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

[Wolff-Michael Roth]

Andy:

In consciousness, the word is what ‒ in Feuerbach’s words ‒ is absolutely
impossible for one person but possible for two.

>From *Thinking and Speech*.

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 6:10 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:

> The structure of "Thinking and Speech" is that the early chapters begin
> with the Word and the later chapters focus on the Concept. I take this as a
> guide as to what Vygotsky meant by "word", and that is not in the narrow
> sense. A word is the sign for a concept, and this is often 2 or 3 words, an
> "expression."
>
> "Utterance" is Bakhtin's unit and it is quite different from "word." An
> utterance is defined in terms of transactions between interlocutors. An
> utterance begins when someone starts speaking and ends when they hand the
> talking stick on to the next person. That could be an entire speech, or it
> could be a single exclamation. An utterance may reference a thousand
> concepts or none at all.
>
> Two quite different science are built on these two units.
>
> Note that Marx's "Capital" has the structure of "Thinking and Speech" in
> that only the first 4 chapters use the commodity as a unit, and once Marx
> inverts the unit (C-M-C becomes M-C-M') the unit is capital. And yet I know
> of no analogous structure in Bakhtin's work .... but then, I don't haven't
> studied Bakhtin.
>
> Andy
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> Andy Blunden
> http://home.mira.net/~andy
> http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making
> On 20/04/2017 10:42 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote:
>
>> Andy, could you give bit more on that distinction between word and
>> utterance as it pertains to the ongoing discussion? I am interested. Also,
>> I note that different participants in the thread have used the different
>> terms, 'sign,' and 'utterance.'
>>
>> Alfredo
>> ________________________________________
>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>> on behalf of Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
>> Sent: 20 April 2017 02:26
>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value'
>>
>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>
>>
>