Jorge (previous):
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? ".
About which SA comments:
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'
Jorge: As you may see, SA, I'm breaking your
paragraphs so as to comment on each separately. Quite
a lot to comment in your remarks so I don't want to
leave some unanswered.
I don't see why you'd call them archetypes. Re., your
question "What we value is an archetype?" No, I
wouldn't call it an archetype at all. A person may
value, say, Beauty, Freedom, Joy and others; these
will be her 'personal values'; as to what is Beauty,
Freedom, etc., I'd assume that, since she's so
concerned about them, she'd have personal meanings to
ascribe to each of them. On the other hand that
person may value a certain painting, a certain brand
of beer and Shakespeare's Sonnets; these would be
specific 'things' that the person in question believes
have value.
Re., your question: 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?"
I don't see why we have to introduce the 'out there"
part. In my example, the painting that person
believes has value is directly perceived and
experienced, the same with that brand of beer or The
Sonnets; for that person they are very much "in here".
I don't see how we could possibly ascribe a value to a
thing we have never experienced.
SA: 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.
Jorge: Well, I do; beginning with us humans and
stopping with us humans. What possible value a beer
may have with no one around to savor it? What possible
value a painting may have with no one around to
appreciate it? One might say of course that things may
have 'value' for other creatures, like, say, a
painting having 'nutritional value' for termites, but
this nutritional value is a concept that we humans
have invented; termites wouldn't be aware of it.
SA: 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.
Jorge: I wouldn't use the word 'input' because then
I'd have to assume that the thing is generating an
output ( M. Buber dwells on that) . The contention
that a thing may have "a value unto itself" sounds odd
to me; if nor I, nor anyone else, is aware that that
thing even exists how could it possibly be valued? I
accept of course that a Universe might go on 'business
as usual' after we humans disappear from it, but who'd
be there to value things? Beings from other galaxies?
It doesn't affect the argument that some sort of
intelligent beings are in any case required.
SA: 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: Perhaps your introduction of ONLY may offer a
way out in this impasse. I am not saying that the
Universe exists ONLY for our (human) sake. After all,
we were either created by God or we are the result of
some evolutionary process; in both cases we are
dispensable items. But reality, quality, morality are
such as conceived by humans. There might be a morality
of the Universe, independent of us, but how could we
possibly know what that morality consists of? As you
say, the definition of value and quality may change
according to the MOQ, but the MOQ was invented by
humans wasn't it?
Jorge (previous):
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.
Jorge: I've never maintained that one has to be able
to define something in order to experience it. Neither
I think that a definition of something is required in
order to discern its value. As to your "Values seems
to be locked in the human realm for you" you are quite
right, not only seems but it is so. You, on the other
hand, say that you see value as not 'only' what humans
appreciate but also something else. The question
arises though regarding this 'something else' how can
you be aware of it? You posit it outside your own
experience and even your own ability to experience it;
the answer cannot lie in saying that it pertains to a
unconscious experience because even the unconscious
and subconscious is of the human being.
SA: 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.
Jorge: I am quite keen on rocks myself, mainly
regarding the aesthetic appreciation of them. When I
say 'of them' it is implicit that I cannot very well
appreciate a particular rock without this rock 'being'
in my world. The valuation process hence entails a
valuator and the thing valued. In this,I think, we see
eye to eye,
SA: 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.
Jorge: at the cutting edge of what I know about a rock
and what I don't know about it, I'd place what is
called sometimes intuition; a vague feeling that I
sense something in the rock that I cannot describe in
words. What I don't (rationally) know about the rock
but 'feel' or 'sense' is very much part of my
experience; sometimes far more intense than what I
know about the rock. A much better example than 'a
rock experience' is of course a music experience;
structure, form, style, etc., what 'we know' about a
piece of music conforms just a small portion of the
music experience.
SA: This arena, the dynamic one, of the rock can place
the
rock anywhere, any place, 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.
Jorge: sorry to be so prosaic but, aren't you saying
simply that the rock has vanished from your world?
SA: 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.
Jorge: I hate to keep repeating myself but, why this
insistence on bringing up quantum mechanics?. Never
heard of the probability of being nowhere and
everywhere, just of the probability of being
somewhere. Your quantum phrase just cools down the
poetical intensity of "along with everything in
reality, a flower, a bird, the sunÂ…" Pretty good, if I
may say so.
SA: 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: Yes, rather a lot to take in; nevertheless an
interesting exchange of views. Pity we are so far
apart regarding values.
Jorge(previous): 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.
Jorge (current): I gather from the previous exchange
that I have already collided.
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.
Jorge: It certainly does need a lot more explaining
from both. But we are way out of "Science and the
MOQ"; what about starting a different Thread? I'd
leave the subject title to you.
___________________________________________________________
Rise to the challenge for Sport Relief with Yahoo! For Good
http://uk.promotions.yahoo.com/forgood/
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/
