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

[Wolff-Michael Roth]

Julian,
I suggest reading Rossi-Landi, and Italian Marxist scholar, where I have
taken this:

Like other products of labor, signs, words, expressions,
and messages have use value in communication and are subject to exchange,
distribution, and consumption; the markets within which these
products circulate as commodities are linguistic communities (Rossi-
Landi 1983).

An appreciation of his contributions by Cianca Bianchi states: "Through his
"homological schema",
material and linguistic production are conceived to be the result of a
single process
that is particular to human beings and that can best be understood in terms
of work
and trade. "

Cheers,

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 12:09 PM, Julian Williams <
julian.williams@manchester.ac.uk> wrote:

> Michael
>
> As you were - so we are entirely in disagreement, then.
>
> For me the E-V and U-V of a dialogic exchange has nothing essentially to
> do with the sensual and super sensual moments of the 'word' as per
> Vygotsky. And I don't see at all how these really confer 'value' in any
> Marxist sense of the term on speech/utterance (etc etc).
>
> I am guessing that we are back with analogy of 'commodity' and 'word' in
> dialogue, rather than a holistic understanding of discourse in the
> totality of social-economic relations, and so we have made no progress
> here.
>
> We can take this up another time perhaps.
>
> Julian
>
>
>
> On 22/04/2017 19:47, "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,
> >E-V and U-V, but not of the kind that you are talking about, the abstract
> >.
> >. . You can look at it like LSV, who emphasizes that the word has a
> >sensible (material) part and a supersensual (ideal) part, not in the
> >abstract, but concretely realized in every exchange. 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 11:38 AM, Julian Williams <
> >julian.williams@manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> 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
> >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> >> >> >> > > > >>>>>
> >> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> >> > > >
> >> >> >> > > >
> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>
>