IS value imaginary

[begbert2]

@Machinaforce

It’s more like it’s talking about how it is an imaginary metric that we use to pass judgment on things around the world when in reality if we weren’t around then there would be no value. It’s something we made up and doesn’t exist “out there in the world”. It’s like saying that everything is equal and therefor valueless (in that it has no value).

On a level I know it is right since value is something that is imposed and not inherent, yet without value we can’t make decisions. I don’t know about other animals but humans have values that guide their decisions whether they want to admit it or not. If this guy is saying that he is functioning like an animal then that means it’s automatic or instinctual, but then that would mean that killing and such (which animals take no issue with) would also be a part of our lives.

It doesn’t really help that his “answer” to what he claimed didn’t solve anything (or was really an answer) and kind of contradicted himself.

Value isn’t imaginary; it’s subjective. There is most definitely a difference.

If I want a taco, then I genuinely want a taco. My desire for the taco is not imaginary; it is based entirely in my physical brain state, which is real.

Sure other people might not want a taco just because I do; my desire for a taco is based in my brain, not their brain, which is what makes it subjective - the subject doing the desiring is me and only me.

I don’t know what you’re on about with animals. Suffice to say that animals do desire things; people also desire things, but people can desire different things than animals because humans are aware of different things than animals. But whether human or animal, the value we place on things is real.

[begbert2]

@UltraVires

I understand all that, but the market price sets a de facto value. Gold is probably a better example. Today’s gold spot price is $1,426.40/oz.

If you love gold, are a jewelry maker, love its luster and would have been King Midas in another life, you would not pay more than $1,426.40/oz because that is what it is out there and available for. You wouldn’t pay $2k/oz for it, because it can be had cheaper.

If I hate gold, think it is overrated and am just as happy with any knockoff jewelry, I would still nonetheless pay something near $1,426.40/oz for it because I know I can resell it for that price (let’s ignore the transaction costs, resellers, and the like). I wouldn’t sell it for $1k/oz, even though I hate it, because I could get more for it.

So here we both are, one of us couldn’t love gold more, and the other couldn’t hate it more, yet we both value gold at near the same price. You are correct that there will be minor fluctuation around that price because there would be no transactions otherwise, but the market sets the value that we both see in the item.

If we are going to say that price is different than value, then IMHO we are just heading off the rails about some ephemeral sense of value that is more a philosophical thing than an economic one.

ETA: I guess how I would characterize it is that you would prefer 1 oz of gold to $1,426.40 and I would prefer the money to having the gold. But that doesn’t mean that society doesn’t value them equally.

This is, of course, not at all how price and value works, much less human psychology.

The notion that a person who loves gold would try to force people to charge him more for it is absurd. I mean, that’s nuts. A person who loves gold would be willing to pay more, but they’ll happily pay less to get the same amount of their precious gold. After all in either case they still get the precious gold, and if they end up with more money afterward then great! They can afford more gold.

Where highly valuing gold comes into play is selling - if you value your gold higher than $1,426.40/oz then you would refuse to sell at that price, regardless of the market value, because (say it with me) the notion that price dictates value is crazypants crazy.

[UltraVires]

@Larry_Borgia

So you’re saying no one valued anything before the invention of money? That things like walking in nature are valueless because they’re free? Come on man, that’s a really bad argument.

Value and price are seperate though related concepts.

@begbert2

This is, of course, not at all how price and value works, much less human psychology.

The notion that a person who loves gold would try to force people to charge him more for it is absurd. I mean, that’s nuts. A person who loves gold would be willing to pay more, but they’ll happily pay less to get the same amount of their precious gold. After all in either case they still get the precious gold, and if they end up with more money afterward then great! They can afford more gold.

Where highly valuing gold comes into play is selling - if you value your gold higher than $1,426.40/oz then you would refuse to sell at that price, regardless of the market value, because (say it with me) the notion that price dictates value is crazypants crazy.

You guys are right. Silly me. Value and price, although very closely related are indeed separate concepts in Economics. Must dust off old textbooks.

[begbert2]

I feel compelled to give credit to anybody who is willing to admit error on the internet. It’s rare!

So kudos, UltraVires. Credit where it’s due, and it’s due here.

[Machinaforce]

@begbert2

Value isn’t imaginary; it’s subjective. There is most definitely a difference.

If I want a taco, then I genuinely want a taco. My desire for the taco is not imaginary; it is based entirely in my physical brain state, which is real.

