Value, Form, Medium, and Exchange

… [A]nd yet, the wonder of language is that we can speak of the inexplicable, the unknown, the

indefinite, the undetermined: we can even speak of ‘nothing’ and give it a form that would make it

understandable in some sense within a discourse, meaningful in context. What are indeed languages if not living testimonies of the truth that all possible things always come ‘with a text’ (cum textus)? That

is, in order to exist all things ought to be spoken in context and joined together by

meaningful relations articulating a discourse, a logos. There lies rationality: neither in

subjectivity or agency, nor in objectivity or structure, but in contextual relations and

relations of relations. [

Money: groundwork for a study of social relations, power and institutional change

, Stefano Sgambati ]

• “Data”, “informasi”, “knowledge” hanyalah raga atau rupa atau muka, dari makna (meaning).

• Setiap pesan (“hal itu”) membawa pesan tersembunyinya, yaitu perihal cara membaca pesan tersebut.

• Informasi hanya wadah atau kendaraan dari makna

• “Cara membaca” perlu di-nyata-kan (realized) collectively, agar “hal itu” menampakkan dirinya

• *) "data" berasal dari bahasa Sanskrit, maknanya "form giver".. sesuatu yang memberi wujud, atau rupa, atau muka kepada makna (meaning)

Maka selalu ada tiga hal dalam sebuah message

1)Pesan itu sendiri (substansi, makna).

2)Cara membacanya ... ada di dalam “that message”

3)wadahnya, its form, bajunya, mukanya, rupanya, raganya, bungkusannya

Kohn, Meir. 2004. “Value and Exchange.” Cato Journal 24: 303-39

• The value paradigm characterizes economic observations as equilibrium observations of maximizing action.

• In contrast, the exchange paradigm characterizes economic observations as processes of development, wherein the world we experience is generated through interaction among those who participate in it.

• http://mason.gmu.edu/~rwagner/Value%20and%20Exchange.pdf

The use of a concept Dalam tradisi filosofi dan ilmu pengetahuan analitikal, positivis Anglo-Saxon, yang dinamakan konsep adalah konstruksi-konstruksi sosial. Bagi mazhab realistik, konsep-konsep (concepts) bisa ditumbuhkan to reflect nature, dan dalam mazhab konvensionalis, konsep adalah sekedar kesepakatan atau konvensi sosial. Dalam tradisi dialektikal, bagaimanapun, concepts referring to anthropological phenomena participate in their referents. Konsep disini bukan hanya sekedar refleksi dari its designation; konsep juga menyatu dengan objek sedemikian rupa sehingga perubahan-perubahan in the former are mutually dependent on the changes in the latter. Ini artinya bahwa the use of a concept, alih-alih sekedar perihal problem definisi, sebenarnya adalah suatu problem bagi upaya memahami ('investigasi‘ atau ‘inquiry’) itu sendiri.

Contradictions are the core concept of Relational Dialectics. It is the dynamic interplay between unified oppositions. A contradiction is formed "whenever two tendencies or forces are interdependent (unity) yet mutually negate one another (negation)". For example, in a relationship one can simultaneously desire intimacy and distance.Totality suggests that contradictions in a relationship are part of a unified whole and cannot be understood in isolation. In other words, the dialectics cannot be separated and are intrinsically related to each other. For example, the tension between dependence and interdependence cannot be separated from the tension between openness and privacy — both work to condition and define the other.Process Relational dialectics must be understood in terms of social processes. Movement, activity, and change are functional properties (Rawlins,1989). For example, instances such as an individual fluctuating between disclosure and secretiveness. In addition, the individual may move between periods of honest and open communication (Miller, 2002, 2005).Praxis is a philosophical term for the concept of 'practical behavior' or sometimes 'the experience of practicing'. In praxis the dialectic tensions are created and re-created through the active participation and interaction. In other words, the practical experience of having a relationship exposes one to the imposition of the needs and value of another. As the relationship endures ones own needs and values become apparent. Praxis focuses on the practical choices individuals make in the midst of the opposing needs and values (dialectical tensions). In turn, the choices and actions themselves create, re-create, and change the nature of the relationship and hence the dialectical tensions themselves.

Relational dialectics : a communication theory

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relational_dialectics

Quadrants of discursive struggle• Four different sites (‘quadrants’) of

potential discursive struggle are common: – the distal already-spoken, – the proximal already-spoken, – the proximal not-yet-spoken, and – the distal not-yet-spoken.

• These struggles are between systems of meaning, not between persons.

• Thus, discursive struggle is not synonymous with interpersonal conflict, which is a clash between people.

Economic dialectical methods are exemplified and informed by monetary

representation and exchange

Beingness

Experience

Identity

Map

According to Plato and Hegel, dialectic comprises two related ways of thinking, the division of a whole into parts and the generation of a whole from

partial hypotheses.

