SA wrote:
. "Do you see how your definition of value seems
to be different from how I define value? Value to me
is science - physics science, and value is art. Value
involves all of these, though, the definition of the
value partaking in these differing events (physics,
art, etc...) will be a value involving different
definitions. The definition of what happens in
physics will be a value process defined much
differently than the value process in art, for
instance."
Jorge: The reason I selected this paragraph from the
rest of your post is that I think you are making there
a good point: --let's see first if when talking of
"Values" we are talking of the same thing ---
otherwise we'd be talking endlessly without arriving
to an understanding. So,let me try to clear up this
first and then I'll comment on the rest of your Post.
You wrote "Again, it is the definition of what value
is?
Your saying value=subjectivity-of-SOM, I think."
So, first a disclaimer: I'm not saying anything of
the kind. This not only because I have a very nebulous
idea of what the subjectivity-of-SOM might be, but
also because I wouldn't equal value with subjectivity.
In later years I have become more and more
disenchanted with definitions, so I won't offer my
preferred definition of Value; instead I'll try to
clarify my personal meaning of it through examples.
If a person declares that one of her most important
values is, say, Social Justice, I'd expect that her
actions and opinions will conform to said value;
furthermore, that she'll "evaluate" other persons,
actions and things according to the extent they meet
or not her standards. If that is not the case then,
said Value is not a value for her but just bla, bla,
bla
. That in turns means that for me Values are not
independent entities, floating around in the air, but
acquire a meaning only as a given person's values and,
also, that they come to existence only through
'praxis'. It is because of this question of praxis
that I wouldn't equate values=subjectivity; other
persons can judge, from my behaviour,whether I am true
to my declared values or not.
Values, in my understanding, can be ascribed not
only to individuals but also to organizations.
According to above meaning when, for instance, Shell
Petroleum Co. declares that it is committed to the
value of preserving the environment, that contention
may be examined somewhat objectively (examining the
various operations of that Company).
May be you are right in saying that our meanings
differ somewhat because you write:" Value to me is
science - physics science, and value is art. " .I
wouldn't say " Art is a Value" but "Some persons value
Art" (that is, Art has value for them).
Within my personal meanings, I make a clear
distinction between a person's values and the "value
of things" (like in value of a jewel or of a book).
That makes, I think, clear differences between " the
value of Science" or of Art or of a theory. The
differences arise because we use different standards
for value judgments in each case. A group or a
Society can get to a certain measure of agreement on
which criteria may be used in each case to ascertain
"the value of
".
When we say 'we appreciate' a painting or a poem or a
monument we mean the thing in question meets certain
standards of value which have been largely agreed
upon. "Standards rationally adjust our valuations to
their appropriate objects" (E. Anderson).
Accordingly, we cannot compare the values of
different types of objects, in the sense of comparing
the value of a painting with the value of a poem or
of a sonata or of a theory; it would be inappropriate
to say to say that the value of one is 'higher' than
that of the other; as said, we appreciate different
kinds of things with different standards. I think we
more or less agree in this, since you write:
"Value involves all of these, though, the definition
of the value partaking in these differing events
(physics,art, etc...) will be a value involving
different definitions"
If I read you correctly what I call 'standards of
value' you call 'definitions of value' and what I call
'appreciation' you call 'value process' . Am I right?
I've been (strenuously) trying in the former
to avoid the association of Value with Quality. I
suspect this association would put me in a collision
course with the MOQ.
__________________________________________________________
Sent from Yahoo! Mail.
The World's Favourite Email http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
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/
