[MD] The Dynamics of Value

[John Carl]

Mark and Ham,

I'd like to dabble here and there with your discussion.  Parts of it raised
questions and comments, starting with:

First off, Mark,


>
>  There appear to be two contrary positions as to its birth.  Either we
>> are the source of value, or we are it's creation.
>>
>
John:

What happened to "codependent arising"?  That seems to me to be the only
possible solution, since there is no possible "we" without value and there
is no possible value without us.   Also Mark, I think this is more in line
with your preference for a  Taoist perspective, which I also prefer, btw.

Mark:


>  This cannot be a creation of man, because it exists without man.  For
>> example, the notion of better or worse exists prior to man, and our
>> incarnation interprets it in a human way.  Man does not have the
>> power to make these things up, only reveal them in our own way.
>>
>
>
Ham:


> This is completely wrong.  Measured (differential) value requires a
> conscious agent for its existence.  Protagoras was right: "Man is the
> measure of all things, of the existence of the things that are, and the
> non-existence of the things that are not."  If man (the negate) did not have
> this power, objects could not be delineated and experienced.
>
>
John:

I would like to address both of you on the issue of "conscious agent" and
"man" with the question, is it at all possible that intelligent life exists
somewhere outside of humanity's experience?  If so, then it seems to me to
make both your formulations inadequate as universal truth.  And even if not,
even if man is alone in this vast cosmos, there are still animals which
share our perception and a form of emotional reasoning  which expands the
perceptions of value beyond the merely humanistic.  Methinks thou has
wandered into anthropocentric reasonings.

Mark:


>  Perhaps someone should write The Tao of Motorcycle Maintenance.
>> Oh, somebody already has.
>>
>
>
John:

One of my fab faves that I return to now and then is Benjamin Hoff's Tao of
Pooh.  Perhaps my approach can be best understood then as trying to emulate
the Uncarved Block - Absolute Simplicism, indeed.

Ham:

Thanks for your thoughtful analysis, Mark. With your approval, I should like
> to bypass Taoism completely (since it does not acknowledge the self) and
> present an 'essentialistic' epistemology based on the Philosophy of
> Individual Valuism.  Are you game for this?
>
>
>
I'm still contemplating that link you provided Ham, but I'm afraid I'm going
to argue with you over it quite a bit.  I just can't go along with:

"Individual Valuism is the philosophy that individuals are capable of
judging values by themselves."

As you know, my stance is that the individual is ontologically,
epistemologicaly, biologically and practically dependent upon the
community.  Therefore the over-emphasis upon the individual is a
philosophical dead-end.


But many thanks to you both for fair-minded and intelligent discourse. I
'preciate it like a jar of honey in front of the fire on a blustery day.


John