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

[Wolff-Michael Roth]

Julian,
My sense is that you are referring to macro-issues, you need to stand back,
abstract, and look from the outside at a system, let it unfold in front of
your eyes.

I am concerned with the actual constitution of society in individual
exchanges, actual relations between two or more people, the "ensemble" of
which constitutes society (Marx, Vygotsky, Leont'ev). I am thus concerned
with actual exchange relations, the kind Marx refers to in the first 100
pages of das Kapital, where he has the tailor exchange a coat with the
weaver receiving two yards of cloth . . . The tailor exchanges his/her
cloth with others, like the farmer, for 40 bushels of grain . . .  In my
work, I am following them around, concerned not with "meaning" or "ideal"
in the abstract but as realized in every THIS occasion of a social relation.

My sense is that the differences you point out (attempt to) lie
there---perhaps.

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 Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 10:24 AM, Julian Williams <
julian.williams@manchester.ac.uk> wrote:

> Michael
>
> Going back many, many posts now: almost 24 hours worth, I think.
>
> When I wrote this:
>
> '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.'
>
> The sort of thing I had in mind was this 'word/utterance/statement' of
> yours (I care not at the moment which of these is chosen - in this context
> I am not clear it matters, though I recognise that every work was once an
> utterance and a speech act… and that parsing into words is a relatively
> recent cultural artifice):
>
> '…. My personal inclination would be to take Ricœur as more authoritative
> on the subject than any or most of us' (see below)
>
> I think the 'value' (i.e. exchange value) of this statement of yours in my
> frame has to be understood in the context of its function/workthe
> academic field (or this section of it), how power is exerted here through
> reference to 'authorities' like Ricoeur (NB not just 'authors' like the
> rest of us? ), whether this is really useful in helping the community to
> progress its understanding of the issue for practical purposes (e.g. How
> many of the readers of this post have seriously read Ricoeur enough to get
> the point?).
>
> How our community of discourse comes to be structured so that power
> 'works' like this - that is a wider issue - and  here it does get hard for
> us academics to see ourselves as we perhaps could or should be seen.
>
> Michael: I hope you don't take this cheeky affront too personally: I could
> do the same to most of the posts that one reads on xmca, and probably  my
> own-  I don't mean to suggest that they have no use-value, and certainly
> not that the collective dialogue has no use value. Yet still… we should
> recognise that there is a power game in this field of discourse/opinion,
> if we are to understand one another well. It may even be argued (with some
> merit?) that a quote appealing to Marx - or even Ricoeur - has some use as
> well as exchange value (or lets say merit) in linking ideas to a body of
> previous revolutionary work.
>
> Hugs!
>
> Julian
>
>
>
> On 21/04/2017 16:53, "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:
>
> >Ricœur (1985), in *Time and Narrative 2*, uses the following distinction
> >for the purposes of theorizing the difference between narrated time and
> >time of narration. Accordingly, "narrative posses" "the remarkable
> >property" "of being split into utterance [*énociation*] and statement [
> >*énoncé*]."
> >To introduce this distinction, it suffices to recall that the
> >configurating
> >act presiding
> >over emplotment is a judicative act, involving a "grasping together." More
> >precisely, this act belongs to the family of reflective judgments.1 We
> >have
> >been
> >led to say therefore that to narrate a story is already to "reflect upon"
> >the event
> >narrated. For this reason, narrative "grasping together" carries with it
> >the capacity
> >for distancing itself from its own production and in this way dividing
> >itself in two. (p. 61)
> >
> >My personal inclination would be to take Ricœur as more authoritative on
> >the subject than any or most of us.
> >
> >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 Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 10:38 PM, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >> I think that "statement" is too tight, and "utterance" is too loose. A
> >> statement is an indicative-declarative wording of some kind: we don't
> >> usually refer to commands (imperatives), questions
> >> (indicative-interrogatives), or exclamations as "statements" because
> >>their
> >> primary purpose is not to state facts (that is, if there are facts, they
> >> are ancillary, and not constitutive: we can have a command, a question,
> >>or
> >> an exclamation without any statement of any state of affairs, e.g. "Look
> >> out!" "Why?" "Oh, no!"). So "statement" is too narrow.
> >>
> >> An utterance, as Bakhtin defines it, is simply the stretch of language
> >>we
> >> find between two changes in speaker (this is why a book is a single
> >> utterance). This is an entirely descriptive unit: if I give you a tape
> >>of
> >> listening test dialogues for the Test of Proficiency in Korean, you
> >>will be
> >> able to tell me exactly how many utterances there are in each dialogue,
