Ham, you really should take the time to read Robert Pirsig's books before posting here. By not doing so, you continue to make yourself look stupid. And I know you're not stupid.
FYI, Dan ---------------------------------------- > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 14:18:49 -0400 > Subject: Re: [MD] Valuism and Quality > > 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/ _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail® goes with you. http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/Mobile?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_Mobile1_052009 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/
