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

Sat Apr 22 18:39:28 PDT 2017

I am happy to withdraw my comment about "Marx died too," 
David, your point is taken. But I do think that a new 
concept or a new word such as "wording" requires a succinct 
explanation without footnotes or it cannot perform the 
function for which one coins a new word.

Andy

------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Blunden
http://home.mira.net/~andy
http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making 

On 23/04/2017 8:52 AM, David Kellogg wrote:
> p. 25, Mike.
>
> I wasn't saying I had anything figured out. You asked a question about
> "wording"--as you say, it was a carefully chosen word, I am trying rather
> desperately to be clear about my ideas so I can get them published and get
> back to being obscure to students.
>
> I guess I still haven't got it right. First Andy calls to point out that
> Marx died too. Then David says to go read Harris. Then Wolff-Michael says
> that Ricoeur knows more about what I mean to say than I do.
>
> Marx died 16 years after he published his book, and Vygotsky died six
> months before he published his; there is a non-trivial difference here and
> it really does have to do with whether we can consider a single word to be
> a concept (Chapter Five) or not (Chapter Seven and Chapter One).
>
> I  actually have read many books by Roy Harris (I even corresponded with
> him briefly, before he died) and I still find that  the concept of
> "wording" is very useful in dealing with my data.
>
> I have also read enough Ricoeur to know that he doesn't mean the same thing
> by "narrative" that I do--I am trying to distinguish between "dialogue" and
> "narrative", and Ricoeur's observation on the difference between the act of
> saying and the content of saying applies as much to dialogue as it does to
> narrative.
>
> Can't I talk about "wording" without all these footnotes?
>
> David Kellogg
> Macquarie University
>
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 8:27 AM, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:
>
>> Hi David -
>>
>> Thanks for correction of primitive. Preliterate will do. I figured your
>> observations applied to adults. They certainly applied to adults,
>> non-literate or literate in Vai in the later work I did with Sylvia
>> Scribner.
>>
>> OK. I will not read Roy Harris instead of David Kellogg and those members
>> of xmca who have it figured out! Sheesh.
>>
>> I do not know Cole and Gay, 1972. In Cole, Gay, Glick, and Sharp (1971)
>> we wrote:
>>
>> Cultural differences reside more in the differences in situations to which
>> cultural groups apply their skills than to differences in the skills
>> possessed by the groups in question.
>>
>>
>> I do not have Cole&Scribner to hand. What page was that quotation from? A
>> shortcoming of our work back in those days and in more recent work as well
>> was our failure to fully consider and understand the role
>> of values and normativity in human culture, so it would help to have the
>> context to see why we did not use the cole et al ideas which we were still
>> working past in the 1980's.
>>
>> Looking for that quotation from Cole et al. 1971 i came across the one
>> page, attached, commentary on those early works that is very short, but
>> gives the essence of Gay and Cole, the starting point in my own involvement
>> in those issues.
>>
>> Word meaning develops in ontogeny.  :-)
>> mike
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 2:18 PM, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Mike:  I think what I said was "preliterate" children and not "primitive"
>>> children. But what I said is true of preliterate adults as well: they are
>>> often unable to say how many words there are in a sentence, just as
>>> literate speakers of English find it hard to say how many syllables there
>>> are "upholstery" or how many morphemes there are in "nuclear".
>>>
>>> I don't think we need Roy Harris to "prove" that "word" is ineffable.
>> Yes,
>>> a definition is made of words. So when you define a word, you simply
>>> replace one word with many. Anybody who has tried to learn a language
>> with
>>> a monolingual dictionary knows this. And because "word" is itself a
>>> word, the same thing happens when you define "word".
>>>
>>> That doesn't mean linguistics is useless; it only means that linguistics
>>> doesn't have some privileged ontological, quasi-metaphysical status: it
>> is
>>> just language turned back on itself, as Firth used to say. But so what?
>>> Psychology is consciousness turned back on itself. Chemical and physical
>>> experiments are matter turned back on itself.
>>>
>>> And we keep finding that some ways of turning language back on itself are
>>> more useful than others. The word "word" all by itself is not very useful
>>> because it is a little like Bakhtin's "utterance". It's the space between
>>> two spaces on a typewriter, just as the word "utterance" is the space
>>> between two changes of speaker. It's phenomenological, in the sense of
>>> pre-analytical.
>>>
>>> But "wording" is not a word all by itself; it's part of a system of
>>> concepts. A "morpheme", a "word", a "group", a "clause" or a "clause
>>> complex" is not "in between" the utterance on the one hand and the
>>> statement on the other. All of them are distinct, but linked, levels of
>>> structure. A word ("worker") is made up of one or more morphemes ("work",
>>> "~er"), a group is made up of one or more words ("workers and
>> peasants"), a
>>> clause is made up of one more word groups ("the means of production
>> belongs
>>> to the workers and peasants") and a clause complex of one or more clauses
>>> ("Socialism is possible in the USSR because the means of production
>> belongs
>>> to the workers and peasants").
>>>
>>> Vygotsky says that word meanings develop. That's true. But the specific
>> way
>>> in which we watch this development in data is neither through counting
>>> morphemes (Brown) or trying to observe "meanings" (Freud) but rather
>>> through wordings. We need a view of grammar that will allow us to do
>> that.
>>> Ruqaiya Hasan criticizes Cole and Gay (1972), and later Cole and Scribner
>>> (1974), for saying "The reasoning and thinking processes of different
>>> people in different cultures do not differ--just their value, beliefs,
>> and
>>> ways of classifying differ." Ruqaiya asks--how could one differ and not
>> the
>>> other? And how would you know that was the case?
>>>
>>> David Kellogg
>>> Macquarie University
>>>
>>> gropu
>>>
>>> On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 2:05 AM, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thanks for the tip on the Harris book, David. I know his work mostly
>>>> through his book on the origin of writing.
>>>>
>>>> Which reminds me of a question for David K. Why is it that you make
>>>> reference to primitive children, David? Why not primitive adults as
>> well?
>>>> mike
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 12:10 AM, WEBSTER, DAVID S. <
>>>> d.s.webster@durham.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Reflexivity and the thorny question of metalanguage seems to be at
>>> issue
>>>>> here: might I suggest that the late Roy Harris's book 'The Language
>>>>> Connection' might set the scene. Harris's description of how
>>> Linguistics
>>>>> constantly fails to define the word 'word' is wonderful.
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@
>>>>> mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of mike cole
>>>>> Sent: 21 April 2017 01:47
>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value'
>>>>>
>>>>> 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-mak
>>>>>>>> ing 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-
>>> mathemat
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ics/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>