From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Sat Jan 03 2004 - 21:19:52 GMT
Hi All,
It has occurred to me from time to time that values are measured
differently at different levels.
I emphasize measurement because the intellectual level is mesmerized by
the absoluteness of number, believing with almost religious fervor that in
number (various froms of mathematics including probability) the secrets of
the universe can be revealed and a Theory of Everything attained.
This belief holds sway in the hard sciences of physics, chemistry and
biology. Values at the inorganic and biological levels are expressed
numerically or not at all. For instance, if the numerical values of the
fundamental constants that govern the physical world, such as the strength
of gravity or the charge of election, were just slightly different,
neither the universe nor we would be here (called the 'anthropic
principle'). Expressing values numerically at these lower levels has
borne amazing fruit for all mankind. It has produced health and wealth
beyond our forefather's imagining .
Values at the social level are also expressed numerically in terms of
money, the medium of exchange for goods and services. At this level,
however, due to the idiosyncrasies of individuals, there are few if any
fundamental constants such as found in the lower two levels. While the
vast majority may vote with their pocketbooks to express the value of a
certain product ( or simply vote for a certain politician) there are
plenty of others who wouldn't give you a plug nickle for the same object
(or person). Furthermore, few would subscribe to the idea that popularity
alone is an accurate measure of value. But what else do we have to go by?
This is where I begin to enter a fog, for at the intellectual level there
are few, if any, numerical measurements of value I can put my finger on.
Of course, I could argue that a best-selling book is, by popular approval,
more intellectually worthy than one that sits on the booksellers shelves.
But, as noted above, such an argument would be specious. By what measure
can we say that the MOQ is a more worthy metaphysics than, say, that
offered by Kant, or Hegel, or Nietzsche? Must we to accept the judgment of
those who have spent a lifetime "studying" these old graybeards? (Frankly,
I distrust a lot of the so-called and often self-appointed experts.).
Pirsig offers several standards for determining value at the intellectual
level-- "logical consistency, agreement with experience, and economy of
explanation." Logical consistency lends itself to a mathematical-like
analysis as expressed in symbolic logic. Agreement with experience may
also be measured I suppose by counting the number of people who, in
performing the same experiment, come up with the same result. But economy
of explanation seems like a pure judgment call to me. Who is to say
simpler is always better?
But more than that. Take ideals like equality, fairness, justice, beauty.
How in the world do we assign numerical values to such concepts? Where do
those values ultimately lie and how are they to be measured, if at all?
Any thoughts on these questions would be most appreciated. It seems the
higher the level, the fuzzier values become.
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jan 03 2004 - 21:17:45 GMT