Sure other people might not want a taco just because I do; my desire for a taco is based in my brain, not their brain, which is what makes it subjective - the subject doing the desiring is me and only me.

I don’t know what you’re on about with animals. Suffice to say that animals do desire things; people also desire things, but people can desire different things than animals because humans are aware of different things than animals. But whether human or animal, the value we place on things is real.

Most replies I get to this is that without value then you would not make a choice because everything would be equal. A common metaphor I would liken it to is that a balanced scale does not move. Even when you speak the word choice as you string together sentences is based on some level of value. I would think it would be on that guy to sort of prove that he lives life without value, because I kind of doubt it now. He said it is and imaginary metric that we use to judge the world around us, but that seems too simple to me. Even his response was still assigning value by calling it the “marvel of your being”, whatever that is. Personally I don’t see anything marvelous or extraordinary about our existence or life in general, despite what Buddhists might say.

[Machinaforce]

I know that Nihilists before made the exact same argument (with the exact same holes), yet for some reason I can’t brush this off simply because it is Buddhism.

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@Machinaforce

I know that Nihilists before made the exact same argument (with the exact same holes), yet for some reason I can’t brush this off simply because it is Buddhism.

Let me see if I’ve got this straight: you brush off the exact same argument from a Nihilist; but hearing it from a Buddhist makes you, uh, value it more?

[jackdavinci]

You’ve cherry picked a phrase from an article in isolation. There’s no real way to comment on the meaning of that without the original context, but I don’t think it’s a stretch to think you’ve misunderstood it.

You are never going to understand Zen or Buddhism intellectually. No one is or could. They are meant to be experiential and experimental. They are directions on how to reach certain states. There are not, in fact, “answers” to koans in the manner that you suggest. Because the point of the koan is not to solve a riddle, but to practice thinking a certain way. The answers that you speak of are just external ways of monitoring the process. Seeing the process in an academic way would be like thinking taking a photo means you understand drawing because the result is technically more accurate, or that the numbers which represent your blood pressure are the goal, rather than what they represent and their context, or that writing down the “correct” blood pressure means anything at all in the absence of a real measurement.

I think again, you are caught up in the mistake of the confusion which comes from not recognizing the difference between how words are used in lay contexts versus specialist contexts, particularly ones which are based in other languages and have no direct translation.

Things like “desire” don’t refer to quite the same thing as we mean in everyday conversation. And that’s kind of the whole point. Suffering is caused by the way we misconceive our experience and our reactions. And language is part of the problem. It’s useful for giving instructions for actions one can take to make having an experience or understanding more likely. But it simply cannot create or describe that experience or understanding by itself.

Another mistake you seem to be making is black and white thinking. That if something is not a certain way, then there is some single default alternative which then must by necessity be the answer.

The fact is, value and meaning are complex and nuanced ideas. Recognising that they involve subjectivity is just the first step of very many towards having a real understanding of them and their potential.

In particular, I want to point out what should be the obvious fallacy of assigning a negative value to meaninglessness, even in the unsophisticated way you portrayed it. Even ignoring the fact that erasing external value still leaves plenty of territory in existence, just logically it should be clear how the absence of good and bad cannot be bad.

If you feel depressed about nihilism, then you don’t really believe or understand it. The same goes for any other subjective philosophy.

In terms of the “not worth it”, without context we can’t be sure what was meant. I am guessing it meant not that because things have no intrinsic value that everything is pointless, but instead that because value is internal and nuanced and somewhat subjective, one can let go of negative attachments and just enjoy things in a more natural and aware way.

Think of it this way:
The bad news: no one gives a shit
The good news: no one gives a shit

The most objective value/meaning tends to resemble a sort of freedom.

And again, these things are pointers to understanding, not the understanding itself. You’re not going to understand love or colors by reading about them. But if you take certain actions, and surround yourself with people who have experienced these things, you might too.

[Machinaforce]

@jackdavinci

You’ve cherry picked a phrase from an article in isolation. There’s no real way to comment on the meaning of that without the original context, but I don’t think it’s a stretch to think you’ve misunderstood it.

You are never going to understand Zen or Buddhism intellectually. No one is or could. They are meant to be experiential and experimental. They are directions on how to reach certain states. There are not, in fact, “answers” to koans in the manner that you suggest. Because the point of the koan is not to solve a riddle, but to practice thinking a certain way. The answers that you speak of are just external ways of monitoring the process. Seeing the process in an academic way would be like thinking taking a photo means you understand drawing because the result is technically more accurate, or that the numbers which represent your blood pressure are the goal, rather than what they represent and their context, or that writing down the “correct” blood pressure means anything at all in the absence of a real measurement.

