[OPE-L:8246] Re: "immanent measure" in Hegel and Marx

From: Christopher Arthur (cjarthur@waitrose.com)
Date: Sun Dec 29 2002 - 10:21:44 EST

Dear Jerry
I was excited to get this but then it turns out I can only find one fairly
meaningless reference to immanent measure on the page before ch 1. H also
warns that his stuff on measure is very difficult! It is! But with a bird's
eye view we can see it covers the same ground as p. 3 of Capital where Marx
goes from extrinsic variety of exchange ratio measures to the notion that
underlying this is something intrinsic which is measured externally, or
rather something essential which expresses itself in the various exchange
ratios. In the Logic The last category of quantity is ratio, then we get
the measure stuff in which H develops the idea that something can have
various measures while remaining intrinsically the same and then moves to

>Re Chris's [8230]:
>>As we know money is the real measure.
>> Elsewhere Marx refines this statement here to read LT is the 'immanent
>> measure'. This is not a concept known to me from any other science. It is
>> tempting to read it as a confused way of saying immanent determinant as
>> when we say weight is 'mG' where m would model LT and G would be modeled
>> by  some kind of exchange field. Or it could be there is some very
>> intimate  relation between value and labour time which is neither identity
>> nor  determinant but something in between. My instinct is to go for this
>> last.
>What about the Hegelian conception of science?
>Hegel uses the expression "immanent measure" in the _Science of Logic_
>(in Volume 1 ["The Objective Logic"], Book 1 ["The Doctrine of Being"],
>Section 3 ["Measure"], Ch. 1 ["Specific Quantity"]).  Within Hegelian
>thought the subjects of 'Magnitude'  and 'Measure' are  quite complex.
>In solidarity, Jerry

17 Bristol Road, Brighton, BN2 1AP, England

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Dec 31 2002 - 00:00:01 EST