[MD] subject/object: no quality?

[Ham Priday]

On 9/17 Ham asked Marsha:

> I'd like to hear why you think it is necessary to redefine
> value in order to support the basic MoQ concept.

Marsha replied:
> There is only value.

Ham then asked:
>And what is that, Marsha?

And Marsha said:
> Not this, not that, not the other.  ALL.

Now that is a noble sentiment, poetically expressed.  But, to my way of 
thinking, it is "redefining" Value.
Why do I say this?

The dictionary defines Value as "1) a fair return or equivalent in goods, 
services, or money for something exchanged; 2) the monetary worth of 
something: marketable price; 3) relative worth, utility or importance: 
degree of excellence; 4a) a numerical quantity assigned or computed; b) the 
amount or extent of a specified measurement of space, time, or quantity. 
...7) something (as a principle or quality) intrinsically valuable or 
desirable.  Note that every one of these definitions implies relative 
judgment.

Only #7 in this list of definitions seems to apply to the 'ALL' you refer 
to, and it also happens to be the only one that contains the word "quality". 
Thus, Value is a measure of worth, or one could say that "the principle of 
quality is to be valuable or desirable."   Excluding the monetary 
definitions (which involve exchange transactions), how is relative worth, 
importance, or desirability measured?  Why, subjectively, of course.

Value can not measure value.  It takes subjective judgment to measure 
quality, excellence, or value.  Without a subject capable of appreciating 
the worth of something, it can have no value.  I stress this point because 
Value has been postulated as the primary reality by Pirsig, and you have 
just defined it as such by asserting that Value is ALL.  Value is 
relational: it presupposes difference; namely, the difference between 
subject and object.  Imagine the earth before sentient life forms evolved. 
Did it have value?  Who would have known?  You could say that it had the 
"potential" for value in that it would eventually give rise to living 
creatures.  You could say the same thing about Mars or Jupiter, even though 
it's unlikely that these planets could support life as we know it.  But is 
it logical to impute value to something before it is realized?

Value cannot be primary unless your concept of ultimate reality is 
differentiated existence, subjectively realized.  I assume from your 
"special definition" that you exclude the possibility of a metaphysical 
reality.

Thanks for your cryptic response, Marsha.

--Ham