Doyle, Well counting systems (your comment not Marx's point) aren't generally called writing now. The reason being they aren't grammatical.
^^^ CB: I'm going back to your observation about linearity. Counting is usually done in a line when written. 1,2,3,4... And arithematic too, 1 + 2 = 3,although it can be linearly vertical also. ^^^^ Removing your observation the point by Marx is right. Counting represents external 'things' we can do operations upon. This cognitive brainwork doesn't have to give meaning to internal mental operations. However graphic counting gives a strong pointer step toward what writing might do, if not really grasping the technical significance of a grammatical system of writing. This is an important distinction also. Writing represents speech, which is mainly dependent upon two brain areas, broca's, and wernicke. They structure the rest of brain activity in a particular way to exchange with other humans. Mathematics is not especially involved in the grammatical build of information for exchange between people. As a commodity for exchange the early parts of graphic expression of counting would serve the community, not the upper class. In the sense the commons can belong to everyone. Further, if we look at say a deaf person who was not trained in language, they can and there are living examples who learn counting techniques irrespective of their lack of language. Giving us insight that human minds are not strictly tied to language as the single determinant of brainwork production. Where writing arises, aside from commodity exchange there seems to be strong correlation with upper class attachment with religious activity. ^^^^ CB: I'm thinking writing arises simultaneously with the advent of the first ruling class. And yes, "priests" soon follow. There also around this time arises a division of labor between predominantly mental laborers are predominantly physical laborers. The former take up writing. We may see them as "religious" in some of the productions they "leave" us and archaeologists find. ^^^^^ The ruler is the 'god' incarnate with a variety of writing tools builtto represent a communal exchange of language to validate the socialstructure this represents. People bought these religious icons to indicate their participation in the communal connection process. ^^^ CB: The one link I found and sent here has that the stone tablet with writing was treated like some sacred thing. Kept in a temple. ^^^^^ Keep the evil away from just about any household. Make your neighbor not hate you. Blah Blah. Much later, when alphabets arose, they could be performed and used by a larger community base. ^^^^ CB: I believe the idea is that the cueiform were alphabetical. It is not picturewriting. ^^^^ This expanded how information could be tied to larger and larger commodity elements in the community. This labeling, or sign-age function seems to shift over time. Marx points out that feudalism with country dominating city also represented a broad historical retreat from writing skills in the so-called dark ages. Romans were literate more broadly than most subsequent feudal Europeans. It's the printing press in Europe where early capitalist structure rapidly built up, that spread literacy well beyond any Roman precedent. China preceded Europe with this sort of tool, but the commodity production of writing was not aimed at the same sort of social strata. The feudal Chinese market was not going to be the public mass which capitalist production demands, but a skilled intelligentsia with a narrow influence on the whole society as opposed to the more universal aspects of capitalist production. thanks, Doyle Saylor
