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

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



It depends on the painting, doesn't it? At any rate, whether you consider a
painter good or not certainly does. People can look at this discussion
article on the LCHC website and decide for themselves, not only about my
own powers as a painter but also about the powers of painters next to whom
my powers are pretty puny (Caravaggio, Caravaggio, and Caravaggio).

http://lchc.ucsd.edu/mca/Paper/The_Real_Ideal.pdf

If you compare "The Dead Seal and the Shelving Sea" (p. 3) with "Farmers
Work Hard" (p. 10) you will see exactly what Greg means. "The Dead Seal" is
more about paint then about a dead seal (I painted it during the day, and
made it a night scene because of the way the kind of paint I had). "Farmers
Work Hard" is really all about the people in the painting: my best friend,
his mother and father, and his little daughter, and the onion harvest (I
painted it over many months, and when I needed one paint instead of another
I went out and got it).

Jakobson argues that only the poetic function of language is really
concerned with word stuff (so for example when you rhyme "onion" with
"bunion" you are more interested in the word stuff then the actual meaning,
else you would have used "callous"). But Jakobson had a very generous view
of what that meant (so for example he would probably say that if I
translate Homer as "we lay down next to the shelving sea and slept" I am
using word stuff to convey the hiss and crackle and not just the sight of
the waves, but that the way in which the sight is conveyed is also done
through the stuff of the word, because "wavy" would have been more
transparent to the object of the waviness of the waves).

I think one key difference between tools and signs is that with tools the
whole point is to try to remove the person from the scene (as Marx says, to
allow objects to act on each other, and as Hegel said, reason is only as
powerful as it is cunning). But texts do not communicate anything by
themselves: people communicate with texts. So to remove the person from the
context of situation is to remove the meaning of the sign as well. That's
why I think "Farmers Work Hard" is a better painting than "The Dead Seal"
(even though it is an earlier one), and also why it's okay to paint a
painting about paint if you are painting a dead seal, but not if you are
painting Emmett Till in his coffin.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2017/03/29/the_problem_with_the_whitney_biennial_s_emmett_till_painting_isn_t_that.html

I remember when I was art school we had a nude model--she was a poor girl
from the countryside, only doing it for the money and very self-conscious,
and one day she had her period but she couldn't afford to take the day off,
so she staunched herself with rags, and stood there naked with tears
running down her cheeks and blood running down her thigh while the
professor exhorted us to paint her like a side of beef, or some other
clever thing that he had learned from Cezanne. As Vygotsky says (and
Chekhov too, at the end of the Cherry Orchard): you have forgotten, there's
a person in there!

