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

Sat Apr 22 11:38:09 PDT 2017

M.

Um, hang on a minute - I agree with everything you said here (I think..).

So I suppose this means you agree(d) with me; een though I thought I was
challenging your view. I thought you were trying to find E-V and U-V in
the dialogue-in-itself, where I think it's value has to be understood by
the way it is mediated through the wider field of discourse/practice (i.e.
In its meaning/sense in terms of the real exchanges taking place in
practice).  

So the point is that one can only understand the exchanges taking place
within the wider context- the worker exchanges 10 hours of labour for the
commodities required to keep themselves alive for a day … but this has to
be understood within the system that allows the capitalist to exploit
those 10 hours for a profit, and pay wages that do not allow the worker to
purchase the goods they this produce (or their equivalent)…. There are
obvious analogies in discourse too.

Julian

Ps I see I have raised 'mediation' now - oops.

On 22/04/2017 19:15, "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:

>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-mat
>hematics-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
>> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > >>>>>
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >>
>>
>>
>>