nor do i think either of us is a platonist, since i never meant to imply that values are out there to be discovered and conformed to. they are of course generated, replicated, and revised in practice.
anyway, what i was trying to get at was more a disciplinary point than the essential (??) nature of values. religious studies and philosophy as diciplines are also primarily about values, i would say. i don't think that's the only place it happens. but it certainly does happen there and in a different way than in, say, sociology. otoh, we use sociology and cultural anthopology and often psychology etc. etc. in our work, so, now what happens to the disciplinary boundaries.
sorry. i don't have it in me right now to take this much further. but that's where i was going.
j
On 6/17/05, snitsnat <snitilicious at tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> At 06:45 PM 6/17/2005, Carrol Cox wrote:
> > Values are not inherent
> >in the nature of things, i.e., no metaphysical status _and_ no physical
> >status (as do atoms). They are social relations. But that does not make
> >them any less binding.
>
> do you honestly think that sociologists think they are anything but social
> relations. do you think a woman who has repeatedly talked about how
> property is a set of set relations that define for us how to act and treat
> people, things, and ideas is someone who holds a theory that values exist
> "out there" free of society.
>
> fuckmedead dead dead dead!
>
> now, where you'll get pissed is how the social interaction rituals which
> shape this social relation we call property is _thoroughly_ fucking laden
> with values.
>
> it is old, but i'll use it again. Walk over to someone bum a cigarette and
> then don't smoke it. Or, go ask you neighbor to borrow the lawn mower and
> then don't mow your lawn. strap it to the roof of you car, turn it on, and
> then sit in the car drinking beer and rocking out like it produced music.
>
> if you neighbor doesn't call the looney bin on yah, he'll probably figure
> out how to get hi freakin lawn mower back because you aren't USING it. if
> you borrow something, you're supposed to use it. bum a smoke (which is not
> borrowing, but asking for a hand out) and totally acceptable in this
> society b/c people think that the person who bums a smoke _needs_ one
> desperately and so, they share, identifying with the feel of _needing_ a
> smoke. (I can't think of any other form of property we can literally bum
> legitimately -- without being thought of as a panhandler-- at the moment.
> anyone else?)
>
> And all through this interaction ritual, where you broke the NORMS (look it
> up, they're about values) we all share about what to do with something you
> borrowed, values were communicated to you and your neighbor. You broke a
> value and he will likely let you know. Either to your face, or by calling
> the cops, or the looney bin. or, he'll just talk bad about you and get
> others to see you as a bad person. When those values are profaned -- by
> breaking them -- your neighbor gets pissed. and, if you're breaking them
> knowingly, even as an experiment, you'll will feel guilty and embarrassed
> and your face may even turn red -- without even an audience to judge you
> for your violation of the norms. because you've internalized the values of
> this society. (and if you don't, you belong to another group which has
> enforced for you a different set of values and to which you turn as a
> reference group. you can even pick up such reference groups by
> participating on email lists. reading literature and participating in
> imaginary communities such as sci fi traditions, etc.)
>
> now, repeat these kinds of things over and over again and -- voila! -- we
> have an idea where values come from. society. and, i have described society
> as some thing, but as everyday ordinary practices and interactions that go
> on all the time -- it's embodied this "society".
>
> other societies, with different norms governing the social relations that
> we call property, will do things quite differently. there is always some
> kind of property system in a society, in this view. this is because those
> norms will reflect different values.
>
> though, some people have argued that we can reduce all of this down to some
> basics: the sacred and profane. the sacred is society (or in contemp
> western societies) the individual) and the profane is that which is the
> ordinary or mundane. this in turn has to do with how we spend our lives,
> moving between groups that are relatively cohesive and solidaritstic and
> dense in social ties (families might be a good example, or created
> communities like the gay community, this list might be thought of as one,
> though there are other lists that are much more solidaristic --- and my
> observation is this is because they talk about their personal lives much
> more often)
>
> anyhooty, this is also a roundabout and disjointed, quickly typed off,
> answer to Gar.
>
> I was going to reply to gar and type as my first line:
>
> "Look Gar, fuck you all to hell, you dick. This list is full of a bunch of
> egotistical assholes who engage in nothing but ironic self observation,
> where oneupmanship is the highest values, and no one gives rat's about
> anything of important. So, you know, fuck off.
>
> and then, show you how this list and our ritualistic interactions generates
> various kinds of values we hold about discourse, the individuals who
> participate here, what is appropriate to the convo, how we punish people
> who violate those norms, how we uphold the sanctity of the individual, even
> those of us who criticize individualism, and on and on.
>
> yes, even in the disembodied space of an email list, we generate solidarity
> and values -- though always contested values, of course. which is not
> surprising given the highly differentiated experiences we all have in a
> very complex society where no two of us every experience the same things,
> live in the same groups, go to the same schools, live in same
> neighborhoods, etc. etc.
>
> Anyway, I'm gonna go celebrate. It's FRIDAY!!!!!!!
>
>
> Kelley
>
> "Finish your beer. There are sober kids in India."
>
> -- rwmartin
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
-- Among medieval and modern philosophers, anxious to establish the religious significance of God, an unfortunate habit has prevailed of paying to Him metaphysical compliments.
- Alfred North Whitehead