside spirit and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without it there cannot even be words; there is merely a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vibration of
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> air.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------
>> ----------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ---------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor Applied Cognitive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Science MacLaurin Building A567 University of Victoria
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://education2.uvic.ca/faculty/mroth/>
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.sensepublishers.
>> com/catalogs/bookseries/new-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> directions-in-mat
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of-
>> mathemat
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ics/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 8:31 AM, <
>> lpscholar2@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am attempting to follow Wolff-Michael¹s trajectory as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presented in
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> his
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> article (A Dialectical Materialist Reading of the Sign).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On page
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 149
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> he
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attempts to clarify the difference between sign complex
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Œuse-value¹
>>>>>>>>>>> &
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> sign
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complex Œvalue¹.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> His methodology is to read Marx Œsubstituting¹ the word
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ŒSIGN¹
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (implying
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sign complex) FOR Œcommodity¹ and intuites this method
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generative.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here is his realization through the method of re-reading
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (trading,
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> translation, transposition) as I am carried along.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a) USE-VALUE: Œnatural signs¹ such as animal footprints
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are useful/functional to the hunter inherently; they do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NOT have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Œvalue¹
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> (exchangeble value) though they do have use-value for the
>>>>>>>>>>> hunter
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> hunting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> party in finding game.  Similarly a sign complex can be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> useful
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> product of human labour without being Œvalue¹
>>> (exchangeable).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Someone
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> who
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> satisfies HER needs through her product produces
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Œuse-value¹ but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NOT
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Œvalue¹.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> b) VALUE: (exchangeable). To produce SIGNS (complexes),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> she has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> produce
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not only Œuse-value¹ but use-value FOR others. She has
>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> produce Œsocietal¹ use-values.... To be/come
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (exchangeable) SIGN, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> product
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> HAS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TO BE TRANSFERRED to another, FOR whom the SIGN complex
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Œconstitutes¹
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> use-value.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The production of signs that produce no Œvalue¹ that is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exchangeable
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> FOR
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> others leads to personal notes often having NO use-value
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> others.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> To
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trans/form use-value to BE come Œvalue¹ requires
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exchangeability
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> under
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lighting various forms of SIGN (complexes).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apologies to Wolff-Michael if my echoing his re-reading
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> methodology
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> garrbled the trans/mission?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I offer this because it helps clarify my reading of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Œuse-value¹ & Œvalue¹
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (exchangeable)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My morning musement
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> <cole.re-look.pdf>