On 9/17 Ham asked Marsha: > I'd like to hear why you think it is necessary to redefine > value in order to support the basic MoQ concept.
Marsha replied: > There is only value. Ham then asked: >And what is that, Marsha? And Marsha said: > Not this, not that, not the other. ALL. Now that is a noble sentiment, poetically expressed. But, to my way of thinking, it is "redefining" Value. Why do I say this? The dictionary defines Value as "1) a fair return or equivalent in goods, services, or money for something exchanged; 2) the monetary worth of something: marketable price; 3) relative worth, utility or importance: degree of excellence; 4a) a numerical quantity assigned or computed; b) the amount or extent of a specified measurement of space, time, or quantity. ...7) something (as a principle or quality) intrinsically valuable or desirable. Note that every one of these definitions implies relative judgment. Only #7 in this list of definitions seems to apply to the 'ALL' you refer to, and it also happens to be the only one that contains the word "quality". Thus, Value is a measure of worth, or one could say that "the principle of quality is to be valuable or desirable." Excluding the monetary definitions (which involve exchange transactions), how is relative worth, importance, or desirability measured? Why, subjectively, of course. Value can not measure value. It takes subjective judgment to measure quality, excellence, or value. Without a subject capable of appreciating the worth of something, it can have no value. I stress this point because Value has been postulated as the primary reality by Pirsig, and you have just defined it as such by asserting that Value is ALL. Value is relational: it presupposes difference; namely, the difference between subject and object. Imagine the earth before sentient life forms evolved. Did it have value? Who would have known? You could say that it had the "potential" for value in that it would eventually give rise to living creatures. You could say the same thing about Mars or Jupiter, even though it's unlikely that these planets could support life as we know it. But is it logical to impute value to something before it is realized? Value cannot be primary unless your concept of ultimate reality is differentiated existence, subjectively realized. I assume from your "special definition" that you exclude the possibility of a metaphysical reality. Thanks for your cryptic response, Marsha. --Ham Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
