Do we only value what we create? In other words, the significant body
of fact, or truth, that preceded us and is the basis of our existence
has no inherent capacity to evoke in us a sense of value? The theories
and the fancies - and the stories, the legends etc - that we create
ourselves and pass down...these are the bearers, the vectors, say, of
value.

If this is the case we must be quite comfortable with this being the
case. We must have over the years, or even from our very beginning,
become attuned to value as creation. But, of course, creation is
inherently flawed. It is random and arbitrary and "incorrect".
Incorrect? Wrong, in error, barking up the wrong tree, a load of
baloney!

But we're comfortable, so who cares? There is a move towards fact. We
no longer believe the earth was created on the back of an elephant or
from the semen of an eagle. Whew! But the resultant correction
produces no value. Emergent philosophy, or the philosophy of
emergence, claims to see value in the complexities eminating from
elementary sources. That's fine - or is it? - but it doesn't do us any
good.

On May 27, 2:24 am, Joseph Humming humanisation.org> wrote:

"Joseph Humming" humanisation.org> wrote in message
news:4439c516-29eb-41c7-8c66-d9210e942aaf@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com...

Nope.

On Mon, 26 May 2008 09:24:34 -0700, Joseph Humming wrote:

All value starts will life's necessity. Air, water, food and sex. How
would this fit into the above? The earliest 'god' images are centered on
these as things not of human creation. Hunters gave thanks to the animal
spirits they had killed that day and so on. Corn field fornication... etc.

Somewhere the giant leap will come in the evaluation of human activity
when it is realized that the end, that which is 'created' (aka modified),
isn't the point of value, it is in the process that reached the end. The
vectors of value, as you call them, mark a needed sense of continuity but
they are icons of value but still icons none the less.

On May 27, 1:05 pm, ZerkonX X.net> wrote:

Fair point. But we have moved on from that era. We hardly value corn
gods or animal spirits now. At some stage our valorisation became more
cerebral or "spiritual". We sought to explain our place in the cosmos
- usually by some saga of salvation.God so loved us etc that he
created us in his own image etc. Consolation and reassurance also
played a part. The upshot was our losing touch with the reality of our
situation - this, ironically, at a time when...

On May 27, 6:19 pm, Joseph Humming humanisation.org> wrote:

On Tue, 27 May 2008 10:19:40 -0700, Joseph Humming wrote:

Point being they were not seen as human creations.

Are you contradicting yourself? Just what reality exactly are you
referring to?

The means to the end is more important than the end itself.

On Tue, 27 May 2008 15:14:33 -0700, Joseph Humming wrote:

On May 28, 1:57 pm, ZerkonX X.net> wrote:

Point taken. But the process of valuation, the rituals, ceremonies
etc, were certainly a human creation.Of course, it couldn't be
otherwise. Any ritual would be a creation anyway. But in time the
creation took over, became the effective agent of valuation. Now we
almost have to reverse that process. We have to move back from the
most recent creations to actually valuing the lineaments of our
situation: the fact that we are a unique expression in nature, the
fact that we have awesome power over the rest of nature, the fact
that we are certainly alone of our type in the solar system, the fact
that we certainly emerged, or evolved, without benefit - ! - of a
"god", the fact that the projected difficulties ahead will require a
degree of global cooperaion never before envisaged or even possible.

On May 28, 2:16 pm, ZerkonX X.net> wrote:

Nah. The truth about the atom, or evolution, or the circulation of the
blood etc ..had to be worked out during years of toil and then made
public in the face of vast opposition. Even today the battle for truth
re evolution goes on.