[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [xmca] Progress: Reality or Illusion?



The third arises like this. To compare A and B a quantity must be abstracted from both. In order to function cognitively this abstracted quantity must be conceptualised and therefore it has to be represented by some cultural sign, probably a word, or a tool, and a social practice which gives meaning to the relevant word or tool, namely the practice of comparing, and thereby measuring. In the case of a developed process of measurement, such as is instantiated in the institution of the market, we have money, a sign which takes on the appearance of a substance.

So in any given instance of comparing, some word and/or instrument and practice of comparing have to be called into action. Generally of course we don't even notice the cultural-historical origins of the measuring symbols and tools and practices. But any comparison is always in respect to some definite quantity abstracted from both objects being compared.

Andy

Greg Thompson wrote:
What about "sacred" and "profane" objects?
They can be compared, no?
Are their quantities of "sacredness" contained in one but not the other?
Or is the "sacred" object not really "sacred" (hence the need for scare quotes)?

NB: I'm only taking slight issue with Andy's formulation of "only quantities can be compared," but I am with Andy 100% on the importance of thirds - there is certainly a third involved here as well. Here the third is a social community, as Durkheim would have it; or alternatively, the third is "God" or "the gods" (or "spirits" or "mana"...) as the natives would have it). In the end, you get something very similar to exchange value (and for any interested, Webb Keane has a wonderful paper on the semiotics of material artifacts, and Paul Kockelman has a great one too that compares Marx's exchange value with semiotic notions of "value").

-gt

On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 3:20 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:

    You are correct, Steve. The example of exchange value is precise.
    The point Ilyenkov is making is correct: in order to compare two
    commodities, a third, money is required and is eventually produced
    by the historical process. But I still feel that to go straight to
    money from the problem of comparison both skips over the
    historical stage of the evolution of money and om the context of
    your discussion, skipped over the cognitive stage of abstracting
    quantity from quality. OK?

    Andy


    Steve Gabosch wrote:

        Hi Bruce,

        I'm thinking about your comments about Novack.

        Meanwhile I am pondering Andy's claim.  He seems to be saying
        that properties, qualities, objects, processes, or whatever is
        being compared must all possess a common quantifiable aspect.
         This aspect can be objective or subjective.  We can both
        agree that something is "very ridiculous," but in agreeing on
        that we are using a common quantity-like scale.

        This quantifiability criteria is clearly the case in Marx's
        discussion of exchange value.  He discusses the **amount** of
        abstract labor in a commodity.

        It is even the case in Novack's formulations about how to
        objectively determine progress when he says things like "The
        productivity of labor is the fundamental test for measuring
        the advancement of humanity because this is the basis and
        precondition for all other forms of social and cultural
        advancement."  The productivity of labor is a quantifiable entity.

        (As a side note, this criteria Novack suggests regarding labor
        productivity could be used as a way of shedding light not only
        on things like differences between feudalism and capitalism,
        but also things like the historical character of Stalinism in
        the USSR, which did much to hold back labor productivity.)

        A counter-example is not immediately occurring to me to refute
        Andy's claim that only quantifiable things can be compared.
         Can you think of one?

        On the question of requiring a third something that I raised,
        here is a discussion of that:

        Ilyenkov in Dialectical Logic Ch 1, p 18 says:

        "... when we wish to establish a relation of some sort between
        two objects, we always compare not the ‘specific’ qualities
        that make one object ‘syllable A’ and the other a ‘table’,
        ‘steak’, or a ‘square’, but only those properties that express
        a ‘third’ something, different from their existence as the
        things enumerated.

        "The things compared are regarded as different modifications
        of this ‘third’ property common to them all, inherent in them
        as it were.

        "So if there is no ‘third’ in the nature of the two things
        common to them both, the very differences between them become
        quite senseless."

        If Ilyenkov is correct on this, and Andy is also correct, then
        not only is a 'third' required, but the common thing between
        the three things must be quantifiable.

        Are you aware of any discussions of this question in Marxist
        or Hegelian literature, Bruce?  How about you, Andy?

        - Steve



        On Feb 27, 2012, at 7:00 AM, Andy Blunden wrote:

            Any two things yes, but one must abstract from the
            "things" to carry out the comparison.
            EG I can say that red has a higher frequency of EM
            radiation than green, or I might say that in my survey
            more people selected red as their favourite colour than
            did green. But in what practical sense can I say that red
            is more than green?

            Andy

            Bruce Robinson wrote:

                "Only quantities can be compared." Really?? Can't one
                compare any two things?

                Bruce

                Andy Blunden wrote:

                    Steve Gabosch wrote:

                        Hi Andy,
                        Let me see if I am grasping your point.
                        Let me begin by agreeing with what I see as
                        your premise.  I agree that two things can
                        only be compared when compared to a relevant
                        third.

                    No, that is not what I am saying, Steve. Only
                    quantities can be compared. You can't compare, for
                    example, red and green, and ask which is more. So
                    before a quantitative comparison is to be made one
                    must have settle the appropriate means of
                    quantification and the practical means of
                    comparison. The resulting claim then is
                    meaningful: "Cats are heavier than mice."

                    Andy

                    __________________________________________
                    _____
                    xmca mailing list
                    xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
                    http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca





-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
            *Andy Blunden*
            Joint Editor MCA: http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/18/1
            Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
            <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
            Book:
            http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857
            <http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857>


            __________________________________________
            _____
            xmca mailing list
            xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
            http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca


        __________________________________________
        _____
        xmca mailing list
        xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
        http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca



-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    *Andy Blunden*
    Joint Editor MCA: http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/18/1
    Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/ <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
    Book: http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857
    <http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857>

    __________________________________________
    _____
    xmca mailing list
    xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
    http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca




--
Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
Sanford I. Berman Post-Doctoral Scholar
Department of Communication
University of California, San Diego


--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
Joint Editor MCA: http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/18/1
Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
Book: http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857


__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca