[OPE-L:3473] Re: measurement of value

["Andrew Brown" <Andrew@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Rakesh,

I don't like the apparent nonesense of 'existence does not equal
reality' either.

I was floundering until I hit upon the following:

Maybe you have done my explanation for me. As you say: value
exits, prior to sale, only as a potentia. Thus the value of a particular
commodity does *exist* prior to sale (as a potentia - which it
seems to me is something that the notion of 'ideal' price captures).
But it is not *real* prior to sale. It becomes real when the
commodity (potential universal exchangeabilty) is exchanged for
money (real universal exchangeability), ie. when it is sold.

What do you think?

Andy.
PS will give a response to other aspects of your post next week - I
can't bring myself to think about value any more this week! One
thing: I have come across Aristotle's analysis of cause a number of
times (and just now in relation to some comments made on a
philosophy paper of mine concerning the mind-body relation). But I
still haven't grasped it fully. This is why I would be most grateful if
you could expand upon it. You are currently assuming a knowledge
of Aristotle which I don't have.



On 9 Jun 2000, at 10:47, Rakesh Bhandari wrote:

> Re Andrew's 3464
> >You seem to say that value form is not the mode of expression of
> >value. I certainly think it is. But I agree with you, *also*, that the
> >value of a commodity (quite obviously) does not produce its effect
> >(universal exchangeability), without *really* acquiring the money
> >form (ie. by the commodity being exchanged for money; in other
> >words, by the metamorphosis of the commodity into money). The
> >only way to express all this, it seems to me, is by making some
> >rather curious 'metaphysical' distinctions. The way I have put it is
> >to say that value *exists*, but is not *real* (or better, not *realised*)
> >prior to sale! You seem not to want to make such a distinction.
>
> But Andrew is not something that exists, yet is not real, quite a curious
> metaphysical distinction? This seems to me the confusion in which both Marx
> and Heisenberg were trapped on the basis of use of aspects of Aristotle's
> metaphysics. It seems to me to make no sense to say that the commodity is
> in some kind of specific but unknown state.
>

<snip>

> In what state of reality is this value? Or in what precise sense is
> existence not reality?
>
>
> Yours, Rakesh
>