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

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



Michael et all :I , in my turn as well as in my capacity as being related to this forum , ask my questions and you are again quite free to put it to silence not to waste your good times . 

As to your critique below , you pretend that you are all sunk in very serious material practical actual corporeal sensual tangible palpable concrete non-ideal non-referential meaning-free domain . This is shortly and summarily base and the social relations arising from it . Remember primitive needs , food, shelter ... But when we exit this domain --ignoring linear spiral magic for a moment--we enter the domain of superstructure. Julian , I think , in his way , referred to all this. That's generally the realm of 'ideas' arising from those social relations being realized as worldVIEWs , ideologies , philosophies , knowledge , sciences , theories , schools of thought , religion , mythology , etc. etc. (or shortly ideological system) These are reflections. In later history , they can have their relative independence. And we have Marx's recourse to dialectics . That is , these reflections , in their turn affect each other and more importantly , they , in their totality , affect the social relations and through it , the base. However , they cannot and do not alter , metamorphose , uproot the essence of the base being fathomed to reach 'matter' to this point of time (Marx,Ilyenko,Vygotsky,Voloshinov,etc.) . 

 Now if a marxist/socialist revolution occurs , the efficient practitioners first of all begin to act within the base as you all know all. 

Now contrary to what you pretend to do materially within the bounds of actuality and concretion (reminiscent of solid hard mass) definitely and repeatedly sticking the label 'abstract' to whoever enters the dialogue , you're in fact strangling yourselves with the rope of 'ideas/ideals' borrowed from Ilyenko on one side and ironically from the numerous post-modernist scholars and philosophers on the other .

Yes you're all right with what Marx technically says about non-ideological ontological entities up to the point of social relations but though this point does not act as a barrier to the permission to arrive in the domain of superstructure , it however bars you from ignoring the indispensable distinction . The whole debate and controversy is here. If Vygotsky deals with sign/discourse/utterance all pertaining to the sphere of superstructure the way you do , then Vygotsky must have believed in 'supersensuals' as 'materials' as in their natures . Then the distinction wanes . The knot has not yet been disentangled . Lenin's definition might still be relevant with his definition of the material : a thing outside the mind standing to/on itself. It runs ahead unless we pose first the third with equals as surplus with respect to material social relations and second therefrom unless we transfer the ultimate outcome of the mechanism as occurrence of 'alienation' as some category within ideological domain. You as a scholar are musing with your reflections over what Marx mused over the real material circumstantial situational processes in progress in real time and place in factories and plants . But the worker is tangibly involved in problems of his life with another problem that the hand is his but the awareness is yours all separate from each other. And you imagine/fancy you're involved in such a situation distorting practical with theoretical. 

Lave and McDermott's case is different. They take the whole educational system in dealing with LEARNING AND TEACHING phenomena as derivative from the sphere of ideology/superstructure and use similes and metaphors to justify an effective analogy in Marxian terms . There's no such factories and no such manual labour over raw materials and no corporeal products to satisfy the material needs of men and no metamorphesis of essences. Just we understand that what is happening within the process of material production (labour) is happening correspondingly not identically and essentially in a different nature in the process of learning production . We cannot eliminate alienation and human estrangement from his self and identity (whatever mental efforts we might get involved in) unless we eliminate what gave impetus to the appearance of this estrangement , that is , disown the hugely accumulated surplus (global capital) from the usurpers . And that's why Marx chose to express : Workers of the World ! Unite ! # Intellectuals of the World ! Unite ! No belief in Marx ? Another matter!
BestHaydi

  



      From: Wolff-Michael Roth <wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com>
 To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu> 
 Sent: Saturday, 22 April 2017, 23:18:54
 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value'
   
Julian,
E-V and U-V, but not of the kind that you are talking about, the abstract .
. . You can look at it like LSV, who emphasizes that the word has a
sensible (material) part and a supersensual (ideal) part, not in the
abstract, but concretely realized in every exchange. Michael

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor
Applied Cognitive Science
MacLaurin Building A567
University of Victoria
Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2
http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth <http://education2.uvic.ca/faculty/mroth/>

New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics
<https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/new-directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of-mathematics/>*

On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 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
> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> >> >> > > > >>>>>
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>
>