Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2003 22:24:54 +0000
From: Mervyn Hartwig <mh-AT-jaspere7.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: BHA: Structures are not things that are true or false,even if Hegelian Marxists say so


Hi Howard,

The situation obtaining between two commodity owners in a society in
which producers haven't been separated from the means of production and
who consequently face each other as equals, who freely enter into an
exchange of use values -- labour power against some other commodity or
the equivalent in money. (Whether Marx thought such a society of simple
commodity producers historical or counterfactually implied by the
dialectics of the commodity form is controversial. I think he used a
combination of historical analysis and systematic dialectics.).

Mervyn

 Howard Engelskirchen <howarde-AT-twcny.rr.com> writes
>Hi Mervyn,
>
>What is the "original relation" prior to the law of value taking hold?
>
>Howard
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Mervyn Hartwig" <mh-AT-jaspere7.demon.co.uk>
>To: <bhaskar-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU>
>Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2003 3:34 AM
>Subject: Re: BHA: Structures are not things that are true or false,even if
>Hegelian Marxists say so
>
>
>> Hi Jamie, Günter
>>
>> I agree this is getting somewhere. I think the point about the
>> hermeneutic aspects being a necessary starting point is fundamental.
>>
>> >whether aspects of (intransitive) reality can be "false" as Mervyn and
>> >Phil claim.
>>
>> The trouble with this formulation is that the intransitive / transitive
>> dimensions (ontology/ epistemology) are not two separate spheres but
>> distinctions within a unity,  dimensions which we can perspectivally
>> switch in and out of. The ID (ontology) embraces in principle
>> everything. Propositions are real, even irrealism's real. So if
>> propositions can be false, aspects of intransitive reality can be false.
>>
>> Better to ask whether a social form as distinct from a proposition can
>> be false. Your other post, Günter, sent me scurrying among my packing
>> cases to look again at the section in 'Results' where Marx dubs the wage
>> form illusory. You're right, he's talking about labour power rather than
>> labour. But here's the really crucial bit:
>>
>> He says that his analysis demonstrates it to be an *illusion* (his
>> emphases throughout) that 'in the market place two equally matched
>> *commodity owners* are distinguishable only by the material content of
>> their goods, by the specific use-value of the goods they desire to sell
>> each other.' Then he adds 'the *original* relation [i.e. prior to the
>> law of value taking hold] remains intact, but survives only as the
>> *illusory* reflection of the *capitalist* relation underlying it.' I.e.
>> the law of value has taken hold of the original relation and emptied it
>> of all content, leaving only a shell which is as false as a decoy tank.
>> I recommend Chris Arthur, and even Derrida, on the spectral ontology of
>> value...
>>
>> Mervyn
>>
>>
>> In message <18349686375.20031212213632-AT-unsw.edu.au>, Günter Minnerup
>> <g.minnerup-AT-unsw.edu.au> writes
>> >Dear jamie,
>> >
>> >on Friday, 12 December 2003, you wrote:
>> >
>> >> I understand your point Gunter but it eldies the significance of the
>initial
>> >> interpretation for the semantics of mirage - by definition a mirage is
>a
>> >> variable interpretation or construction of human based desire or
>> >> intentionality out of a natural phenomenon (otherwise it is simply a
>more
>> >> passive (not totally passive) sensze data experience (like the
>rainbow) -
>> >> the role of cognition is quite different - if it were not we would not
>have
>> >> a term mirage - we would simply refer to heat a) somthing like heat
>hazes
>> >> that we view or b) something like heat exhaustion that we experience.
>It is
>> >> importantin analytical terms that we experience mirages variably in a
>way
>> >> that we donot (in quite the same way) experience rainbows (we may
>interpret
>> >> the significanc eof rainbows in different ways but two equiovelant
>minds are
>> >> producing sense data images of the same kind from that experience -
>they are
>> >> simply cutting it up in different ways. To ignore this distinction is
>not to
>> >> be realist by stating actuaklly alls we are seeing is a mirage - the
>natural
>> >> phenomenon - it is to elide the equally realist aspects of mind  taht
>are
>> >> significant both to SEPM and to taking seriously as a staring point in
>> >> explaining phenomena - their hermentuic aspects - effectiverly you are
>> >> arguing for a structuralism without one important aspect of the human
>that
>> >> we must start from before we can get tp explanatory critique and the
>> >> possibility of better explanation (that it is actually an illusion)
>> >
>> >I think we're getting somewhere. As a non-native speaker of English, it
>> >is quite possible that I failed to do justice to the usage of the word
>> >"mirage" and actually used it like your suggested alternative of "heat
>> >haze". So if I understand you correctly, the word "mirage" does entail
>> >the illusion of water (as in the prospect of salvation for the thirsty
>> >explorer?) whereas "heat haze" would be merely descriptive. So far so
>> >good? OK then, but aren't you in fact talking about the meaning of the
>> >word rather than the properties of the natural phenomenon? Doesn't that
>> >mean that the *word* is "false", precisely because it has those
>> >resonances beyond the natural phenomenon, and that if in fact we did
>> >commonly call it "heat haze" things would be different, like the
>> >"rainbow" example?
>> >If that's what you mean I think we're in agreement, except that it
>> >doesn't then bear on the original point - which I think was whether
>> >aspects of (intransitive) reality can be "false" as Mervyn and Phil
>> >claim.
>> >Does this make sense to you? I've just thought of another way of
>> >putting it. Since were were originally talking about the "wage form",
>> >which is a real structure which nobody other than Marxists actually
>> >call that, the analogy with the mirage would be if a trade union calls
>> >for a wage increase "to obtain the full fruits of our labour". That's
>> >"false". But if they asked for a rise to be a "living wage" (as they
>> >usually do, so much for false consciousness), that would not. Sort of
>> >like the "heat haze"?
>> >
>> >Regards,
>> >Günter
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>      --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>
>
>
>     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---




     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---