Hi Ham, Thank you for the essay. At the danger of Valuism falling into similar semantic traps, I would like to pose that, like Quality, Valuism can be considered at different levels, the individual, the society, and the planet. However, the basis for Valuism would be the individual. I do not want this reduced to "The Selfish Gene", but say that there is a dynamic interaction between value levels. Value is not imposed by an external object, but through the use of that object.
I will leave it to those better at defining structures. Cheers, Willblake2 On May 25, 2009, at 11:18:49 AM, "Ham Priday" <[email protected]> wrote: All MoQists -- For some time now I have been trying to advance the concept that Quality (i.e., Value) is subjective rather than universal in nature. This a "radical" concept only for the MoQists who deny subjectivity and are thus persuaded to think of Value as an attribute of the cosmos that we consciously latch onto in rare moments of insight. The idea that it is the individual who "evaluates" everything in existence, and comes to realize that "some things are better," is acknowledged by just about everybody on this planet, with the notable exception of the Pirsigians. The anomaly doesn't help to promote a value-based philosophy and I question the soundness of the premise which makes it necessary. Last week John Carl, who like Marsha and possibly Willblake2, are looking for "something new" that can replace the endless circular arguments on the MD, divulged that he'd like to see "People of Quality" or "Politics of Quality" (PoQ in either case) as a theme for discussion. Since this motto recalled Mao-Tse-tung's "People's Party", I suggested that he might instead consider "Valuism" as a philosophical movement. I told him the term isn't in the dictionary but is occasionally used by philosophers and estheticians in reference to human value sensibility. When I googled the key words "Valuism, philosophy" on the Internet to see who might have used the term in this context, the first item that appeared was an essay titled "The Philosophy of Individual Valuism". It turned out to be a clearly written exposition on the very issue toward which I'd been directing my efforts. With "suitable adjustments", which hopefully can be the subject of future discussion, I believe the epistemology outlined in this essay is compatible with both the MoQ and Essentialism. To whet your appetite, here are some pertinent excerpts from this author's thesis: "For the vast majority of humans, perceptions of value and goodness are too often distorted by lenses of culture and mysticism that assert what is supposed to be desired with little or no sound reasoning. Individual Valuism is the philosophy that individuals are capable of judging values by themselves. Moreover, values can only be defined relative to individuals. Outside of a mind with preferences, goodness cannot exist." "Unfortunately, most people are ...taught that value is defined by some impersonal standard that one is supposed to have or find. Such a standard cannot exist. Value is a property that exists within minds. Something can be valued by some people in the world, nobody in the world, or even everyone in the world, but there cannot be a value that is "objective," "necessary," or "a priori." In other words, there cannot be anything that is desirable to, and independent of, every possible point of view. Any belief that such a value exists can only be supported by a naïve argument that fails to make a connection between what exists and what ought to be. In order for something to have value, there must be a point of view to perceive it. Knowing value requires a mind to think in the same way as knowing beauty requires eyes to see." "I also want to make clear the distinctions between Individual Valuism and views of moral relativism, which argue that ethical assertions are relative to the traditions or beliefs of a culture, individual, or group. On the surface, there may not appear to be much of a difference between the two. The most obvious difference is that Individual Valuism only recognizes ethics relative to individuals; a person is not morally bound to the views of any culture or group. Furthermore, traditions and beliefs are not the same as values. Values are what actually result in good consequences to a person. A child could believe that inoculations are bad, but they may actually be good to him, if they save him from a terrible illness. A group of savages may sacrifice animals because tradition tells them to, but doing so may actually be bad to them, if not sacrificing the animals would've had better results. For some reason that escapes me, some people say that relativism implies that all moral decisions are equally valid and should be tolerated. In any case, this should not be applied to Individual Valuism. An individual is at liberty to consider his values first and reject and respond to opposing judgments." I hope you will find this essay as readable and enlightening as I did. The anonymous writer applies his 'Valuism' to Ethics, Culture, Religion, Government and Economics. But the underlying concept is that Value is realizable only by the individual. The complete article is accessible at http://www.indval.org/IV.htm . A memorable Memorial Day to all of you, Ham 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/ 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/
