"Ahhh, he said something that got one of his friends angry with him again."
As we slipped closer behind him we could hear him say;
"Tell me, is there anything in the world that man has not given a value to? Is there anything of this world that man will not exchange for something else? And when man does exchange one thing for another isn't it because he has placed a greater value on the thing he seeks to possess than the thing he already possesses and is willing to give up in exchange?
When we explicitly increase the value of an object do we not implicitly decrease the value of its opposite? And if the answer is yes then what is the price that must be paid?
As we give greater value to safety do we not decrease the value of taking risks? As we give greater value to equality is not the value of dominance and subordination decreased? If greater value is given to the food that feeds the body does that not decrease the value of the food that feeds the spirit of man? And if this is so then what is the price to be paid?
As we give greater value to the collective does this not decrease the value of the individual? As we give greater value to the possessions of a man do we not decrease the value of the means we used to obtain those possessions? If true then what is the price that we must pay?
As we look at issues strictly from a neutral point of view do we not devalue the positives of that issue and increase the value of its negatives by default so as to declare that one neutralizes the other thus eliminating any value it has? What must be given up that has value in order to achieve a goal in life? Can we, as a people, afford to devalue anything that has value to an individual and do it without degrading the individual himself?
We talk about the quality of life yet we seek to extend the quantity of life with medical advances. What are we giving greater value? And once we have answered this question doesn't that answer implicitly declare that the other is devalued at the same rate?
Isn't the value of life the real issue when we speak of abortion, one side giving value to one life and the other declaring the other has greater value? Isn't it the value of life the real issue when speaking of medical care? Isn't it the value of life that is the real issue when we speak of welfare? We speak of wars, is the real issue the value of a man's life or is it the value of the quality of life that we seek that allows us to willingly and consensually pay the price of a man's life that is the real issue?
When we speak of the value of an education do we not implicitly declare that the possession of an education gives greater value to a person as a member of society? If an issue is defined does not that definition of the issue determine its value? And if we redefine that issue are we not redetermining the value of that issue also? If the answer is yes then are we giving it greater or less value? And what is the price that must be paid when that re-determination is made?
When we seek to change a way of life in a society aren't we implicitly declaring that the new way of life has greater value than the one we want to give up for it? And if so, have we taken into consideration what the price will be? Most important is the question how do we determine the value of that change without knowing if it will be a better way of life? What is the means by which we can determine its value? Was that change worth the price we must pay for it? Is it worth the sacrifice of all of the good that can be seen in the old ways because that will be part of the cost of the change?
There will be those who will promote the change and declare that there is no need to give up the good of the old way but that is like saying that it is possible to have your cake and eat it too. There will be those who will promote the change and only present the old ways in terms of negative value but all that does is hide the truth and can justifiably called misrepresentation of the facts or to use a term commonly heard today, false advertising. And when that is revealed I get skeptical of what is being promoted because then I wonder what is the actual value that is being hidden."
When grandpa stopped mumbling grandma looked at me and asked,
"What say you?"
13 comments:
It appears you use 'value' in its application as personal (a subgroup of
cultural)..perhaps best
exemplified by the old
Aesop Fable-
"A Cock, scratching the ground for something to eat, turned up a Jewel that had by chance been dropped there. "Ho!" said he, "a fine thing you are, no doubt, and, had your owner found you, great would his joy have been. But for me, give me a single grain of corn before all the jewels in the world."
As for the 'old ways' vs
progress, we find merits in both, and most certainly the 'old ways'
are the basis for any human progress. For example, Newton-
"If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of giants."
We like the comfort of the
contemporary and current, but progress seems the
fate (curse?) of our species. Very slow at first: tools made of stone-
The Oldowan
The Acheulean
The Mousterian
The Aurignacian
The Microlithic
-over millions of years, slight improvements. It is in our genes..improvement, but slow. Then came irrigation, farming, cities, animal domestication-over a few thousand years. Technology
introduced more major changes in the last few years than all of time.
Small wonder Grandpa worries, because as he
notes, the results may be good or they may be bad!
..and personally it is
down right embarrassing when I need help with my
DVD player, my computer or my fancy electronic watch...I gotta find some
grade school kid to help!!
i don't know how i was using it BB. i just took the idea of value and thought of the many ways we apply value and allowed my thoughts to roam from there. and this was what i ended up with.
"And when that is revealed I get skeptical of what is being promoted because then I wonder what is the actual value that is being hidden.""
Went out to dinner with my mother and daughter last nite. Mom started rememberin' all the good times she valued in raising up 4 independent and hyperactive boys. She and I laffed and giggled and my daughter would snicker and ask, really dad did you do that?
No doubt girl!
I am sure the other folks in the eatery did not value the merriment we wuz enjoying but it did not matter to me, the "WE" at that moment in time was only the three uv us and we placed alotta value in rememberin' the good ole days. Dropped Mom off and the daughter and I drove the hour home listening to me run off at the mouth bout all the fun/crazy times kids ustta be able to have fun with.