I think again, you are caught up in the mistake of the confusion which comes from not recognizing the difference between how words are used in lay contexts versus specialist contexts, particularly ones which are based in other languages and have no direct translation.

Things like “desire” don’t refer to quite the same thing as we mean in everyday conversation. And that’s kind of the whole point. Suffering is caused by the way we misconceive our experience and our reactions. And language is part of the problem. It’s useful for giving instructions for actions one can take to make having an experience or understanding more likely. But it simply cannot create or describe that experience or understanding by itself.

Another mistake you seem to be making is black and white thinking. That if something is not a certain way, then there is some single default alternative which then must by necessity be the answer.

The fact is, value and meaning are complex and nuanced ideas. Recognising that they involve subjectivity is just the first step of very many towards having a real understanding of them and their potential.

In particular, I want to point out what should be the obvious fallacy of assigning a negative value to meaninglessness, even in the unsophisticated way you portrayed it. Even ignoring the fact that erasing external value still leaves plenty of territory in existence, just logically it should be clear how the absence of good and bad cannot be bad.

If you feel depressed about nihilism, then you don’t really believe or understand it. The same goes for any other subjective philosophy.

In terms of the “not worth it”, without context we can’t be sure what was meant. I am guessing it meant not that because things have no intrinsic value that everything is pointless, but instead that because value is internal and nuanced and somewhat subjective, one can let go of negative attachments and just enjoy things in a more natural and aware way.

Think of it this way:
The bad news: no one gives a shit
The good news: no one gives a shit

The most objective value/meaning tends to resemble a sort of freedom.

And again, these things are pointers to understanding, not the understanding itself. You’re not going to understand love or colors by reading about them. But if you take certain actions, and surround yourself with people who have experienced these things, you might too.

Except that none of that is true.

The article phrased it exactly like a nihilist would, that value is an imaginary metric upon which we pass judgment on the world. That in reality nothing is worth more than anything else. That nothing is “worth it” because again value is purely imaginary and doesn’t truly exist. The response they made to that was just “the marvel of your being”. I can’t really find it since the issue isn’t in stores anymore and I’m not 100% about ordering a copy of the magazine.

But the point of the Koan is that it’s not something to just “think about”. The answer a student gives shows where they are on the path. So these Koan do have answers, but the answer is more of a barometer of where the student is at.

The problem with “not giving a shit” is that you end up in stasis. Those who are depressed by nihilism understand it fully. He wasn’t referring to no intrinsic value, but that value itself is imaginary (intrinsic or otherwise).

Desire in Buddhism is not really sexual desire but it refers to want as well.

In terms of the “not worth it”, without context we can’t be sure what was meant. I am guessing it meant not that because things have no intrinsic value that everything is pointless, but instead that because value is internal and nuanced and somewhat subjective, one can let go of negative attachments and just enjoy things in a more natural and aware way.

This is a misunderstanding of attachment as it’s not just the “bad” ones but the “Good” as well. You can’t enjoy things in a “natural way” without making them more than what they are. Pleasure and joy it has been found are based on our ideas of something and not the actual object.

The absence of “good” and “bad” is bad in the sense that Buddhism would crumble without them.

[jackdavinci]

@Machinaforce

I can’t really find it since the issue isn’t in stores anymore and I’m not 100% about ordering a copy of the magazine.
2)
But the point of the Koan is that it’s not something to just “think about”. The answer a student gives shows where they are on the path. So these Koan do have answers, but the answer is more of a barometer of where the student is at.
3)
The problem with “not giving a shit” is that you end up in stasis.
4)
Desire in Buddhism is not really sexual desire but it refers to want as well.
5)
This is a misunderstanding of attachment as it’s not just the “bad” ones but the “Good” as well. You can’t enjoy things in a “natural way” without making them more than what they are.
6)
Pleasure and joy it has been found are based on our ideas of something and not the actual object.
7)
The absence of “good” and “bad” is bad in the sense that Buddhism would crumble without them.

