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

[David Kellogg]

Yes, you can get the whole of Halliday's writings on Nigel in Volume 4 of
his Collected Works, which even includes all his data (on a CD, which this
computer can't use!)

http://www.bloomsbury.com/au/the-language-of-early-childhood-9780826458704/

I won't say that I never disagree with you, or even that I never disagree
with Halliday. But I will say that when I do either, I am almost always
wrong, and if I do both error is certain.

But agreement's over-rated; astonishment is probably better for me.

David Kellogg
Macquarie University

On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 8:40 AM, Martin John Packer <mpacker@uniandes.edu.co
> wrote:

> Not sure if you’re agreeing or disagreeing with me, David. Or how it links
> to Mike and Sylvia, or to Wolff-Michael. Anyhow:
>
> In “Phase II” of Nigel’s language [around 18 months], “The need for a
> grammar arises out of the pragmatic and mathetic functions…  The
> introduction of grammatical structure makes it possible… to combine both
> functions in one utterance” (Halliday, 1975, p. 241).
>
> Martin
>
> > On Apr 23, 2017, at 4:17 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
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
>
>
>