From: Christopher Arthur (cjarthur@waitrose.com)
Date: Wed Jan 01 2003 - 08:45:42 EST
Jerry
It is irritating H does not give enough examples. With reference to the
second of these quotes below:
a) "If two things forming a compound body owed their respective
> specific natures only to a simple qualitative determination, they
> would only destroy each other when combined. "
If I add one dollar to my 10 dollar account I have 11 but the originals have
been destroyed. It does not make sense to ask which dollar was the last I
put in. But there is a complication here. I would argue that the single
qualitative dimension is here in truth pure quantity. As such value is pure
externality - this connects with some of Michael E's mails.
b) "But a thing which is
> an IMMANENT MEASURE RELATION is self-subsistent; it is
> therefore also capable of combining with another such thing. But in
> being reduced to an element of this unity, it preserves itself through
> the persistence of its indifferent, quantitative character and at the
> same time functions as a specifying moment or a new measure
> relation. "
If I add one apple to 10 apples I get 11 but here each apple has
self-subsistence and it does make sense to ask which was the last one added.
This applies to commodities insofar as they are use values for sure and an
interesting question is what insofar as they are considered as embodiments
of abstract labour. Traditional LTV would go one way and VF theory possibly
another.
c) In my paper on many capitals in *The Culmination of Capital* eds Campbell
and Reuten I argue that there is a fundmental incoherence betwen capital
considered in the former light as inherently mergable and in the second
light as always externally particularised in use value sites.
Chris A
--
C. J. Arthur 17 Bristol Road, Brighton, BN2 1AP, England
> From: "gerald_a_levy" <gerald_a_levy@msn.com>
> Reply-To: ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu
> Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 21:14:52 -0500
> To: <ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu>
> Subject: [OPE-L:8251] Re: "immanent measure" in Hegel and Marx
>
> A follow-up on [8249] for the benefit of those listmembers who don't
> have Hegel's _Science of Logic_.
>
>> Also see the following sections in Chapter 2 ("Real Measure") in Section
>> 3 ("Measure") Book One ("The Doctrine of Being"):
>> * In Section A. ("The Relation of Self-Subsistent Measures"), Sub-
>> Section (a) ("The Combination of Two Measures"), especially first
>> paragraph (pp. 349-350 in Miller translation ([Humanities Press]).
>
> "Something is IMMANENTLY DETERMINED AS A MEASURE
> RELATION OF QUANTA which also possess qualities and the
> something is the connection of these qualities. One of them is the
> *being-within-self* or *inwardness* of the something by virtue of
> which it is a real being-for-self, a material thing (such as, taken
> intensively, weight, or its extensive aspect, the multiplicity of *material*
> parts); the other quality is the *externality* of this inwardness (the
> abstract, ideal element of space). These qualities are quantitatively
> determined and their correlation constitutes the qualitative nature
> of the material something -- e.g. the ratio of weight to volume: specific
> gravity. The volume, the ideal aspect, is not taken as unit, but
> the intensive aspect, which manifests quantitatively and in comparison
> with the former as an extensive magnitude, as a plurality of
> independent ones, is to be taken as amount. The purely qualitative
> relation of the two specific magnitudes, that is, as a ratio of powers,
> has vanished, because with the self-subsistence of the material thing
> immediacy has returned and in this the specific magnitude is an
> ordinary quantum whose relation to the other side is likewise
> determined as the ordinary exponent of a direct ratio" (capitalization
> emphasis added, quotes in asterisks are emphasized as italics in
> original, JL).
>
>> * Sub-Section (b) ("Measure as a Series of Measure Relations"),
>> also in Section A, especially first paragraph (1), (Ibid, pp. 351-
>> 352).
>
> "(1) If two things forming a compound body owed their respective
> specific natures only to a simple qualitative determination, they
> would only destroy each other when combined. But a thing which is
> an IMMANENT MEASURE RELATION is self-subsistent; it is
> therefore also capable of combining with another such thing. But in
> being reduced to an element of this unity, it preserves itself through
> the persistence of its indifferent, quantitative character and at the
> same time functions as a specifying moment or a new measure
> relation. Its quality is masked in the quantitative element and is
> thus also indifferent towards the other measure, continuing itself in it
> and in the newly formed measure. The exponent of the new
> measure is itself only some quantum or other, an external
> determinateness, and its indifference finds expression in the fact
> that the specifically determined thing effects, in association with
> other such measures, precisely similar neutralizations of the
> reciprocal measure relations; it is in only one measure relation formed
> by itself and another specifically determined thing that its specific
> peculiarity is not expressed" (capitalization added for emphasis, JL).
> -------------------------------
>
> I would suggest, however, that to be able to fully comprehend the
> above, it must be comprehended in context -- especially in the
> context of the rest of Section Two ["Magnitude (Quantity)"] of
> "The Doctrine of Being". But, *please* don't ask me to offer a
> summary of Section Two. I'm afraid that would be too difficult
> a task for me at present. In any event, we now know that the
> concept of an immanent measure relation, in partial answer to
> Chris's [8230], can be traced at least as far back as Hegel.
>
> In solidarity, Jerry
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jan 04 2003 - 00:00:00 EST