David Kellogg
Macquarie University


On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 10:03 AM, Greg Thompson <greg.a.thompson@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Would it help our understand of "wording" any to know that David is a
> painter (and quite a good one!)?
>
> Someone else has put this much more elegantly than this, but we might ask,
> (in parallel fashion to word and wording): Is the meaning in the paint or
> in the painting?
>
> -greg
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 8:23 PM, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Sometimes the answer to a question depends on the answer to a question.
> > Like:
> >
> > A: Can I have a beer?
> > B: Are you eighteen?
> >
> > So if you tell me that "life" and "living" are two different words, then
> I
> > will tell you that they are not ineffable: you can say for example that a
> > "life" is an instance of "living", or perhaps that "living" is an
> instance
> > of "life", and the explanation isn't circular. But if you tell me that
> > "life" and "living" are just two different wordings of the same meaning,
> > then I will say that word meaning is ineffable, in the sense that the
> only
> > way to define it is in terms of itself.
> >
> > All word meanings are ineffable in this rather general sense. In order to
> > explain them, we need other words and other word meanings. Teachers run
> > into this problem all the time when they try to teach words with
> > flashcards: If I am teaching the word "kick" and I have a flashcard with
> a
> > foot kicking a ball, the child really doesn't know if I am teaching the
> > meaning "foot", or "ball" or "football" or whatever. The only way to
> > disambiguate the picture is with words, and that's true of any word
> meaning
> > you care to think of. Wittgenstein has a somewhat more elaborate version
> of
> > this argument, but I prefer to stick to situations I myself have
> > experienced (meaning situations that, as Vandy says, I myself have
> > transformed into a system of word meanings).
> >
> > We have a system of wordings that tends to privilege entities over
> > processes. Halliday says that dynamism and synopticity are complementary:
> > there isn't any sense in which "living" is somehow closer to reality than
> > "life", and so there also isn't any sense in which one is closer to
> > idealization than the other. Nevertheless, as Virginia Woolf knew, "Life
> > stand still here" is a much harder trick to pull off, and it takes kids
> > many more years to master it.
> >
> > David Kellogg
> > Macquarie University
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 12:05 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Since you answer my question with a question, I take it that the answer
> > is
> > > "yes."
> > >
> > > Andy
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Andy Blunden
> > > http://home.mira.net/~andy
> > > http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making
> > > On 26/04/2017 11:56 AM, David Kellogg wrote:
> > >
> > >> Andy--
> > >>
> > >> Are "life" and "living" two different words, or are they two different
> > >> wordings of the same word?
> > >>
> > >> David Kellogg
> > >> Macquarie University
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net
> > >> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>     David, after reading this fascinating 2-page narrative
> > >>     about Ricoeur and the structuralists out of the blue
> > >>     we get the conclusion: "And the power is not in the
> > >>     word, but in the wording." Have I missed something? Is
> > >>     "wording" ineffable?
> > >>
> > >>     Andy
> > >>
> > >>     ------------------------------------------------------------
> > >>     Andy Blunden
> > >>     http://home.mira.net/~andy <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy>
> > >>     http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-
> > decision-making
> > >>     <http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-
> > >> decision-making>
> > >>
> > >>     On 26/04/2017 7:13 AM, David Kellogg wrote:
> > >>
> > >>         I remember Paul Ricoeur. He taught at a seminary
> > >>         at the University of
> > >>         Chicago when I was an undergraduate. I was a
> > >>         member of the campus Spartacus
> > >>         Youth Club, and it was the only place that would
> > >>         allow us a public space
> > >>         for meetings. I tried to sell him a copy of "Young
> > >>         Spartacus" once: I can't
> > >>         remember if he bought it or not. But I remember
> > >>         him as a French gentleman,
> > >>         personally quite conservative, but not at all put
> > >>         off by the presence of
> > >>         a screaming red nineteen year old who for
> > >>         inexplicable reasons had
> > >>         a Parisian accent and spoke the argot of the
> > >>         Versailles banlieue. Maybe he
> > >>         bought our French paper, Le Bolchevik.
> > >>
> > >>         I have been reading a symposium "On Narrative"
> > >>         that was going on at UC when
> > >>         I was organizing against Milton Friedman's Nobel
> > >>         Prize (he was also a
> > >>         professor there at the time--he won the prize the
> > >>         same year that Saul
> > >>         Bellow, another UC professor, did). Ricoeur,
> > >>         Derrida, and Hayden White all
> > >>         took part.
> > >>
> > >>         It was the heyday of structuralism, and Ricoeur's
> > >>         contribution is
> > >>         interesting because it's quite ANTI-structuralist:
> > >>         he points out that the
> > >>         effect of structuralism on narrative studies has
> > >>         been to de-historicize,
> > >>         de-memorize, dehumanize; to convert stories into
> > >>         exchange values rather
> > >>         than use values. So the elements that Propp
> > >>         discovers in Ludmilla and
> > >>         Ruslan (and the Firebird and its variants) can
> > >>         come in any order. In
> > >>         contrast, even the simplest act of repetition is
> > >>         historicized, humanized,
> > >>         and memorable. A use value and not an exchange value.
> > >>
> > >>         Derrida ignores everybody else and embarks on his
> > >>         usual verbal
> > >>         pyrotechnics, but Hayden White develops Ricoeur's
