At 07:18 PM 9/18/2007, you wrote: >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
Ham, And here I considered that it was far too much? At the moment, all she really wants to do is dance. Marsha 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/
