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

[lpscholar2@gmail.com]

So... If more than 10 years old makes thinking and thought anethema WHAT does that say about the scope of thinking of high impact journals? 

When returning to wording, statement, and utterance I hope we also turn back to ‘mediation’.
I have this definition of mediation to consider: (carrying across -within back/forth) BOTH (giving/receiving) within a singular relation
This is felt differently than mediation: (carrying over to the other side) which may imply bridges  required for joining or linking two pre-existing sides (first one and then the other).


Sent from my Windows 10 phone

From: mike cole
Sent: April 23, 2017 9:54 AM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value'

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
> > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>
> > >> >> >> > > > >
> > >> >> >> > > >
> > >> >> >> > > >
> > >> >> >> > >
> > >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> >
> >
>