> > >>         idea in a way I think I
> > >>         actually used in my "Thinking of Feeling" paper:
> > >>         human memory goes through
> > >>         stages: medieval annals, Renaissance chronicles,
> > >>         and the nineteenth century
> > >>         narrative, each of which adds something
> > >>         distinctive and makes the
> > >>         meta-narrative that they form together into
> > >>         something non-reversible and
> > >>         developmental. But now I see that the reviewers
> > >>         made me remove all that (it
> > >>         is just as well: sociogenesis is one story and
> > >>         ontogenesis quite another).
> > >>
> > >>         Ruqaiya Hasan used to say that there is a certain
> > >>         unity imposed on
> > >>         experience by language, from "the living of life"
> > >>         to the child's first real
> > >>         morpho-phoneme. If you take the phrase "the living
> > >>         of life" just as an
> > >>         example, you can see some of what Ricoeur is
> > >>         trying to get at. On the face
> > >>         of it, the phrase is redundant: the word "life"
> > >>         seems to contain absolutely
> > >>         nothing that isn't already there in "living". Yet
> > >>         "of life" must mean
> > >>         something, otherwise it would not enable us to add
> > >>         the specifier "the" to
> > >>         "living".
> > >>
> > >>         I think Ricoeur would say that "life" is a kind of
> > >>         de-historicized,
> > >>         de-memorized, de-humanized "living", one that is
> > >>         turned from process into
> > >>         entity, and made synoptical, like the various
> > >>         retellings in different
> > >>         orders of the four Gospels. Yes, it's a powerful
> > >>         way of speaking, but it is
> > >>         powerful the way that sculpture is rather than the
> > >>         way that painting is.
> > >>         And the power is not in the word, but in the wording.
> > >>
> > >>         David Kellogg
> > >>         Macquarie University
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>         On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 4:31 AM,
> > >>         <lpscholar2@gmail.com
> > >>         <mailto:lpscholar2@gmail.com>> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>             Mike,
> > >>             There is a particular example that occurred
> > >>             here when Wolff-Michael
> > >>             referenced Ricouer’s 3 volume project
> > >>             exploring metaphor and narrativity
> > >>             and their common unifying theme existing
> > >>             within human temporality
> > >>             (finitude).
> > >>             Is there an expectation for ‘us’ to go back
> > >>             and reference Ricouer’s
> > >>             exploration of this relation in depth? Through
> > >>             reading and re-reading these
> > >>             works of scholarship.
> > >>             I myself turned to the preface of Ricouer’s 3
> > >>             volume exploration of this
> > >>             particular relation,  metaphor/narrativity::
> > >>             Temporality.
> > >>
> > >>             Without human temporality, narrativity and
> > >>             metaphor would not exist.
> > >>
> > >>             On this listserve there was a glance or nod in
> > >>             Ricouer’s direction and
> > >>             then???.
> > >>
> > >>             This month we are recycling themes which
> > >>             already exist in the archive, but
> > >>             is this recycling just repetition,, or
> > >>             renovation, or innovation?.
> > >>
> > >>             Peg’s metaphor of leaving loose threads for
> > >>             others to return to expresses
> > >>             a temporal sense ability at odds with high
> > >>             impact journals.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>             Sent from my Windows 10 phone
> > >>
> > >>             From: mike cole
> > >>             Sent: April 25, 2017 11:02 AM
> > >>             To: Larry Purss
> > >>             Cc: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > >>             Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting
> > >>             'use-value' & 'value'
> > >>
> > >>             Right Larry. A lot of high impact journals
> > >>             (not all) are deeply
> > >>             a-historical.
> > >>
> > >>             When my wife and I were writing a textbook, we
> > >>             had, with each addition,
> > >>             to cut out older refs. To be allow to refer to
> > >>             Gesell, Rousseau in a
> > >>             serious manner was a constant battle.
> > >>
> > >>             But what the heck. In a lot of classes that
> > >>             use the textbook, students are
> > >>             not required to remember or re-cover material
> > >>             from the mid-term on the
> > >>             final exam. In a course on development in a
> > >>             field that makes a big deal of
> > >>             sequence and growth over time. Live for the
> > >>             moment, no need to know the
> > >>             history of behavior in order to understand it.
> > >>
> > >>             Yes, mediation has not gone away, despite its
> > >>             claimed ailments and devious
> > >>             traps.  :-)
> > >>
> > >>             mike
> > >>
> > >>             On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 2:00 PM,
> > >>             <lpscholar2@gmail.com
> > >>             <mailto:lpscholar2@gmail.com>> wrote:
> > >>             So... If more than 10 years old makes thinking
> > >>             and thought anethema WHAT
> > >>             does that say about the scope of thinking of
> > >>             high impact journals?
> > >>
> > >>             When returning to wording, statement, and
> > >>             utterance I hope we also turn
> > >>             back to ‘mediation’.
> > >>             I have this definition of mediation to
> > >>             consider: (carrying across -within
> > >>             back/forth) BOTH (giving/receiving) within a
> > >>             singular relation
> > >>             This is felt differently than mediation:
> > >>             (carrying over to the other side)
> > >>             which may imply bridges  required for joining