> >>and
> >> even whether the speakers are men or women, without understanding any of
> >> the language. As a link between thinking and speech, such a unit is
> >>beside
> >> the point. So "utterance" is too broad.
> >>
> >> And linking thinking and speech IS the point. I think you and Vygotsky
> >>are
> >> using the word "holophrase" somewhat teleologically, like a fond, but
> >> expectant, grandpa. You both think that the baby who says "mama" really
> >> means a holophrase like "Mama, put me in the high chair". It's not the
> >>case
> >> that "Mama" is a reduction of a full sentence (like "Fine, thanks, and
> >> you?"). It's more like the Ur Wir, or "Grandwe", the "we" that
> >>pre-exists
> >> "me" and "you" the way that my grandpa pre-existed me. I am also using
> >>the
> >> word "wording" teleologically, you notice: "Mama" is, from the child's
> >> point of view, meaning and sounding, but not wording at all. But
> >>teleology
> >> is very useful here; indeed, I think that teleology in speech
> >>ontogenesis
> >> is a more useful principle than evolution: there is, after all, a
> >>"complete
> >> form" right there in the environment.
> >>
> >> The problem with Thinking and Speech is that, unlike Capital, the author
> >> died in the middle of writing it, and it had to be eked out with his old
> >> articles. So although Chapter One and Chapter Seven really do use
> >>wording
> >> and not word as a unit of analysis (and the "phoneme" is really the
> >> morpho-phoneme, e.g. a Russian case ending, something Vygotsky probably
> >> learned all about from his old professor Trubetskoy and his classmate at
> >> Moscow University Jakobson). you also have Chapter Five, which our late,
> >> beloved friend Paula Towsey loved so much.
> >>
> >> She had reason: Chapter Five is Vygotsky, and so it's brilliant. But
> >>it's
> >> OLD Vygotsky, 1928-1929 Vygotsky (that was the year that Trubetskoy and
> >> Jakobson left Moscow for Prague and set up the Prague Linguistic Circle
> >> which eventually became systemic-functional linguistics). Chapter 5
> >> is based on something from the German idealist psychologists Reimat and
> >> Ach, who really DID believe in one-word concepts. And so we have this
> >>weird
> >> block-like model of word meaning. Vygotsky tries to disenchant and
> >> de-fetishize the blocks by saying the concept is really the process of
> >> relating the word meaning to the block, but that still means that a
> >>concept
> >> is an abstraction and a generalization of some block-like quality.
> >>
> >> Chapter Six is better, because here the "model" of word meaning is a
> >> RELATOR, like "because" or "although". Notice that these are the kinds
> >>of
> >> words that preliterate children do not consider words. And in fact
> >>that's
> >> why Piaget got the results he did--the kids really couldn't figure out
> >>what
> >> he meant when he asked them to explain what the word "because" meant in
> >>a
> >> particular sentence--they assumed he wanted to know what the sentence
> >> meant, because asking what a word like "because" means in a sentence
> >> without the rest of the sentence is really a little like asking if there
> >> are more white flowers or more flowers in a bouquet of red and white
> >> flowers. But suppose (over a period of some years) we give the kid the
> >> following
> >> utterances-cum-statement/wordings-cum-wordgroup/wordings-cum-words.
> >>
> >> a) A rational, designed, and planned economy is possible in the USSR.
> >>(Why
> >> is that, Teacher?) Oh, it is just because all the means of production
> >> belong to the workers and peasants.
> >> b) Planned economy is possible in the USSR because all the means of
> >> production belong to the workers and peasants.
> >> c) All the means of production belong to the workers and peasants so
> >> economic planning is possible in the USSR.
> >> d) Workers and peasant's ownership of the means of production means
> >> socialist construction is possible.
> >> e) Public ownership of production enables social construction.
> >> f) the proprietary preconditions of construction
> >> g) socialist property forms
> >> h) socialist property
> >> i) socialism
> >>
> >> By the time the child is the age when children beget other children,
> >> this child will see that the clause wording "all the means of production
> >> belong to the workers and peasants" has become a nominal group wording
> >> "public ownership", and the nominal group wording "a rational, designed,
> >> and planned economy" has become a single, block-like word "socialism".
> >>And
> >> because for Vygotsky the "internal" really means the psychological,
> >>while
> >> the "external" really just means the interpersonal, and because wording
> >>is
> >> inversely proportional to the internalization of inner speech, I think
> >>we
> >> can see that e) is a kind of internalization of a) and I) is an
> >> internalization of e).
> >>
> >> But neither tight knickers nor baggy trousers will show this. We will
> >>need
> >> a theory of grammar that can make fine distinctions between clause-level
> >> wording, group-level wording, and word-level wording in order to
> >>describe
> >> and explain it, much less intervene in it and promote it. Otherwise, not
> >> only will our model of the concept look like a wooden block, our model
> >>of
> >> "internalization" will look like a "suture" or  an "ingrowing" (c.f.
> >>end of
