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

[Wolff-Michael Roth]

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-directions-in-mathematics-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
> >>
> >>
>
>
>