Numbers added

1. So why are you asking about something you didn’t understand, and don’t even have a copy of to be sure you even remember what it said?
2. That’s pretty much what I said, although I emphasized that the “answer” is not the goal, the change in thinking is, so any answer that demonstrates that will do
3. Why? Not having a reason to do something also means there’s no reason to stop. Being lost, being stuck, and being free are all directionless, and yet we experience them very differently.
4. The point is, it explicitly says we misunderstand the nature of desire, which implies those terms cannot be related to in the common sense
5. Enjoyment is not dependent on value or meaning. I think what you get to if you dig deep enough, is the idea that some type of joy is just our natural state, and getting too obsessed about meaning and value is actually part of what creates obstacles to this state
6. value and meaning are, but not pleasure and joy
7. how so? I would think the opposite is true

[I_Love_Me_Vol.I]

@Machinaforce

I would almost believe you if the following words by him weren’t “if nothing is “Worth it” then why do anything” to which his answer was “because of the marvel of your being (which isn’t an answer)”.

I think it’s an answer. It’s another way of saying: ‘I do because I exist.’ Or perhaps: “I exist, therefore I Do.”

Or: “It’s a damn miracle you exist in the first place. For those who do not exist, it’s understandable that they do not Do for they can not. But you DO exist. What’s YOUR excuse?”

Or how about: “To exist is to be conscious. To be conscious is to think. Thinking is Doing.”

[Machinaforce]

@I_Love_Me_Vol.I

I think it’s an answer. It’s another way of saying: ‘I do because I exist.’ Or perhaps: “I exist, therefore I Do.”

Or: “It’s a damn miracle you exist in the first place. For those who do not exist, it’s understandable that they do not Do for they can not. But you DO exist. What’s YOUR excuse?”

Or how about: “To exist is to be conscious. To be conscious is to think. Thinking is Doing.”

That doesn’t really answer the question. It’s not a marvel that I exist. People can think that but that does not make it so.

[Machinaforce]

@jackdavinci

Numbers added

1. So why are you asking about something you didn’t understand, and don’t even have a copy of to be sure you even remember what it said?
2. That’s pretty much what I said, although I emphasized that the “answer” is not the goal, the change in thinking is, so any answer that demonstrates that will do
3. Why? Not having a reason to do something also means there’s no reason to stop. Being lost, being stuck, and being free are all directionless, and yet we experience them very differently.
4. The point is, it explicitly says we misunderstand the nature of desire, which implies those terms cannot be related to in the common sense
5. Enjoyment is not dependent on value or meaning. I think what you get to if you dig deep enough, is the idea that some type of joy is just our natural state, and getting too obsessed about meaning and value is actually part of what creates obstacles to this state
6. value and meaning are, but not pleasure and joy
7. how so? I would think the opposite is true

Number 5 is not true. Some type of joy is not our natural state. Meaning and value create that joy and if you take those away you are left with what is essentially a null state.

Pleasure and joy are based on our ideas of things: Why Do We Like What We Like? : NPR

And number 7 is false of course since Buddhism is teaching what it deems to be good. It’s why they give out those precepts for the lay followers. Without good and bad then Buddhism wouldn’t have much to stand on (ironically).

As for number 2, the answer is the goal. As the masters say if they tell you then you’ll know without understanding. So in a sense you are supposed to work it out. The answer is the goal, but only if you arrive to it yourself.

Number 3 is flawed. Without giving a shit then you won’t do anything because no option would have greater weight over others. Being lost, stuck and free are all different based on context. The thing is that without a reason to do something you would stop. It’s incorrect to say that there is no reason to stop since you do because of a reason. One eats to sustain life, sleeps for the body, etc, even those are based on some level of value. If everything was truly equal then you wouldn’t do anything and be akin to boat without a sail on the ocean at the whims of the currents. Without value, we wouldn’t do anything. As I said, a balanced scale doesn’t move.

Desire is want, that’s essentially what it gets at. It says that satisfying desires wont help because it’s only temporary, which is true but a bleak way to look at life.

[begbert2]

@Machinaforce

Most replies I get to this is that without value then you would not make a choice because everything would be equal. A common metaphor I would liken it to is that a balanced scale does not move. Even when you speak the word choice as you string together sentences is based on some level of value. I would think it would be on that guy to sort of prove that he lives life without value, because I kind of doubt it now. He said it is and imaginary metric that we use to judge the world around us, but that seems too simple to me. Even his response was still assigning value by calling it the “marvel of your being”, whatever that is. Personally I don’t see anything marvelous or extraordinary about our existence or life in general, despite what Buddhists might say.

A person who literally lived life without doing any valuation would either:

1. Be entirely inactive, doing nothing.
2. Be completely random, doing one thing and another and another and another with no consistency whatever.

