From: Michael Eldred (artefact@t-online.de)
Date: Thu Mar 20 2003 - 12:01:39 EST
Cologne 20-Mar-2003 Re: [OPE-L:8570] Philip Dunn schrieb Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:10:03 -0000: > gerald_a_levy <gerald_a_levy@msn.com> said: > > > Re Phil's [8566]: > > > > > I now think that the magnitude of a commodity's intrinsic value > > > is an accidental property of the commodity. > > > > In what sense or senses do you mean that the magnitude of value > > is an "accidental" property of a commodity? > > > Exchange-value is accidental because it falls under the category of relation. > Intrinsic value is accidental because it falls under the category of quantity. > Intrinsic value can fluctuate like market price. It can have the relation of > equality with the value of the money it sells for. The reason this seems > strange is due to a confusion of the notion of intrinsic labour value with > that of natural price. I have suffered from this confusion in the past. > Natural price is immunised against market fluctuation. Phil, I don't get this. Why are the categories of relation and quantity accidental, i.e. _kata symbebaekos_? For Aristotle, beings which are _kata symbebaekos_ (i.e. which are what they are simply because of what happens, from _symbainein_ 'to happen') are distinguished from beings _kath'auto_, i.e. beings as they are "according to themselves". Thus, e.g. "parenthood" is in itself and not simply accidentally relational, or a triangle has in itself and not just accidentally three angles, three sides and the sum of its angles is two right-angles, i.e. the category of quantity is by no means always _kata symbebaekos_. You seem to be confusing the primacy of _ousia_ as the first category as opposed to the further categories, which are usually said of a 'something', i.e. a _tode ti_ i.e. the first category in its primary sense as a concrete something. The categories are literally the ways in which beings can be and are addressed as beings. _Ousia_ as 'something' is usually the final 'subject' (_ousia_ understood as _hypokeimenon_) of such predications which say, literally, in what predicaments the said being finds itself. It has to be kept in mind that metaphysical concepts are invariabilty used in several ways with different meanings. The chapter in Book Delta of the Metaphysics on _ousia_ (usually, and misleadingly, translated as 'substance') lays out the various possible meanings of _ousia_. What do you mean precisely by "intrinsic value"? I take it that "intinsic" here is a translation of _kath'auto_. What is _kath'auto_ about value? > > > > > The link with probability is in terms of Aristotle's notion of a power > > > (dynamis) and its activity (energeia) and the result or realisation or > > > recognition (entelecheia) of this activity. Briefly, the value creating > > > activity of labour-power is recognized/measured both in the labour > > > market as money wages and in the product market via prices. > > > > Interesting. I think that value-form theorists and temporalists (as well > > as some others, e.g. Riccardo and Fred) would agree with that last > > sentence. Dualists and simultaneists might disagree, I believe. > > > > I have been strongly influenced by value-form theory and temporalism, but I do > hold fast to the notion of intrinsic embodied labour value and the 'immanent > measure' which value-form theory strongly rejects as 'Ricardian'. Even a concept of "intrinsic embodied labour value" is relational in the sense that commodity value is what it is only in relation to the labour that has been put into it by labourers. Michael _-_-_-_-_-_-_- artefact text and translation _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- made by art _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ http://www.webcom.com/artefact/ _-_-_-_-artefact@webcom.com _-_ _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ Dr Michael Eldred -_-_- _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ > > > > > These two measurements are related probabilistically. > > > > Which is interesting because not all of those who have been influenced > > by Farjoun and Machover would agree about when and how the > > value-creating activity of labour-power is recognized and measured. > > I guess theorists from a number of perspectives have used F&M as > > a springboard for further research. What do you think about the work > > of Webber and Rigby -- two others who were strongly influenced by > > F&M? > > > > I will have a look at the exchanges on OPE-L on this. I haven't read any of > the work of Webber and Rigby. > > Phil > --
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Mar 21 2003 - 00:00:00 EST