At some point I stopped jabberin' and asked her, aren't you glad you didn't growup in the good old days? She said no, I wish I could have. Dad I had to growup in a world where the "we'z society" tells everyone what they should do and value. I was overwhelmed at times with information and influence that had little intrinsic value to me but I got thru it because you insisted we think for ourselves, got rid of the TV and taught us the truth that only an indivdual can make a choice that will improve the quality of their life.
"When we seek to change a way of life in a society aren't we implicitly declaring that the new way of life has greater value than the one we exchanged?"
NOPE! The me in me will always be skeptical of the we mentality. Lemmings go over the cliff collectively and where is the individual rush of the free fall?
"i don't know how i was using it BB. i just took the idea of value and thought of the many ways we apply value and allowed my thoughts to roam from there. and this was what i ended up with."
I received alot of value in this comment. You used the terms "I and Me" five times and "we" only once. I figger you is a lemming just like me. We (not a bad word at times) will be at the back of the pack and when the cliff looms large, griper and me will look at each other knowing full well he'z gunna turn around and go back to the good 'ole days cuz that wuz living.
"What say you?"
Just wut I just did. And iffen you re-determine and block comments from this Black and White feller, you truely value good sense. And I value that in an individual.
nice comment, manofwonder,
"NOPE! The me in me will always be skeptical of the we mentality."
i'll grant you that the "we" in that part of my post was meant to be seen in a collective sense, the term can be used in a individualistic manner also. remember, the word individual is not only a noun but it can be used as an adjective.
remember also, that i said "seek to change". i'll admit to miswording that sentence by placing the old way in the past tense when it should have been the present tense. ty for pointing that out to me.
Huh? Man of Wonder found The Griper. Interesting.
You Know, Griper, I was Scanning through some of the Stuff that I have Written in my Word Processor, but did not Deliver and I Wonder if I should Submit the Set of Comments that I Wrote in Relation to this One.
When I Read the Title of This Post, I Knew that I was Going to have to Read it and Amazingly, though I've been Recently Frustrated, I am here now with a Calm Heart. As Usual, though, I do have something to say.
I Get the Feeling, Griper, that you are Still Caught Up in the All One Thing or all the Other Mentality. For Example, Do we Really have the Choice between Safety and Taking Risks. Don't we all have Times in which he Seek Both. By this I Mean, we Seek Safety for a Time, until we are Rejuvenated enough to be Willing to Take a Risk.
This is even True in Relation to Dominance and Subordination, for a Subordinate can be at Peace in such a Role while being Rejuvenated, yet will Likely Tire of it in Time and Want more Freedom, even though, Freedom is more Scary and Risky. This is Why Subordinates do not Stay Put in their Place as Long as Dominants would like them to.
"If greater value is given to the food that feeds the body does that not decrease the value of the food that feeds the spirit of man?"
This Obviously can not be a One or the Other Situation because Both the Body and Spirit do Need to be Feed.
There is no Way to Avoid "the price to be paid", Griper, because when it Comes to Choices, there is always Something not Chosen that is Sacrificed for that which is.
"As we give greater value to the collective, does this not decrease the value of the individual?"
To Fully Understand this One, we have to also State the Opposite, which is "As we give Greater Value to the Individual, does this not Decrease the Value of Relationships?"
After this, my Mind went a Little Fuzzy. I read the Rest of it, but Like Usual, it is more than I can Fully Digest and Make Comment on.
BB-Idaho, though, brought some of it back into my Mind and that is the "'Old Ways' vs. Progress", so in Response to that, the Old Ways are Beneficial to some more than Others and the New Ways are Beneficial to some more than to Others, so Quite Often it Comes Down to Generosity or Selfishness, or to Stick with the Value Theme, "Is what I Value Less Important than what you Value, or is what you Value Less Important than what I Value?" and this is the Place at Which we Realize that Value is Relative and what is Relative must be Shared.
So here we are again back to the Same Issue as Before, for if Sharing is what is Required in Order to Bring Value to Everyone and not just to Some, than are we now Back again to the Subject of Compromise?
And then there is the Subject of Dominants and Subordinates Again. Is it Really Right for the Dominant to Make Decisions Based Solely on what the Dominant Values, without any Consideration for what the Subordinates Value? Rather we are Talking about the Family or the Work Place, this Principle is the Same.
When we Value the Individual Over the Collective, do we not Devalue the Values of those without Power, in Favor of the Values of those who do have Power? And if this is So, then just as you yourself have Asked, "Can we, as a people, afford to devalue anything that has value to an individual and do it without degrading the individual himself?", yet in the Context of the Paragraph that I've just Written, the Individuals that are being Addressed are those who are without Power.
I'll Address the Abortion Issue Later. Maybe. But than again, Maybe not. We'll see.
I Guess I'll Take the Time to Review the Comments now.
BB also Points Out, just as I have, the Idea that Value is Relative.
Hey Man of Wonder,
What you doing Over Here? What a Surprise to Run in to you here.
To Respond to the First thing that Man of Wonder Quoted, I had to Go Up and Look at the Context Again and what I'd like to Respond to is the Sentence, just before that...