I’m quite confident that I’ve never met either sort of person. In fact I’d think either approach would lead to a Darwin award pretty quickly, and even if they survived long enough for me to encounter them, carrying on a conversation with them would be literally impossible.

Like so many things that these people you’re listening to claim, it’s not something that happens, it’s not something they’re doing, and when they claim the opposite they’re deluded or lying. Or both.

[Larry_Borgia]

@begbert2

A person who literally lived life without doing any valuation would either:

1. Be entirely inactive, doing nothing.
2. Be completely random, doing one thing and another and another and another with no consistency whatever.

I’m quite confident that I’ve never met either sort of person. In fact I’d think either approach would lead to a Darwin award pretty quickly, and even if they survived long enough for me to encounter them, carrying on a conversation with them would be literally impossible.

Like so many things that these people you’re listening to claim, it’s not something that happens, it’s not something they’re doing, and when they claim the opposite they’re deluded or lying. Or both.

Furthermore, if nothing has value, then Buddhism does not have value, and these people would not be Buddhists. But they are Buddhists, so clearly they value Buddhism, thus contradicting themselves.

[Machinaforce]

@begbert2

A person who literally lived life without doing any valuation would either:

1. Be entirely inactive, doing nothing.
2. Be completely random, doing one thing and another and another and another with no consistency whatever.

I’m quite confident that I’ve never met either sort of person. In fact I’d think either approach would lead to a Darwin award pretty quickly, and even if they survived long enough for me to encounter them, carrying on a conversation with them would be literally impossible.

Like so many things that these people you’re listening to claim, it’s not something that happens, it’s not something they’re doing, and when they claim the opposite they’re deluded or lying. Or both.

I have major doubts about the number 2, especially since the neuroscience doesn’t support it. Humans are not “random”, no matter what some might believe.

[Machinaforce]

But the part about things being empty is throughout Buddhism though and it’s hard to argue with. The fact that what I believe to be me (likes, dislikes, etc) not being inherent but conditioned makes me rudderless, since there is no guiding core or “myself” to be. I’m not sure if nihilism is part of that.

[Machinaforce]

Actually I’m not really sure if nihilism has any theories on the self, just buddhism

[Machinaforce]

@jackdavinci

Numbers added

1. So why are you asking about something you didn’t understand, and don’t even have a copy of to be sure you even remember what it said?
2. That’s pretty much what I said, although I emphasized that the “answer” is not the goal, the change in thinking is, so any answer that demonstrates that will do
3. Why? Not having a reason to do something also means there’s no reason to stop. Being lost, being stuck, and being free are all directionless, and yet we experience them very differently.
4. The point is, it explicitly says we misunderstand the nature of desire, which implies those terms cannot be related to in the common sense
5. Enjoyment is not dependent on value or meaning. I think what you get to if you dig deep enough, is the idea that some type of joy is just our natural state, and getting too obsessed about meaning and value is actually part of what creates obstacles to this state
6. value and meaning are, but not pleasure and joy
7. how so? I would think the opposite is true

Also you make desire sound like a bad thing. I mean not getting what you want all the time is part of the aspect of life. You make it sound like wanting to partake in experiences is a bad thing, and that we’d all be better just being unattached rocks.

[begbert2]

@Machinaforce

I have major doubts about the number 2, especially since the neuroscience doesn’t support it. Humans are not “random”, no matter what some might believe.

Neuroscience doesn’t support people being able to utterly purge themselves of assessing value either, because it’s not something people can do. It’s utterly impossible and the people trying to sell you the idea are liars or confused. (Or you’re misunderstanding them.)

But if a person were incapable of assessing value, then the would not see any more value in inaction as opposed to, say, diving into traffic. Saying they would be inactive presumes they prefer inactivity in the face of ultimate indecision - but that would be a preference they can’t have. So, into traffic it is! (Or something else. Or inactivity. Or whichever.)

(Yeah - these people don’t exist.)

@Machinaforce

But the part about things being empty is throughout Buddhism though and it’s hard to argue with. The fact that what I believe to be me (likes, dislikes, etc) not being inherent but conditioned makes me rudderless, since there is no guiding core or “myself” to be. I’m not sure if nihilism is part of that.

I’ll just point out (again?) that there’s no sensible reason to favor ‘inherent’ qualities over conditioned qualities. If a chair was once a tree, or if it appeared ex-nihilo into existence as a chair, either way it’s a chair now. Why would the formerly-tree chair be any less capable of holding up something that’s sitting on it?