[MD] Value is a Verb

[Ham Priday]

Steve, Andre, Mark, and all Value enthusiasts --


On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 6:14 AM, Andre Broersen <andrebroersen at 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