yesterday, spent an hour crawling through 12 miles of LA rush hour traffic. but hey, nothing beats downtown LA at sunset. 2½ hours got me to my local in-n-out & a timeout. so i finally see my new psychiatrist. funny, just saw Plankton trying to steal the secret formula again, playing fuzzy sweater beard freud to spongebob's krabby pattie neurosis. however, watching depressing docudramas on LMN didn't help. tim asks about Marx's transformation problem, so some light googling before driving to West Hollywood. gotta admit, wiki doesn't help much. this paper mentions Marx's thesis that labor is the immanent measure of value. surprisingly, only 81 links pop on "immanent measure of value". Capital Vol. I, Chapter Nineteen, Part VI: Wages:
That which comes directly face to face with the possessor of money on the market, is in fact not labour, but the labourer. What the latter sells is his labour-power. As soon as his labour actually begins, it has already ceased to belong to him; it can therefore no longer be sold by him. Labour is the substance, and the immanent measure of value, but has itself no value. [+]
quickly scanning links, get the idea something's hidden.
This immanent measure of value is hidden from the view of daily working of markets, from my or your experience as commodity sellers and buyers, because it is a property that emerges out of the continuous process of our interaction. Yet, it somehow fits with the experience of you and I being caught in a rat race to reproduce our livelihoods. And when we bring this reflection to the foreground, we realise that the disciplinary mechanism that create commodity values is at the same time the disciplinary mechanism that attributes value to the social actions that produced those commodities, that creates patterns of how we produce them, what we produce, how much we produce them, how we relate to each other in producing them, what system of needs we create, and how we distribute our social doing, our social labour across the social body. [+]
The constant irruption of surplus value ex nihilo (aus Nichts: from the nothingness of capital) gives the reproduction of capital a very special qualitative physiognomy. [+]
starting to see Heidegger (nothing) + Marx (immanent measure of value) connection. 25-March-2002 lecture transcript, Don Mitchell @ Maxwell School of Citizenship & Public Affairs. lots of errors in the transcript; however, visualizing Mitchell's verbal flow+ebb (& the devilish glee he seems to get explaining things) provided kinetic groking. uncovering Marx's structure:
What are wages? How's that for a starting question? Page 501 ... Labour is the substance and the immanent measure of value, but has itself no value. Right? Labour power does, though. That's what is bought and sold. We all know what the value of labour power is. He makes an assumption -- he has been making assumption throughout this book that commodities trade at their value. He makes the assumption that commodities trade at their value throughout everything we have been talking about. Every once in awhile he relaxes that assumption. When he talks about wages, he relaxes that assumption in a big way. What's the point of talking about wages? What's this chapter -- what are these chapters on wages? It's part six wages. What's the part that they follow? You can look back in your book. Humor me by telling me. You can even look at the table of contents. Page 476, if anyone wants to look at it.
Student: Absolute And Relative Surplus-Value.
The Production Of Absolute And Relative Surplus Value. What follows it?
Accumulation, yeah. Of which we started to read some. The accumulation of capital. From the production of capital to the accumulation of capital. Right in-between that is a short section on wages. How come? [+]
later Mitchell describes Marx's spiral:
It's repetitive in a way it is more like a spiral. Starting with basic concepts and ideas and spinning out implications, using some key mediating ideas ... but then as it continues to spin out it spirals he says, the circle in which simple reproduction moves, alters its form and changes into a spiral, increasing spiral. And what that does is as he is pointing out at the end of the previous chapter is capitalist production produces not only commodities but produces and reproduces the capitalist relation, on the one side the capitalist on the other side the wage laborer. [+]
google :: "capital is nothing" (aka, big-fat-zero nothing, white man's juju not to be confused with Heidegger's The Hunting Down of the Nichtung).
The middle way depends upon understanding how what is 'nothing but' a social relation of production generates the objective real power over us because of inversion of subject and object. [+]
A nation is really rich only if no interest is paid for the use of capital; if the working day is only 6 hours rather than twelve. WEALTH IS DISPOSABLE TIME, AND NOTHING MORE. [+]
philosophical conversations: crisscrossing Marx and Heidegger (see also Jessica Rylan Interview: Sometimes I do feel this psychic connection with machines…)
Michael Eldred says in his Capital and Technology: Marx and Heidegger that the questions concerning the essence of capital and its relationship to the essence of technology need to be explored and that Marx and Heidegger touch each other in their respective thinking most intimately. Each of these thinkers has answered one of the two questions concerning the essence of capital and the essence of technology, but in different languages. The task is thus posed as a kind of labour of translation. [+]
Capital and Technology: Marx and Heidegger — Part 1: An Unsettling Encounter :: For readers of Heidegger it is striking that, during a career in thinking lasting more than fifty years, this thinker did not enter into any in-depth philosophical altercation with Marx.
According to Heidegger's own statements (which of course do not have to be taken as the final source of evidence), from 1937 on, at the time of writing the Contributions to Philosophy - From Enowning
, the word 'propriation' or ‘enowning’ assumes a position as principal word in his thinking. The essence of technology is also thought through in the forties under the aura of propriation. In an unusual text from the fifties, Identity and Difference
, whose unusual status among Heidegger's writings has been noticed by Gianni Vattimo, Heidegger talks of a twisting of the set-up into propriation, of the "sudden flash of propriation" within the set-up. In this text there is a sort of toggle relationship between the most extreme consummation of metaphysics and the twisting of metaphysics into propriation, in which humans would "lose" the determination of essence which metaphysics has "lent" them. Twisting (Verwindung), as Vattimo's pensiero débole
elaborates, must not be confused with overcoming (Überwindung). In the small difference of a prefix there lies a subtle but decisive difference between Heideggerian thinking of being and metaphysical thinking. Twisting as well as overcoming relate to Western history. Whereas overcoming lies close to the Hegelian and a fortiori
the Marxian conception of history, twisting or getting-over is supposed to initially indicate another type of thinking of history, namely, history as the history of being. “In the destiny of being there is never a mere sequence: now set-up, then world and thing, but in each case a passing-by and simultaneity of the early and the late.” The difference twisting/overcoming will provide a second guiding thread in the following. [+]
googling Michael Eldred i end with Lecture 10. seemed like a good place to stop since i'm about to enter into a conversation about being. took leather briefcase coz i needed something to keep release forms neat & tidy. shrugging why not? looking inside at my magickal notebook full of plastic wrapped color printouts. maybe i'll show them to the doctor. which i did. also a quickly sketched 220-919-827 timeline, which she wanted to copy. noticed slight tug-of-war as she looked at my disorganized folder. blue book with gold lettering: AUTISM. hey, aromatherapy, lit candle, lovely orchid (real, but the one in the little lobby is fake) & tea. .... you seem to be in this who am i, what is being, ontolo... — yes, the last five years have been the most intellectually challenging. (my brain cells are streeeeeeetched).
this was near UCLA. so got to see Federal & VA buildings & the LA National Cemetery (got beeped trying to read plaque at the corner of Sepulveda & Wilshire) [+][+][+].