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

Wed Apr 19 18:08:28 PDT 2017

Mike,
also, isn't выска́зывание (vyskazyvanie) also well (and perhaps better)
translated as statement (in place of utterance), and this is why for
Bakhtin a whole book could be выска́зывание?

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 Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 5:45 PM, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:

> "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-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
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >
>