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

Tue Apr 18 08:18:11 PDT 2017

different trajectories, Larry.

a

------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Blunden
http://home.mira.net/~andy
http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making 

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-making 
>
>
> 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-directions-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
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>>
>
> >>>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>