[Ham]
> > 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.
[Ham]
> Now that is a noble sentiment, poetically expressed.
> But, to my way of
> thinking, it is "redefining" Value.
> Why do I say this?
Because everything, but your essence thesis is
not philosophy, hmmm? Oh, and if it has a creator,
oh, but I thought that was a religion, hmmm.
[Ham]
> 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.
Now, if your value is one of the intellect, what
the intellect so freely, thus, relatively judges, then
that would be a intellectual static pattern of value,
ooooh, but society is involved too, oh and then we're
human biologically so I guess that's got something to
do with it, and then these inorganic patterns are
together somehow supporting a human being and not the
sun, hm... so what are we valuing, surely one of these
patterns, surely these patterns can change and are
thus dynamic.
[Ham]
> 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?
Intellectually, socially, biologically, and
inorganically, but you'll never get this in your
limited perspective. I say limited due to earthquakes
don't have any impact on how we think at all according
to you. Or, how about this intellect? Surely this
intellect is of some value to you, and how you use
this intellect, what values do you decide upon? Are
they worth it? If so, then great!
[Ham]
> Why, subjectively, of course.
Oh, when I eat a tomato and not grass is that
subjective? Would I really get by with just grass?
Would my stomach agree with you? It's not all in the
head Ham.
[Ham]
> 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.
Ask this object called the brain. This organism
called human as long as discovered the value of the
brain, and by golly has kept it. Did I subjectively
make this decision, maybe it was objectively, and long
ago Homo erectus did this experiment using objective
science and discovered the need for this brain, or
maybe it was subjective, Homo erectus just chose it or
maybe it was a organic pattern valuing due to its'
total focus such as positive magnets and negative
magnets it was valuing all along what it came along
due to it either valuing or devaluing due to that's
all it can do for that's all it is - pure valuing.
[Ham]
> 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?
It's crazy I know!
[Ham]
> 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.
I don't know oh holy essence, I bow before your
godly altar. We will all be the same and know the
same and hahhahaha, sorry, got carried away, this is
so fun!!!
also a good one way talk with you Ham,
SA
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows.
Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545433
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/
