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

Wed Apr 19 17:26:26 PDT 2017

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-directions-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-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-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
>>>>