Hello Ham, My understanding of static quality (Value) has always been about process:
Static patterns of value are processes: ever-changing, conditionally co-dependent and impermanent. (Not independent objects, subjects or things-in-themselves.) Ever-changing processes that pragmatically tend to persist and change within a stable, predictable pattern. Marsha On Sep 13, 2011, at 4:23 PM, Ham Priday wrote: > Steve, Andre, Mark, and all Value enthusiasts -- > > > On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 6:14 AM, Andre Broersen <andrebroer...@gmail.com> > wrote to Steve: > >> Pirsig's response to Bodvar: "This is a subtle slip back into subject-object >> thinking. Values have bee converted to a kind of object in this sentence, >> and then the question is asked, "If values are an object,then where is the >> subject?" The answer is found in the MOQ sentence,"It is not Lila who has >> values, it is values that have Lila."Both the subject and the object are >> patterns of value."( Annotn 76). > > Rather than making values or Lila an "object", why not consider the fact that > Value is also a verb? We _value_ things, people, and ideas. As a verb, > Value means "to rate or scale in usefulness, importance, or general worth." > But that's a dead dictionary definition. Perhaps this short story will bring > it to life for you. > > "Yesterday evening, while at a friend's house drinking and playing cards, I > was accosted (which might be a strong word) by his slightly drunk roommate, > who demanded to know what my values and beliefs were. "Summarize them in one > word," this fellow ordered. > > "If I'd been more sober, I could have nipped the whole confusion in the bud, > since its source had been evident from the very first question. > > "Summarize your values and beliefs in one word," he demanded. > > "And, after scoffing at the very notion, I said (a bit flippantly but with as > much sincerity as a one-word answer to such a question can contain, when one > is already drunk): "Love." > > "Okay, two words," he said, "What do you mean, 'love'? What, like 'spread > love'?" > > "Do you see what just happened? Do you see what he did just then? Love is > already a verb. Why should we have to tack on another? Well, probably > because he assumed love was a noun, a thing, a goal or an end, and not a > process. > > "But love is a process. It is a verb. And furthermore, it is a process of > the self, something that the individual does and must choose, freely, to do. > What are my values, what do I believe in, how do I live my life? Love I > love. > > "When we change our value from 'loving' to 'spreading love,' what happens? We > shift our focus from what we ourselves are doing and thinking (e.g. our own > attitudes, behaviors and ideas), to what others are doing and how we want > them to behave, think and feel. How far am I willing to go to 'spread > love'"? Am I willing to 'get rid of' people who I deem less than loving so > that they don't 'spread' their lack of love? Which is more important--that I > live according to my own values, or that I am effective in making everyone > else live by them? > > "The difference is that my values are my values, or more accurately, that I > value (v.) certain things regardless of their prominence or dominance for > others, and holding these things as valuable does not hinge on whether or not > anyone else in the world holds them to be so." > -- [abridged from > http://meadowsweet-myrrh.blogspot.com/2008/07/value-is-verb.html] > > My point here is simply that we love or desire what we value. The "proximate > object" of our attraction may be a piece of music, a rustic scene, a beloved > person, or a metaphysical concept of the universe on which our focus is > fixed. But what produces this attraction is neither the noumenon nor the > phenomenon, not "me" or "other", but the fact that the conscious Self is > separated from the Source of its being. That source is experientially > represented by the object of our awareness. But the phenomenon is only an > "appearance" presented to us; it is not our being but the being of something > from which we are conditionally estranged -- something we fervently seek for > ourselves. > > This is how I understand Value. It isn't a realm of the universe constantly > moving towards "betterness". It isn't a hormonal change in our biological > state called "emotion". Value is the affinity of the sensible Self for the > wholeness of Essence which created it. It is our inextricable bond with the > essential Source that both divides and connects us in the Self/Other > dichotomy of existence. > > Does this self-activated concept of Value resonate with any of you? Do we > really need a hierarchy of levels and patterns to appreciate what links us to > the essential Source of our finite being? I'd be interested to know what you > think. > > Valuistically speaking, > 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/md/archives.html