> > >>             or linking two pre-existing
> > >>             sides (first one and then the other).
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>             Sent from my Windows 10 phone
> > >>
> > >>             From: mike cole
> > >>             Sent: April 23, 2017 9:54 AM
> > >>             To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > >>             Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value'
> > >>             & 'value'
> > >>
> > >>             Hi David et al --
> > >>
> > >>             Found my copy of Cole and Scribner! To my
> > >>             relief, it appears that somewhere
> > >>             along the way there was a misattribution of
> > >>             that quote you posted that
> > >>             Hasan criticized and that I wanted to disavow
> > >>             (but there it was in black
> > >>             and white!).
> > >>
> > >>             So, apropos, we have a problem of context
> > >>             here.  If you look at p. 25 of
> > >>             Scribner and Cole, you will find that the
> > >>             quotation was in a paper by Cole
> > >>             and Gay (1972) (A paper on culture and memory
> > >>             in the American
> > >>             Anthropologist I had did not recall the date
> > >>             of. If you go just one
> > >>             sentence above the quotation you find the
> > >>             following:
> > >>
> > >>             *For instance, one anthropologist commented,
> > >>             upon hearing about the results
> > >>             of our first research in this area (Gay and
> > >>             Cole 1967): The reasoning and
> > >>             thinking processes of different people in
> > >>             different cultures don't differ .
> > >>             . . just their values, beliefs, and ways of
> > >>             classifying differ [personal
> > >>             correspondence ].*
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>             We were *contesting *this statement which was
> > >>             the anthropological consensus
> > >>             at the time. For those interested in our own
> > >>             views at the time,
> > >>
> > >>             it is best to consult Chapter 8 of that book
> > >>             by Cole and Scribner on
> > >>             *Culture
> > >>             and Thought. *(Its all antiquarian stuff
> > >>             anyway. Its now 50 years since the
> > >>             first publication of that line of work!
> > >>             References more than 10 years old
> > >>             are anethema to HIGH IMPACT  journals!  :-)
> > >>             and :-(
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>             mike
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>             Which takes the discussion back to the
> > >>             discussion of wording, stating, and
> > >>             uttering.
> > >>
> > >>             On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Wolff-Michael
> > >>             Roth <
> > >>             wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com
> > >>             <mailto:wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com>> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>                 Julian,
> > >>                 I suggest reading Rossi-Landi, and Italian
> > >>                 Marxist scholar, where I have
> > >>                 taken this:
> > >>
> > >>                 Like other products of labor, signs,
> > >>                 words, expressions,
> > >>                 and messages have use value in
> > >>                 communication and are subject to exchange,
> > >>                 distribution, and consumption; the markets
> > >>                 within which these
> > >>                 products circulate as commodities are
> > >>                 linguistic communities (Rossi-
> > >>                 Landi 1983).
> > >>
> > >>                 An appreciation of his contributions by
> > >>                 Cianca Bianchi states: "Through
> > >>
> > >>             his
> > >>
> > >>                 "homological schema",
> > >>                 material and linguistic production are
> > >>                 conceived to be the result of a
> > >>                 single process
> > >>                 that is particular to human beings and
> > >>                 that can best be understood in
> > >>
> > >>             terms
> > >>
> > >>                 of work
> > >>                 and trade. "
> > >>
> > >>                 Cheers,
> > >>
> > >>                 Michael
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>                 ------------------------------
> > >> ------------------------------
> > >>                 --------------------
> > >>                 Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor
> > >>                 Applied Cognitive Science
> > >>                 MacLaurin Building A567
> > >>                 University of Victoria
> > >>                 Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2
> > >>                 http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth
> > >>                 <http://web.uvic.ca/%7Emroth>
> > >>                 <http://education2.uvic.ca/faculty/mroth/
> > >>                 <http://education2.uvic.ca/faculty/mroth/>>
> > >>
> > >>                 New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics
> > >>                 <https://www.sensepublishers.
> > com/catalogs/bookseries/new-
> > >>                 <https://www.sensepublishers.
> > com/catalogs/bookseries/new-
> > >> >
> > >>                 directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the-
> > >>                 mathematics-of-mathematics/>*
> > >>
> > >>                 On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 12:09 PM, Julian
> > >>                 Williams <
> > >>                 julian.williams@manchester.ac.uk
> > >>                 <mailto:julian.williams@manchester.ac.uk>>
> > >>                 wrote:
> > >>
> > >>                     Michael
> > >>
> > >>                     As you were - so we are entirely in
> > >>                     disagreement, then.
> > >>
> > >>                     For me the E-V and U-V of a dialogic
> > >>                     exchange has nothing essentially
> > >>
> > >>             to
> > >>
