From: kent@phoenix.ocf.llnl.gov (Kent J Crispin)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Wage Slavery (Was: BIG LIE about the market)
Date: 15 Apr 92 19:38:41 GMT
Article-I.D.: lll-wink.122624
Organization: Lawrence Livermore Nat'l Lab.

In article <1992Apr14.214456.18656@watson.ibm.com> platt@watson.ibm.com (Daniel E. Platt) writes:
[discussion 'bout meaning of 'values' and 'rights']

>Valuing freedom of speech involves a standard by which actions to
>limit your freedom of speech are measured.
>
>Valuing your free time involves a standard by which the quality of
>life is measured.

I am thinking of `value` as a *verb*, or as an *intentionality* on the
part of a subject.  This is a subtle point, I think, so it isn't
surprising that I am not succeeding in communicating it.  "Values" in
this sense are intrinsically subjective.  The phrase "I value X" is
really very similar to the statement "I like X" -- just different
connations.  I could meaningfully say "I value sitting in the sun".  You
could say "well that really implies some kind of standard by which you
can judge whether or not you are sitting in the sun".  And I would say,
undoubtedly, "Huh?", because, while what you said may be in some strict
logical sense TRUE, it isn't to the point.  The point is the emotional,
sensual, subjective, spiritual, or whatever cognitive thing it is, that
makes me VALUE something.  There doesn't have to be something so
rational as standards involved. 

There is another meaning of the word "value", not a verb, as in "the value of
the variable Y is 5".   In this sense "values" are objects.  Interpreting
"I value freedom of speech" as "'freedom of speech' is a value of mine" is
certainly reasonable.  However, it is (to me) important to realize that
in thinking that way the notion of 'freedom of speech' is being objectified.
A subjective reading of the same sentence is maybe a bit harder for you
to do (though it comes easy to me) -- it involves thinking of 'freedom of
speech' NOT as the objectified abstraction, but rather as a subjective 
condition of one's being that obtains when one doesn't feel constrained
in expressing oneself.  This is the primary datum for me, not the historical
and legal abstraction.  This subjective condition is the thing I
value<verb>, the value I apply to the abstraction is secondary (though of
course it is high -- I am a well trained American Citizen, after all.)

>|> 
>|> >The concept of 'rights' is just a standard by which values
>|> >are defined.  Like 'values,' 'rights' seem to vary from society to
>|> >society.  
>|> 
>|> The idea of defining "rights" as standard values is very interesting.  In
>|> fact, I think that is a very good way to think about it.  How do we set
>|> standards (well, we call in IEEE, or ANSI, or ISO :-).
>
>You are using the word 'standards' equivocally.  

Indeed.  That's why the smiley.

>In the case of
>'rights,' the standard is a measure of freedom.  In the case of
>IEEE standards, it is a criterea of conformance so everyone can
>make the same products (violating the standard doesn't have much
>to do with how good the work was -- it doesn't even imply that
>what you design won't work; it just becomes 'proprietary').
>
>Or are you suggesting that you only accept one meaning of the word?
>Perhaps you have a pocket abridged dictionary?

No, I will accept many different meanings for words -- even nonesense. 
I usually try not to change meanings mid-sentence, though.  Actually, I
have a Random House College Dictionary with "Property of the US
Government" stamped on the cover. 

>Dan

Kent

--
Kent Crispin				"No need to get excited",
kent@ocfmail.ocf.llnl.gov		the thief he kindly spoke....
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory	<Standard disclaimer>