[Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value'
Greg Thompson
greg.a.thompson@gmail.com
Thu May 4 17:03:37 PDT 2017
Would it help our understand of "wording" any to know that David is a
painter (and quite a good one!)?
Someone else has put this much more elegantly than this, but we might ask,
(in parallel fashion to word and wording): Is the meaning in the paint or
in the painting?
-greg
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 8:23 PM, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sometimes the answer to a question depends on the answer to a question.
> Like:
>
> A: Can I have a beer?
> B: Are you eighteen?
>
> So if you tell me that "life" and "living" are two different words, then I
> will tell you that they are not ineffable: you can say for example that a
> "life" is an instance of "living", or perhaps that "living" is an instance
> of "life", and the explanation isn't circular. But if you tell me that
> "life" and "living" are just two different wordings of the same meaning,
> then I will say that word meaning is ineffable, in the sense that the only
> way to define it is in terms of itself.
>
> All word meanings are ineffable in this rather general sense. In order to
> explain them, we need other words and other word meanings. Teachers run
> into this problem all the time when they try to teach words with
> flashcards: If I am teaching the word "kick" and I have a flashcard with a
> foot kicking a ball, the child really doesn't know if I am teaching the
> meaning "foot", or "ball" or "football" or whatever. The only way to
> disambiguate the picture is with words, and that's true of any word meaning
> you care to think of. Wittgenstein has a somewhat more elaborate version of
> this argument, but I prefer to stick to situations I myself have
> experienced (meaning situations that, as Vandy says, I myself have
> transformed into a system of word meanings).
>
> We have a system of wordings that tends to privilege entities over
> processes. Halliday says that dynamism and synopticity are complementary:
> there isn't any sense in which "living" is somehow closer to reality than
> "life", and so there also isn't any sense in which one is closer to
> idealization than the other. Nevertheless, as Virginia Woolf knew, "Life
> stand still here" is a much harder trick to pull off, and it takes kids
> many more years to master it.
>
> David Kellogg
> Macquarie University
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 12:05 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
>
> > Since you answer my question with a question, I take it that the answer
> is
> > "yes."
> >
> > Andy
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > Andy Blunden
> > http://home.mira.net/~andy
> > http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making
> > On 26/04/2017 11:56 AM, David Kellogg wrote:
> >
> >> Andy--
> >>
> >> Are "life" and "living" two different words, or are they two different
> >> wordings of the same word?
> >>
> >> David Kellogg
> >> Macquarie University
> >>
> >> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net
> >> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:
> >>
> >> David, after reading this fascinating 2-page narrative
> >> about Ricoeur and the structuralists out of the blue
> >> we get the conclusion: "And the power is not in the
> >> word, but in the wording." Have I missed something? Is
> >> "wording" ineffable?
> >>
> >> Andy
> >>
> >> ------------------------------------------------------------
> >> Andy Blunden
> >> http://home.mira.net/~andy <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy>
> >> http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-
> decision-making
> >> <http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-
> >> decision-making>
> >>
> >> On 26/04/2017 7:13 AM, David Kellogg wrote:
> >>
> >> I remember Paul Ricoeur. He taught at a seminary
> >> at the University of
> >> Chicago when I was an undergraduate. I was a
> >> member of the campus Spartacus
> >> Youth Club, and it was the only place that would
> >> allow us a public space
> >> for meetings. I tried to sell him a copy of "Young
> >> Spartacus" once: I can't
> >> remember if he bought it or not. But I remember
> >> him as a French gentleman,
> >> personally quite conservative, but not at all put
> >> off by the presence of
> >> a screaming red nineteen year old who for
> >> inexplicable reasons had
> >> a Parisian accent and spoke the argot of the
> >> Versailles banlieue. Maybe he
> >> bought our French paper, Le Bolchevik.
> >>
> >> I have been reading a symposium "On Narrative"
> >> that was going on at UC when
> >> I was organizing against Milton Friedman's Nobel
> >> Prize (he was also a
> >> professor there at the time--he won the prize the
> >> same year that Saul
> >> Bellow, another UC professor, did). Ricoeur,
> >> Derrida, and Hayden White all
> >> took part.
> >>
> >> It was the heyday of structuralism, and Ricoeur's
> >> contribution is
> >> interesting because it's quite ANTI-structuralist:
> >> he points out that the
> >> effect of structuralism on narrative studies has
> >> been to de-historicize,
> >> de-memorize, dehumanize; to convert stories into
> >> exchange values rather
> >> than use values. So the elements that Propp
> >> discovers in Ludmilla and
> >> Ruslan (and the Firebird and its variants) can
> >> come in any order. In
> >> contrast, even the simplest act of repetition is
> >> historicized, humanized,
> >> and memorable. A use value and not an exchange value.
> >>
> >> Derrida ignores everybody else and embarks on his
> >> usual verbal
> >> pyrotechnics, but Hayden White develops Ricoeur's
> >> idea in a way I think I
> >> actually used in my "Thinking of Feeling" paper:
> >> human memory goes through
> >> stages: medieval annals, Renaissance chronicles,
> >> and the nineteenth century
> >> narrative, each of which adds something
> >> distinctive and makes the
> >> meta-narrative that they form together into
> >> something non-reversible and
> >> developmental. But now I see that the reviewers
> >> made me remove all that (it
> >> is just as well: sociogenesis is one story and
> >> ontogenesis quite another).