Real axis

Imaginary axis

contradiction

totality process

praxisthe distal already-spokenthe proximal already-spoken

the proximal not-yet-spoken the distal not-yet-spoken

struggle against

meanings from culture

struggle against

meanings from the past

Contradictions are the core concept of Relational Dialectics. It is the dynamic interplay between

unified oppositions. A contradiction is formed "whenever two tendencies or forces are

interdependent (unity) yet mutually negate one another (negation)". For example, in a

relationship one can simultaneously desire intimacy and

distance.Totality suggests that contradictions in a relationship are part of a unified whole and cannot be understood in

isolation. In other words, the dialectics cannot be separated and

are intrinsically related to each other. For example, the tension between dependence and interdependence

cannot be separated from the tension between openness and

privacy — both work to condition and define the other.

Process Relational dialectics must be understood in terms of social

processes. Movement, activity, and change are functional properties

(Rawlins,1989). For example, instances such as an individual

fluctuating between disclosure and secretiveness. In addition, the

individual may move between periods of honest and open communication

(Miller, 2002, 2005).

Praxis is a philosophical term for the concept of 'practical behavior' or

sometimes 'the experience of practicing'. In praxis the dialectic tensions are created

and re-created through the active participation and interaction. In other

words, the practical experience of having a relationship exposes one to the imposition of the needs and value of another. As the relationship endures ones own needs and values become apparent. Praxis focuses on the practical choices individuals make in the midst of the opposing

needs and values (dialectical tensions). In turn, the choices and actions themselves create, re-create, and change the nature of the relationship and hence the dialectical

tensions themselves.

Beingness ≈ Contradiction ≈

Value ≈Existence

Experience ≈Totality ≈

Form of beingness ≈Form of value ≈

Form of existence

Identity ≈ Praxis ≈

Exchange ≈Meaning

Map ≈ Process ≈Medium ≈Model ≈

Artefact ≈Representation ≈

Medium of exchange ≈Vehicle of meaning

According to Charles S Peirce: in looking at a map, • the map itself is the Vehicle of the meaning,

• the country represented is the (Natural) Object, and • the idea excited in the mind is the Interpretant.

Beingness ≈ Contradiction ≈

Value ≈Existence

Experience ≈Totality ≈

Form of beingness ≈Form of value ≈

Form of existence

Identity ≈ Praxis ≈

Exchange ≈Meaning

Map ≈ Process ≈Medium ≈Model ≈

Artefact ≈Representation ≈

Medium of exchange ≈Vehicle of meaning

Find the Dance

The Dance

Beingness ≈ Contradiction ≈

Value ≈Existence

Experience ≈Totality ≈

Form of beingness ≈Form of value ≈

Form of existence

Identity ≈ Praxis ≈

Exchange ≈Meaning

Map ≈ Process ≈Medium ≈Model ≈

Artefact ≈Representation ≈

Medium of exchange ≈Vehicle of meaning

Enter the Dance

The Dancing

The Dance

Beingness ≈ Contradiction ≈

Value ≈Existence

Experience ≈Totality ≈

Form of beingness ≈Form of value ≈

Form of existence

Identity ≈ Praxis ≈

Exchange ≈Meaning

Map ≈ Process ≈Medium ≈Model ≈

Artefact ≈Representation ≈

Medium of exchange ≈Vehicle of meaning

Dance the Dance

The Dancing

The Dance

“The Dance”

Beingness ≈ Contradiction ≈

Value ≈Existence

Experience ≈Totality ≈

Form of beingness ≈Form of value ≈

Form of existence

Identity ≈ Praxis ≈

Exchange ≈Meaning

Map ≈ Process ≈Medium ≈Model ≈

Artefact ≈Representation ≈

Medium of exchange ≈Vehicle of meaning

Become the Dance

The Dancing

The Dance

The Dancers

“The Dance”

Dimulai pada exchange (pertukaran), arahnya berlawanan putaran jarum jam

VALUE

FORM of VALUE

MEDIUM of EXCHANGE

EXCHANGE

Dimulai pada exchange (pertukaran), arahnya berlawanan putaran jarum jam

USE-VALUE

PRICE as FORM

of VALUE

CURRENCY as MEDIUM

of EXCHANGE

EXCHANGE-VALUE

Always a triadic relationship: a relation of relations

USE-VALUE

PRICE as FORM

of VALUE

CURRENCY as MEDIUM

of EXCHANGE

EXCHANGE-VALUE

USE-VALUE

PRICE as FORM

of VALUE

CURRENCY as MEDIUM

of EXCHANGE

EXCHANGE-VALUE

In order to obtain the optimal performance from money,

the medium needs to be informed by the context of its use.

USE-VALUE

PRICE as FORM

of VALUE

CURRENCY as MEDIUM

of EXCHANGE

EXCHANGE-VALUE

Money is best informed from the bottom up, not the top down. This would result in a decentralized

monetary system in which authority and responsibility is vested at the smallest appropriate

level.

“informed from the bottom up”• the heart of the information problem (F A

Hayek 1945)– Fundamentally, in a system in which the

knowledge of the relevant facts is dispersed among many people, prices can act to coordinate the separate actions of different people in the same way as subjective values help the individual to coordinate the parts of his plan …

– Only to a mind to which all these facts were simultaneously known would the answer necessarily follow from the facts given to it.

– The practical problem, however, arises precisely because these facts are never so given to a single mind, and because, in consequence, it is necessary that in the solution of the problem knowledge should be used that is dispersed among many people.

[The Use of Knowledge in Society, Friedrich Hayek, 1945]