[MD] subject/object: no quality?

[MarshaV]

At 07:18 PM 9/18/2007, you wrote:

>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


Ham,

And here I considered that it was far too much?

At the moment, all she really wants to do is dance.

Marsha