Hi Ham, I have no problem using Value as a verb. When we are presented with two different qualities, we value one more than another. We then state that it has higher value, for such is our interpretation of the two apparitions of Quality. There is nothing contradicting MoQ there in my opinion. It is applying a static representation to a dynamic phenomenon. This is what words and concepts do. When one is in the immediate act of valuation it is word and concept free.
Mark On Sep 13, 2011, at 1:23 PM, "Ham Priday" <hampd...@verizon.net> 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 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