> >>
> >> Ruqaiya Hasan used to say that there is a certain
> >> unity imposed on
> >> experience by language, from "the living of life"
> >> to the child's first real
> >> morpho-phoneme. If you take the phrase "the living
> >> of life" just as an
> >> example, you can see some of what Ricoeur is
> >> trying to get at. On the face
> >> of it, the phrase is redundant: the word "life"
> >> seems to contain absolutely
> >> nothing that isn't already there in "living". Yet
> >> "of life" must mean
> >> something, otherwise it would not enable us to add
> >> the specifier "the" to
> >> "living".
> >>
> >> I think Ricoeur would say that "life" is a kind of
> >> de-historicized,
> >> de-memorized, de-humanized "living", one that is
> >> turned from process into
> >> entity, and made synoptical, like the various
> >> retellings in different
> >> orders of the four Gospels. Yes, it's a powerful
> >> way of speaking, but it is
> >> powerful the way that sculpture is rather than the
> >> way that painting is.
> >> And the power is not in the word, but in the wording.
> >>
> >> David Kellogg
> >> Macquarie University
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 4:31 AM,
> >> <lpscholar2@gmail.com
> >> <mailto:lpscholar2@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>
> >> Mike,
> >> There is a particular example that occurred
> >> here when Wolff-Michael
> >> referenced Ricouer’s 3 volume project
> >> exploring metaphor and narrativity
> >> and their common unifying theme existing
> >> within human temporality
> >> (finitude).
> >> Is there an expectation for ‘us’ to go back
> >> and reference Ricouer’s
> >> exploration of this relation in depth? Through
> >> reading and re-reading these
> >> works of scholarship.
> >> I myself turned to the preface of Ricouer’s 3
> >> volume exploration of this
> >> particular relation, metaphor/narrativity::
> >> Temporality.
> >>
> >> Without human temporality, narrativity and
> >> metaphor would not exist.
> >>
> >> On this listserve there was a glance or nod in
> >> Ricouer’s direction and
> >> then???.
> >>
> >> This month we are recycling themes which
> >> already exist in the archive, but
> >> is this recycling just repetition,, or
> >> renovation, or innovation?.
> >>
> >> Peg’s metaphor of leaving loose threads for
> >> others to return to expresses
> >> a temporal sense ability at odds with high
> >> impact journals.
> >>
> >>
> >> Sent from my Windows 10 phone
> >>
> >> From: mike cole
> >> Sent: April 25, 2017 11:02 AM
> >> To: Larry Purss
> >> Cc: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> >> Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting
> >> 'use-value' & 'value'
> >>
> >> Right Larry. A lot of high impact journals
> >> (not all) are deeply
> >> a-historical.
> >>
> >> When my wife and I were writing a textbook, we
> >> had, with each addition,
> >> to cut out older refs. To be allow to refer to
> >> Gesell, Rousseau in a
> >> serious manner was a constant battle.
> >>
> >> But what the heck. In a lot of classes that
> >> use the textbook, students are
> >> not required to remember or re-cover material
> >> from the mid-term on the
> >> final exam. In a course on development in a
> >> field that makes a big deal of
> >> sequence and growth over time. Live for the
> >> moment, no need to know the
> >> history of behavior in order to understand it.
> >>
> >> Yes, mediation has not gone away, despite its
> >> claimed ailments and devious
> >> traps. :-)
> >>
> >> mike
> >>
> >> On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 2:00 PM,
> >> <lpscholar2@gmail.com
> >> <mailto:lpscholar2@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >> 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
> >> <mailto: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://web.uvic.ca/%7Emroth>
> >> <http://education2.uvic.ca/faculty/mroth/
> >> <http://education2.uvic.ca/faculty/mroth/>>
> >>
> >> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics
> >> <https://www.sensepublishers.
> com/catalogs/bookseries/new-
> >> <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
> >> <mailto: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
> >> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> >> on behalf of
> >> Wolff-Michael Roth"
> >> <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
> >> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> >> on behalf of
> >> wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com
> >> <mailto: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://web.uvic.ca/%7Emroth>
> >> <http://education2.uvic.ca/faculty/mroth/
> >> <http://education2.uvic.ca/faculty/mroth/>>
> >>
> >> New book: *The Mathematics of
> >> Mathematics
> >> <https://www.sensepublishers.c
> >> om/catalogs/bookseries/new-
> >> <https://www.sensepublishers.c
> >> om/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
> >> <mailto: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
> >> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> >> on behalf of
> >> Wolff-Michael Roth"
> >> <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
> >> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> >> on behalf of
> >> wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com
> >> <mailto: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://web.uvic.ca/%7Emroth>
> >> <http://education2.uvic.ca/
> >>
> >> faculty/mroth/>
> >>
> >> New book: *The Mathematics
> >> of Mathematics
> >> <https://www.sensepublishers.c
> >> om/catalogs/bookseries/new-
> >> <https://www.sensepublishers.c
> >> om/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
> >> <mailto: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
> >> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman
> >> .ucsd.edu>
> >> on behalf
> >>
> >> of
> >>
> >> Wolff-Michael Roth"
> >> <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
> >> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman
> >> .ucsd.edu>
> >> on behalf
> >>
> >> of
> >>
> >> wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com
> >> <mailto: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://web.uvic.ca/%7Emroth>
> >> <http://education2.uvic.ca/
> >>
> >> faculty/mroth/
> >>
> >> New book: *The
> >> Mathematics of
> >> Mathematics
> >> <https://www.sensepublishers.c
> >> om/catalogs/bookseries/new-
> >> <https://www.sensepublishers.c
> >> om/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
> >> <mailto: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"
> >
> >
>
--
Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Department of Anthropology
880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson
More information about the xmca-l
mailing list