SA previously:
>" 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).
Jorge:
> 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 ofÂ… ".
SA: This is what I believe the moq tries to avoid.
It tries to avoid the 'out there' archetypes that you
seem to be talking about, maybe? There is our value,
but then there is what we value. What we value is an
'archetype'? Are you saying that the 'thing' we value
is something we reach to define 'out there' and thus,
value stops with us, the 'thing' has no value in it's
own. Therefore, "regardless of value" there is this
scientific 'thing' 'out there'? I don't see value
stopping with us, or even beginning with us, as
humans. Value is a much broader definition, than what
may be standardized as value only and exclusively in
human determination.
This is where I differ. The 'thing' 'out there'
is also a value. It is not the value I give it, but
the value the 'thing' has unto itself without my
input. This is how the moq is a metaphysics of
reality. Reality is everything, and thus, the
'things' 'out there' are also quality, are also value,
and are also moral. The 'things' 'out there' are with
reality, thus, reality in the moq, including 'things'
'out there', are all value/quality/moral. So, the
definition of value, quality, and moral in the moq
changes. Values, quality, and moral are no longer
ONLY associated with human beings and their
perspective. Values have expanded to mean much more
than this.
Jorge:
> 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?
SA: I don't know. I see the difference in your
'value' and my 'value' in orientation. Value seems to
be locked into the human realm for you. I see value
as not only what humans view or standardize and
appreciate, but value is also a pattern that is not of
human intellect or social patterns. Value is of the
rock itself. Static patterns of value we may place
upon this rock, artistic or scientific, but a dynamic
aspect of the rock is of the rock itself, of what I
can't define about the rock. I could label a rock and
point out static, known patterns of a rock, and thus,
this valuation process is both human and rock in
origin. Yet, also, an aspect of a rock, I don't know
about, but empirically discover is at the cutting edge
of what I know about the rock and don't know about.
This arena, the dynamic one, of the rock can place the
rock anywhere, anyplace, and unmeasured as even being
specifically a rock. The rock, in this dynamic
aspect, has merged with primary reality, and even if I
try to locate something about the rock as being
measured as a rock humanly or from the rock itself, I
can't anymore. The rock is, to use a quantum phrase,
in a probability state of nowhere and everywhere,
along with everything else in reality, the rock is now
a flower, a bird, the sun, etc... See how the rock
can loose its' definition or measurement in this
dynamic aspect.
This might be a lot to take in, or not. If you
have questions or wonder where I might be coming from,
please ask. I don't know if I've locked on to how you
percieve value, but I gave it a shot. The same may go
for I'm seeing and using value, for you, so, please
ask away for clarification or anything. Thanks.
Jorge:
> 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.
SA: I don't know. The moq, along with value and
morals, is new. It may state something that is wierd
or unique or seemingly insane due to lose of
definition or how it twists what we thought we once
knew. Be patient with me. I may have gurgled out a
bunch of stuff that needs more explaining.
SA
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
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/
