Doug Max doesn't like my contention that something with instrumental value
derives its value (and is subordinate in value) to the things it helps
create. He gives the example:
>We know the adage, "give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach
>him to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." The lesson is more
>valuable than the fish.
But, Doug, my point is just precisely that learning how to fish can only
be valuable if having fish is valuable! If it were not of value to have
(and eat) fish, then learning to obtain fish would not have any value
either (unless the learning contained some generalized value that helped
me do something else.)
Please (this is addressed to others reading this message) do not confuse
this issue by taking it out of context. I don't want to hear about other
valuable properties of fishing (it relaxes me, it gives me a chance to
drink vast quantities of beer, it gets me out of the house, etc., etc.)
We are talking here about a general point of the logic of valuation using
a very specific example. This specific example only refers to the value
of having fish to eat.
So, to repeat, assuming that learning how to fish provides one with only
the ability to have fish to eat, then I still claim that the activity of
learning to fish derives its value to me from the fact that having fish to
eat is of value to me. If I could more easily obtain all the fish I ever
needed to eat without learning how to fish, then learning how to fish
might have no value whatsoever to me!
--"John Gunkler" <jgunkler@sprintmail.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>