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 <[email protected]>
> 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