"There will be those who will promote the change and only present the old ways in terms of negative value."
Both Sides do this. Just as the Liberals Only Present the Negative Side of the Old and the Positive Side of the New, Conservatives also Only Present the Negative Side of the New and the Positive Side of the Old, so if this is False Advertising, then both Sides are Guilty of it.
I Ought to Warn you, Man of Wonder, Griper sort of Brings Out the Confrontational Side of me, so if you Decide to Hang Out Here, be Prepared to Deal with that.
I do Admit, though, that there is a lot of Negative Influence Out there now that didn't Used to be there. Did you Ever Read my Post About People Pleasing? It can Actually be a Sickness. It is Far Better to Think for Oneself and Make Ones Own Decisions.
The Good Old Days, though, if you go Back Far Enough, Contained Witch Hunts, the KKK and Negro Slavery, so it is not Really True that there were not some Negatives.
"I Get the Feeling, Griper, that you are Still Caught Up in the All One Thing or all the Other Mentality."
no, lista. we are not. we are speaking of porportionality here not absolutes. so, it is you that is caught up in the one thing or the other mentality.
----
this post is not about personal relationships, lista and the word "relationship" is not synonymous with the word "collective". so don't try to make a comparison between the two words.
-----
values are not relative, lista but they can be seen as porportional when comparing them to other values. and yes there is a huge difference in the meaning of the two words.
-----
"When we Value the Individual Over the Collective, do we not Devalue the Values of those without Power, in Favor of the Values of those who do have Power?
the answer is no we do not. that is what the right of "liberty" is all about, the freedom of each individual to possess his own values of life without interference from the collective through its arm of force, the government.
"this post is not about personal relationships, lista, and the word 'relationship' is not synonymous with the word 'collective'. so don't try to make a comparison between the two words."
Ok, I Won't. I'll just Assume that by Collective you are Referring to the Masses, not to the Relationships Within Smaller Groups, yet I have Found you to Be Uncompromising in Relationships as well and this Concerns me.
"values are not relative, lista."
Are you Denying that Different People Value Different Things? That is what I Meant by the Statement that Values are Relative. If you Would Prefer me Saying that which is Valued is Relative to the Individual that Values Something, then I will Gladly Rephrase.
The Reason Why I Compared the Value of the Individual Over the Collective is because when the Freedom of Individuals is Emphasized and the Government does not Regulate, those with Power are the Ones who End Up with the Freedom and Those Without the Power End Up at their Mercy. Don't you see, Money Increases Choices and the Increase in Choices is an Increase in Freedom and this is Why it is Really Only those who have the Money that are Truly Free.
Even though Money is not what should be Valued, the Total Lack of it will Cost us what we Value. In the Context of Things such as Food and Medicine, Poverty Could Even Result in Death, Especially if no Government Programs are Provided. This is the Result when Republicanism/Libertarianism is Taken to Extreme.
"Are you Denying that Different People Value Different Things?
yes i am. people have different values on the same thing. some people will give greater value to the same thing than others will. the amount of value determines the priority that each person places on things.
we all place a greater value on our needs than we do our desires, thus our needs take priority over our desires. where people may differ is how and what defines a need or desire.
another factor is how we see the needs and desires of others. the provision of my needs may take priority over my provision of the needs of others because the provision of them is dependent upon my capability to do so on one issue. on another issue the needs of others may take priority over my personal desires.
another factor might be that someone may want me to provide for their "needs" but i see that need as being not a need but a desire.
another factor in the provision of others is the deserving factor. under the same circumstances, some people deserve help while others do not, in my opinion.
You Know, Griper, I Really did Like this Particular Post when I Read it, yet your Most Recent Response to me is Rather Idiotic.
The Very First Paragraph Makes Absolutely no Sense at all. I don't see how you Think that this Paragraph Establishes the Denial that Different People Value Different Things.
You don't Need to Bother to Explain because some Things just Defy Explanation.
"the provision of my needs may take priority over my provision of the needs of others."
Place this Statement into a Dominant/Submissive Marriage Relationship and the Needs of the Wife will be Neglected.
"another factor might be that someone may want me to provide for their 'needs' but i see that need as being not a need but a desire."
Again, in a Marriage Relationship, if you are Wrong, then you will be Guilty of Neglect and if Neglect Occurs, you can Forget about any Possibility of Trust and Respect.
As I have Talked to you, Griper, it has become Quite Apparent to me that the Dominant, who is Making the Decisions, does not have to Deserve anything, only the Subordinates.
like i said lista, this is not a post on personal relationships and i refuse to let it become one just to satisfy your ego.
When I Read the First Part about me Being Off Subject, I was just Going to Say, Fine, for I have already Said my Piece, Especially on your Mood of the Moment Post Below.
When I Saw the Word Ego at the End of your Sentence, though, I just couldn't help Laughing and I Laughed Very Very Hard because you have such an Ego on you that...Well, that is just Really Humorous. That's all.
Boy! I Never Realized that this Post was a Comedy, Griper, but that was Really Really a Good One.
lololololololol
Post a Comment