More on Value

[lhynard]

A long time ago in LJ Land, when I was working out my thoughts[1] on how there are three types of beauty[2], I talked about an idea by my great buddy, mallon04008, regarding value and what it is:J. [mallon04008] is interested in law and economic-types of stuff and such, things low on my list of interests -- but he is very bright. (Outside our fields though, we share a

Comments

[mallon04008]

I am glad you have posted again on this topic. When you first did, I was not yet actively reading your LJ and the discussion had already wound down at that point so it seemed ill timed to jump in.
I will have more to post later, but an observation to set the table for discussion this time:
In rereading the post, it looks like a lot of the details in the arguments presented get lost in semantics, so I will state what I mean (and do not mean) by value:
Value is the amount of resources, be it time, money, thought, effort, etc., that an individual is willing to commit or expend on behalf of or to obtain something. This "something" is just that: it can be an object, a person, a relationship, a cause--anything that an individual can expend resources for or to or on behalf of fits into the "something" in this definition. I know that is a bit tautological, but hopefully the gentle reader will understand. One could also say "price" instead of "value."
Value is NOT a quality, characteristic, or feature of an item (that is, it is not for the purposes of my technical definition)

[shadewright]

I tend to agree. I'm not sure what word I would use to describe what sadeyedartist had to say, but the word value is closely tied to the market, where it is absolutely defined by the opinion of people, and not anything inherant in the object itself. Look into buying a house, and you'll see what I mean.

[shadewright]

...In addition, I think Lhynard might be on to something. There are works of literature that many people consider very highly, and which I think are nearly worthless. Lhynard's statement allows that these books may in fact have value to more enlightened minds, but that they do not necessarily have value in and of themselves (i.e, there's a small chance my opinion might be correct).

[lhynard]

That was more Lewis' idea than mine.

[lhynard]

Which word would you then use for an intrinsic "quality, characteristic, or feature of an item"?

[shadewright]

I don't know. That's part of the problem I have with this question.

Lewis argues, and I *want* to agree that things have or lack intrinsic worth. (That's a complete synonym with value, but I'll use it differently for clarity.)

I want to agree with him--but as soon as we start asking who gets to decide about this worth, we get thrown back into a pool of opinions. Some opinions are popular, others are suppossedly authoritative--but how can we know? If it's really just a majority opinion, than what I'm calling worth is no different from the economic value. If there is something else at work, then we need reliable impersonal standards for everything kind of like Lewis established for literature. (Although I would say that his standards were still very subjective.)

I guess I distrust the inherent worth arguement--even though it makes the most sense to me--because of the books and artwork I mentioned above, and because any music that is popular is automatically disdained, as if it must therefore be inferior art.

[lhynard]

What I love about Lewis' experiment is that it can be tried with other media besides books. It is all based on the function of the thing. In some cases, the function may just be something blatantly simple, such as to look pretty. There is lots of scientific evidence for what things the brain just finds "pretty". But so much more of art of any form is about communicating idea -- usually an emotional idea. It is those things that are successful at communicating that have worth I think.

And of course there is the balance issue. IF a movie has great filmography and sound but crappy plot, does it have worth? I, for one, tend to break the movie down into parts and judge each separately, but then I always get accused of missing the forest for the trees. Grrr.

[mallon04008]

NOTE: I composed this response before I saw shadewright's posting. It appears that we are on the same line of reasoning :-)

Not to sound trite, but quality, characteristic, or feature are exactly the words I would use. Again, my goal in my first post is just to help create a distinction in terms for the purpose of this discussion, because, in the vernacular, value, quality, worth, characteristic, etc., are used more or less interchangeably. In reexamining my above post, it may (and kind of does) look like I am trying to exclude and combat sadeyedartist's argument by my definition. That was not my purpose.
Now, you may be saying to yourself, "He has not answered my question. I asked for what he would call an intrinsic quality, characteristic, or feature." There is a very good reason I have not answered so. I am not prepared at this point to identify anything as "intrinsic" in this discussion. I think it is a highly loaded word that, especially when applied to abstracts, tends to be used in the context of a subjective opinion or view. (I may eat this later, but I will throw it out there now) For something to be intrinsic, it must be rigorously proven and logical demonstrable to be a essential part of a thing, that is, if that part were taken from the whole, it would essentially change what that whole would be. Webster's def: belonging to the essential nature or constitution of a thing. To use a technical example: Stainless steel comes in a few large families--series 200, 300, and 400 (there other special families, but they are small and not relevant to the example). All series 200 and 300 stainless steel contains nickel. Thus, if I were to tell you that I had some #310 stainless steel, you would know that there would be some nickel in that steel. If I told you I had #310 stainless steel and it contained no nickel, you would know I was lying to you, because all series 300 stainless steel contains nickel, or I was I actual had a different series of stainless steel and I did not know the difference. Either way, I do not actually have series 300 stainless steel. This is a very technical example (and somewhat laborious :-), but I does demonstrate the level of rigor I associate with and bring to bear on "intrinsic" and why I chose to avoid labeling anything as such at this point in the discussion. Now, just because I currently decline to label anything as intrinsic, it does not mean I am not willing to argue that things are not intrinsic (as future postings will bear out).