> >> HDHMF Chapter Five). No fond, expectant, grandpa wants a grandchild's
> >> mind covered with scars.
> >>
> >> David Kellogg
> >> Macquarie University
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 10:47 AM, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Choosing your wording carefully, David, you come up with "wording" to
> >> > describe what I think of as the holophrases in question. To help me
> >> clarify
> >> > your point for myself, and to use your way of communicating about it,
> >> how
> >> > does the wording "wording" relate to the wordings "statement" or
> >> > "utterance" offered by Michael in the first case and by others in the
> >> group
> >> > on behalf of Bakhtin?
> >> >
> >> > is there a holphorastic rendering/wording that might help us out here?
> >> >
> >> > Mike
> >> >
> >> > PS- As an afterthought, the examples feel like an utterance to me. But
> >> that
> >> > might make a liar out of me too :-)
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 4:33 PM, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > In English, the number of syllables or morphemes in a word is often
> >> > > unclear, while the number of words in a sentence is always fairly
> >> clear.
> >> > > This isn't true for preliterate children, who have a hard time
> >> > > understanding that "a" and "of" are actually words. It's true enough
> >> for
> >> > > people who can read and write, but its really an accident of
> >> > > orthography (notice that "it's" appears to be one syllable but two
> >> > > morphemes, and it's not really clear, even to the normally quite
> >> > > overwheening "wordcount" function in Word, how many words are
> >> > > actually there.
> >> > >
> >> > > Other languages are not like English. So for example in Chinese (a
> >> > > non-alphabetic language), the number of syllables and morphemes is
> >> > > always clear, but the number of words in a sentence is quite unclear
> >> > (when
> >> > > you read a page of Chinese, there are no spaces between
> >> morpho-syllables
> >> > > that mark out "words". Chinese poetry, and classical Chinese, plays
> >> with
> >> > > this a lot: the unit is the morpheme rather than the word, and the
> >> > overall
> >> > > effect (at least on me) is a stream of syllables and morphemes and
> >> > meanings
> >> > > but not words.
> >> > >
> >> > > So I think the place to look for Vygotsky's unit of analysis is not
> >>in
> >> > the
> >> > > actual word "word" or "word meaning" (slovo or znachenie slova).
> >> Holbrook
> >> > > Mahn has proposed translating "znachenie slova" as "verbal meaning",
> >> and
> >> > > although this isn't exactly an accurate way of presenting how
> >>Russian
> >> > > grammar really works, it IS a good way of getting around the trap
> >>set
> >> for
> >> > > those who are only going by the English word meaning of "word
> >>meaning".
> >> > >
> >> > > I think the place to look is in Vygotsky's examples. In the first
> >>part
> >> of
> >> > > Thinking and Speech, for example, Vygotsky agrees with Stern that
> >>the
> >> > > child's first "word" has to be construed as not a word but a whole
> >> > wording.
> >> > > He goes even further: he says it's a whole "wording-in-context",
> >>that
> >> > is, a
> >> > > meaning. (And remember, Vygotsky NEVER agrees with Stern about
> >>ANYTHING
> >> > > unless he absolutely has to!) And in the LAST part of Thinking and
> >> > Speech,
> >> > > Vygotsky gives many examples: 'the clock fell", "the tram B is
> >> arriving",
> >> > > "Would you like some tea"? What all of these examples have in
> >>common is
> >> > > that they are not single words but they are single wordings.
> >> > >
> >> > > Remember that Russian has no articles; this is something that Andy
> >> > himself
> >> > > points out with respect to whether "perezhivanie" should be "a
> >> > > perizhivanie" or just "perizhivanie". I think Andy's observation is
> >> > > essentially correct (although of course we undo part of his insight
> >> when
> >> > we
> >> > > insist that all languages must "really" have an article of some
> >>kind).
> >> > But
> >> > > it needs to be generalized: Vygotsky could NOT have ever written
> >>that
> >> > > the unit of analysis is "a" word meaning, simply because "a", as any
> >> > > preliterate child will tell you, is not a word (and certainly not a
> >> > Russian
> >> > > word).
> >> > >
> >> > > David Kellogg
> >> > > Macquarie University
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 5:19 PM, WEBSTER, DAVID S. <
> >> > > d.s.webster@durham.ac.uk
> >> > > > wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > Re the development of punctuation and the origin of 'words' see
> >> > > > http://www.cogsci.ecs.soton.ac.uk/cgi/psyc/newpsy?3.61
> >> > > >
> >> > > > -----Original Message-----
> >> > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@
> >> > > > mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of mike cole
> >> > > > Sent: 20 April 2017 01:45
> >> > > > To: Andy Blunden; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> >> > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value'
> >> > > >
> >> > > > "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-maki
> >> > > > >>>> ng 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-mak
> >> > > > >>>>> ing
> >> > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>> 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
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
>
>
>