Well, she’s explicitly stating that “value goes much deeper than use”. There’s a possibility that she’s using the word “use” in a way different than I do and that would make it likely that we’re saying one and the same thing using different language. But if that’s not the case, if she’s using the word in the same exact way that I do, then she’s necessarily disagreeing with me.
To feel that something (e.g. a painting, a woman, etc) is beautiful is to perceive that something as being in some way useful to attaining your goals. Moreover, since such feelings are perception, and not reality, they might be wrong. This means there are true as well as false feelings of beauty.
Again, it’s pragmatic. If I feel blood squirting from a persons neck is beauty… but then, what the fuck happens to you? Some pretty horrible shit from spirits eventually … and the observer in it never sees beauty , even though they may have initially.
I’ve seen so much shit in my life that I thought was beautiful at the time and it turned out from collective consciousness to be ugly. That’s called regret.
_
Value means a master/slave dichotomy, so a pimp/whore dichotomy… the minute someone evaluates your price, is the minute you become a commodity/a slave/subservient to another’s need/a prostitute.
I’m not expecting a reply to my reply, any time soon… like, never!
Form over function? Designs purpose is to function, putting little squares and leaves in the corners is a fabrication. If it doesn’t function on some level it doesn’t.
A urinal is function over form.
Value? Idealism? People are dying, for a lot of not very good reasons. Where is the value in that? So I would define value as the opposite of dying of a man made cause. Doubly so if its sake is for public appearance.
Can the investment in a product over time equal human life denied?
How can a belief in individual rights advocate that a women doesn’t have her individual reproductive right?
Old Chinese *ma 無 is cognate with the Proto-Tibeto-Burman *ma “not”. This reconstructed root is widely represented in Tibeto-Burman languages; for instance, ma means “not” in both Written Tibetan and Written Burmese.[1]
The term is often used or translated to mean that the question itself must be “unasked”: no answer can exist in the terms provided. Zhaozhou’s answer, which literally means that dogs do not have Buddha nature, has been interpreted by Robert Pirsig and Douglas Hofstadter to mean that such categorical thinking is a delusion, that yes and no are both correct and incorrect.
The word features prominently with a similar meaning in Douglas Hofstadter’s 1979 book, Gödel, Escher, Bach. It is used fancifully in discussions of symbolic logic, particularly Gödel’s incompleteness theorems, to indicate a question whose “answer” is to
un-ask the question,
indicate the question is fundamentally flawed, or
reject the premise that a dualistic answer can or will be given.[22]“Mu” may be used similarly to “N/A” or “not applicable,” a term often used to indicate the question cannot be answered because the conditions of the question do not match the reality. A layperson’s example of this concept is often invoked by the loaded question “Have you stopped beating your wife?”,[23] to which “mu” would be the only respectable response.[24]
No, Mu as in a Zen response to the question of whether dogs have the Buddha nature.
Not that I’m a Buddhist and I see that the interpretation I got long ago is actually just one possible but I always took it as a refusal to answer. Not as in ‘who cares?’ but more of ‘I see no need to get bogged down in that issue.’
See Mags above as I am sure you have.
