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

[mike cole]

Hi David -

On p. 26 we are explicitly quoting Levi-Strauss in the phrase you offer. I
do not know what to make of the citations! When I get access to the website
where the original text can be found, I will send it to you. Plenty to
criticize in the book, but not in that fashion. :-(

mike

On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 2:17 PM, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks, Mike. Ruqaiya also says that on p. 26 you and Sylvia wrote "the
> basic difference is in the material for thought". That does bring us back,
> of all places, to Wolff-Michael's obscure quote from Ricoeur, and also to
> Martin Packer's remark that Halliday sees the child's first true wordings
> not as names but rather as the moment where the function of enacting speech
> roles (THAT I am saying) can be fused with the function of conveying the
> material of thought (WHAT I am saying).
>
> This seems like a strange place to locate a key epiphany. It would be more
> dramatic to have some flash of light, some burst of thunder, some road to
> Damascus moment, not least because Halliday's insight suggests that
> learning how to mean is a process of learning how to word that takes years,
> and that sounds hard to study.
>
> But of course that WAS the key difference that separated Vygotsky's view
> from Stern's: Vygotsky said that there was no single moment, and Stern said
> there was. And for those like me who consider that real authority is a
> matter of data and not name recognition, you can confirm Vygotsky's
> rectitude in the matter pretty easily by just counting the number of times
> a seven year old "prefaces" a remark with some non-statement command or
> question like "Guess what!" or "Know what?" rather than simply using a
> declarative wording that can preface THAT and dive into WHAT at one and the
> same moment.
>
> Why "wording"? Well, Vygotsky often talks about a "new approach" to
> linguistics that begins in 1928. He mentions that it has something to do
> with phonemes, which he says are seamless fusions of sound and meaning. But
> today the year 1928 means nothing in particular (Saussure's book came out
> in 1916, three years after his death in 1913), and the phoneme means even
> less (it is a "bundle of distinctive features" which only "means" in the
> context of minimal pairings like "bin/pin" or "bin/ban" or "bin/bit" that
> rarely if ever occur in speech). What gives?
>
> In 1928 Trubetskoy (who was probably LSV's old phonetics prof) and Jakobson
> (who was certainly LSV's classmate) moved the Moscow Linguistic Circle to
> Prague. They were both anti-Bolshevik, or anyway anti-Bukharin/Stalin,
> which explains why LSV is not more explicit about his sources. In Prague,
> they laid the foundation for the view of language that Ruqaiya and Halliday
> built: language is a three layered construct of semantics, lexicogrammar (a
> single stratum for both vocabulary and grammar), and phonology/phonetics.
> The reason I use "wording" for lexicogrammar is that most people find it
> hard, after a whole century of "rules and words" models, to see
> lexicogrammar as a single continuum, from "open class" nouns and adjectives
> to "closed class" articles, prepositions, and modal auxiliaries.
>
> But everybody can see that "Know what?" has one function and "That's what!"
> has another, and the difference is not just "material for thought" but the
> form that thought takes. It's not just the words; it's the wordings.
>
> I suppose ONE way to express this difference would be to say that the
> grammatical, closed class end of "wording" has more "use value", because it
> is valuable in situ, while the lexical end has more "exchange value"
> because it is more decontexualizable. But all words are really more like
> love than money: the more you give away, the more you have.
>
> David Kellogg
> Macquarie University
>
> On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 2:52 AM, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:
>
> > Hi David et al --
> >
> > Found my copy of Cole and Scribner! To my relief, it appears that
> somewhere
> > along the way there was a misattribution of that quote you posted that
> > Hasan criticized and that I wanted to disavow (but there it was in black
> > and white!).
> >
> > So, apropos, we have a problem of context here.  If you look at p. 25 of
> > Scribner and Cole, you will find that the quotation was in a paper by
> Cole
> > and Gay (1972) (A paper on culture and memory in the American
> > Anthropologist I had did not recall the date of. If you go just one
> > sentence above the quotation you find the following:
> >
> > *For instance, one anthropologist commented, upon hearing about the
> results
> > of our first research in this area (Gay and Cole 1967): The reasoning and
> > thinking processes of different people in different cultures don't
> differ .
> > . . just their values, beliefs, and ways of classifying differ [personal
> > correspondence ].*
> >
> >
> > We were *contesting *this statement which was the anthropological
> consensus
> > at the time. For those interested in our own views at the time,
> >
> > it is best to consult Chapter 8 of that book by Cole and Scribner on
> > *Culture
> > and Thought. *(Its all antiquarian stuff anyway. Its now 50 years since
> the
> > first publication of that line of work! References more than 10 years old
> > are anethema to HIGH IMPACT  journals!  :-) and :-(
> >
> >
> > mike
> >
> >
> > Which takes the discussion back to the discussion of wording, stating,
> and
> > uttering.
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Wolff-Michael Roth <
> > wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > 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
> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >> >> >> > > > >
> > > > >> >> >> > > >
> > > > >> >> >> > > >
> > > > >> >> >> > >
> > > > >> >> >> >
> > > > >> >> >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>