[lhynard]

ah, crap -- lost my first attempt at replying to this

Anyhow, yes, I agree that "intrinsic" is a tough word. (And I have been pondering it in previous posts as to whether there is any sort of intrinsic aspect of femininity or masculinity or even humanity.) This is true especially of abstract things.

But I think that Plato was on to something in his search for ideals. And the Bible seems to confirm this when it starts John 1 by saying that Jesus is the ideal.

I really think that function plays an important role in this discussion -- at least for created objects. I think that what I am calling value is a measure of the intrinsic success of the thing to perform its function. Jesus was the ideal human in that He performed his function perfectly. A "good" book is accurately written and expresses fully the idea intended and gains the response intended for the intended audience.

intrinsic success

[mallon04008]

Wow...that is interesting word pairing. I will have to give it some thought

Re: intrinsic success

[lhynard]

Well for humans it is interesting because we can adapt and change and learn and grow. However, for a picture, from the moment it is finished, it's success is in a sense locked intrinsically.

Re: intrinsic success

[mallon04008]

I was thinking it was interesting for a different reason. Let's give your definition of value the "Amplified Bible" treatment :-) and I then I will explain what I found interesting.

Original: Value is a measure of the intrinsic success of the thing to perform its function.

Expanded: Value is a measure of the essential nature or constitution of a thing to attain a desired object or end of the action for which a thing is specially fitted or used or for which a thing exists.

The interesting thing this seems to imply: If value is a built in (intrinsic) property of the item, then all individuals will value it the same. They must do so, because value is part of what the thing is and to take away an intrinsic property is to fundamental change it. Thus, if they did not all value it the same, then (essentially) the thing does not exist. I may be all wet on this line of logic, but I do not think I am far off. Lets go back to my stainless steel example. If I were to speak of #310 stainless steel that had the property of containing 0% nickel content, I would be speaking of something the does not even exist.

Now, let us suppose that there is a thing that all individuals will (or at least eventually will) value the same. I can only think of One: "Every knee will bow and tongue confess..."

Re: intrinsic success

[lhynard]

I'm still letting the rest of what you said here and in the other reply sink in and flit around a bit before replying, but for starters:Thus, if they did not all value it the same, then (essentially) the thing does not exist.
Alternatively -- and this is how I've always thought of it -- humans make value judgments, that is, subjective estimations on the value of objects. Humans, being at the same time unique and imperfect, will never agree entirely on the value of any object. So then, if there is such a thing as intrinsic value, there is no reason to think that all humans would agree on it, or as you say, "value it the same."

In analogy, if some chemists go into a lab and measure the nickel content of your #310 stainless steel, at a certain point of precision of measurement, the chemists will have to make a "value judgment" as to the precise nickel content. If the "nickle-content measuring machine" reads up to 5 decimal places, on the 5th decimal place, the machine will be constantly switching between numbers, and no two machines will exactly agree. And different chemists will read the scale at different times and will round numbers differently. All the time, the steel does not change its nickle content, but, to make a long story short, all objective measurements when carried to a greater precision become subjective. They will report a different "value" for the nickle content.

This goes for anything. If the precision of a movie rating system is 3 stars, I will agree more often with friends on the "value" of movies, but if I go to a 5-star system, I will begin to disagree. But the movie does not change.

The relativist says, then, because of unavoidable relativity in measurement, there must be relativity in value. As an absolutist, I think that argument flawed.

Now in science, we take an average of meausrements and assume that the average is the best guess we can make at the real value of the meausrement. But if the largest scale-making company in the world has a bug in their scales, the average measurement given will be far from closest; the poorer scientists using the less-popular scales will have been closer to correct.

This is a far longer comment than I intended, and it is late. I'll try to be more coherent later....

Re: intrinsic success

[mallon04008]

This is a far longer comment than I intended, and it is late. I'll try to be more coherent later....
I know what you mean. This topic was all I could think about last night. It was driving me crazy!

Re: intrinsic success

[mallon04008]

However, for a picture, from the moment it is finished, it's success is in a sense locked intrinsically.

Two questions come to mind when reading this: 1) What is the end or goal to which the painting is (at least at some level) successful? 2) How does this success become intrinsically locked into the picture?

Re: intrinsic success

[lhynard]

For now, let me focus on 1):

We have to start with a bunch of definitions.

If one holds to a definition of art as a medium for communicating an emotional message to another,...

I would say, a work of art is successful if a perfect "measurerer" (who falls in the intended audience) "measuring" it (that is viewing it) would receive the intended (by the author of the work) message.

Because humans are subjective measurers, they will rate the level of success (the value) differently, especially as the level of precision gets greater.

See, in my way of thinking, only God ever knows the true value of any object; the best we can do is use averaged measurements. Now, as my post said, if no one "gets" the work of art, it very likely has no value. If tons of people "get" the art, it likely has great value. If only a select few "get" the art, it is possible that they are dishonest, "mismeasuring", "misusing", or not in the intended audience. No matter the result, the art is not in flux. It is constant.

So I guess I have answered 2). As only One can perfectly measure value by my definition and He is timeless, success is intrinsically locked into the picture.