> > >>                     do with the sensual and super sensual
> > >>                     moments of the 'word' as per
> > >>                     Vygotsky. And I don't see at all how
> > >>                     these really confer 'value' in any
> > >>                     Marxist sense of the term on
> > >>                     speech/utterance (etc etc).
> > >>
> > >>                     I am guessing that we are back with
> > >>                     analogy of 'commodity' and 'word'
> > >>
> > >>             in
> > >>
> > >>                     dialogue, rather than a holistic
> > >>                     understanding of discourse in the
> > >>                     totality of social-economic relations,
> > >>                     and so we have made no progress
> > >>                     here.
> > >>
> > >>                     We can take this up another time perhaps.
> > >>
> > >>                     Julian
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>                     On 22/04/2017 19:47,
> > >>                     "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
> > >>                     <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> > >>                     on behalf of
> > >>                     Wolff-Michael Roth"
> > >>                     <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
> > >>                     <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> > >>                     on behalf of
> > >>                     wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com
> > >>                     <mailto: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://web.uvic.ca/%7Emroth>
> > >>                         <http://education2.uvic.ca/faculty/mroth/
> > >>                         <http://education2.uvic.ca/faculty/mroth/>>
> > >>
> > >>                         New book: *The Mathematics of
> > >>                         Mathematics
> > >>                         <https://www.sensepublishers.c
> > >> om/catalogs/bookseries/new-
> > >>                         <https://www.sensepublishers.c
> > >> om/catalogs/bookseries/new->
> > >>
> > >>                     directions-in-mat
> > >>
> > >>                         hematics-and-science-education
> > >> /the-mathematics-of-mathematics/>*
> > >>
> > >>                         On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 11:38 AM,
> > >>                         Julian Williams <
> > >>                         julian.williams@manchester.ac.uk
> > >>                         <mailto: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
> > >>                             <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> > >>                             on behalf of
> > >>                             Wolff-Michael Roth"
> > >>                             <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
> > >>                             <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> > >>                             on behalf of
> > >>                             wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com
> > >>                             <mailto: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://web.uvic.ca/%7Emroth>
> > >>                                 <http://education2.uvic.ca/
> > >>
> > >>             faculty/mroth/>
> > >>
> > >>                                 New book: *The Mathematics
> > >>                                 of Mathematics
> > >>                                 <https://www.sensepublishers.c
> > >> om/catalogs/bookseries/new-
> > >>                                 <https://www.sensepublishers.c
> > >> om/catalogs/bookseries/new->
> > >>
> > >>                             directions-in-mat
> > >>
> > >>                                 hematics-and-science-education
> > >> /the-mathematics-of-mathematics/>*
> > >>
> > >>                                 On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at
> > >>                                 10:24 AM, Julian Williams <
> > >>                                 julian.williams@manchester.ac.uk
> > >>                                 <mailto: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
> > >>                                     <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman
> > >> .ucsd.edu>
> > >>                                     on behalf
> > >>
> > >>             of
> > >>
> > >>                                     Wolff-Michael Roth"
> > >>                                     <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
> > >>                                     <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman
> > >> .ucsd.edu>
> > >>                                     on behalf
> > >>
> > >>             of
> > >>
> > >>                                     wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com
> > >>                                     <mailto: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://web.uvic.ca/%7Emroth>
> > >>                                         <http://education2.uvic.ca/
> > >>
> > >>                 faculty/mroth/
> > >>
> > >>                                         New book: *The
> > >>                                         Mathematics of
> > >>                                         Mathematics
> > >>                                         <
> https://www.sensepublishers.c
> > >> om/catalogs/bookseries/new-
> > >>                                         <
> https://www.sensepublishers.c
> > >> om/catalogs/bookseries/new->
> > >>
> > >>                                     directions-in-mat
> > >>
> > >>                                         hematics-and-science-education
> > >> /the-mathematics-of-
> > >>
> > >>             mathematics/>*
> > >>
> > >>                                         On Thu, Apr 20,
> > >>                                         2017 at 10:38 PM,
> > >>                                         David Kellogg
> > >>
> > >>                             <dkellogg60@gmail.com
> > >>                             <mailto: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"
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
> Assistant Professor
> Department of Anthropology
> 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
> Brigham Young University
> Provo, UT 84602
> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson
>