Schroder sq and the new talea

Dear Dertonarm, We all are, I assume ,familiar with 'concepts' from our education. Thy were somehow always 'split' in two then four, etc: You know: thesis versus antithesis, value in use versus value in exchange,
real estate versus movables,etc.etc. So I may think and
ask: are there also 'extraherent' qualitys or values in objects?
Since Frege we are not searching for the 'meanings' of
words in isolation but only in the context of a sentence
(proposition or statement) with the question regarding the
contribution some word makes to the meaning of the whole sentence. BTW Frege also proposed to treat a 'concept' as a function with one argument and relations
as function with two or more arguments. Well my I ask what
kind of contribution the expression 'inherent' adds to the
meaning of whatever sentence? To my mind the content of such a sentence qua information will be the same without expression 'inherent'. Then there is the objective fact that there are objects wich we know without knowing all their qualitis as well as objects
that are unknown to us. But according to your 'philosophy'
even the unknown objects must have 'inherent values' and
'inherent qualitys'. As I stated before the objects have
qualitys they have independant of us while 'the value' of
any object whatever is dependat on the 'value' we put or
attribute to them. I already mentioned Marx sheep and its
'use value' without mentioning 'value in exchange'. This animal has both (to us)I am sure. Is this sheep entitled to say to a elephant: 'you are a worthless animal'?

Regards,

Dear Nandric, are there "extraherent values" in objects ? I think there are. For instance the eagle of a roman legion, the "Oriflammé" of the french kings (the war-flag of St. Denis), the stars and stripes of the USA - any banner of a nation. These are objects which draw their "value" not because of their inherent (..;-) ...) quality or composition, but because of the impact they have ( to selected people in certain periods of time) and a kind of immaterial socializing power to a community. As such, an "extraherent" (interesting term by itself) quality or value is always depending on human perspective.
Which would be my answer to your question what kind of contribution the expression "inherent" adds to the term of "quality". It separates from the antipod "extra-..." and so defines the value and quality "emerging from its own self" (or material/design-related "essence" ) in opposite to the quality applied by people and/or their perspective.
I guess the sheep is in a lucky position - due to lack of perspective and it's (assumed...) self-contend, it won't muse about the worth or value of an elephant (as long as the elephant doesn't step on all it's grass ...).
Regards,
D.

Dear Dertonarm, Because of our educational system with,say, the concepts and their opposites there is this
'system' expectation: if there are 'inherent qualitys' in objects what about the 'opposite' kind? So to give them a
name I constructed 'extraherent' kind obviously with some succes because you grasped my intention direct. However your examples of 'extraherent' kind are subject of the discipline called semiotik. This discipline investigates
all kind of symbolism in the contex of symbolic interactions between people.Ie an important symbol of
nation A has no meaning whatever for nation B. There are no
universal kinds. Scietific statements on the other hand are
universal. There is (no more) German versus Russian science. All knowledge we have is regarded as 'public' in
the sence that it belongs to us all. But what about your 'extraherent' qualitys or values? Even in one single
country like China there are many different symbols that are not common to them all. So your 'extraherent' qualitys
may depend of many,many different situations. Aka to many
variables ,so to speak. So to answer any question about your 'symbols' one should ask : wich one have you in mind
and for wich society? But this is not much of a theory as
we may have expected from your conviction.

Regards,

On the deconstruction of gladius & scutum I'll defer to Henry James, whose modern perspective on Romans and intrinsic quality & universal valuation(embodied in the ideal of perfect marriage) is captured in the symbol of the Golden Bowl. Perhaps the Imperium is closer than we know...

"The Prince had always liked his London, when it had come to him; he was one of the modern Romans who find by the Thames a more convincing image of the truth of the ancient state than any they have left by the Tiber. Brought up on the legend of the City to which the world paid tribute, he recognised in the present London much more than in contemporary Rome the real dimensions of such a case..."

"Oh, marble floors!" But she might have been thinking—for they were a connection, marble floors; a connection with many things: with her old Rome, and with his; with the palaces of his past, and, a little, of hers; with the possibilities of his future, with the sumptuosities of his marriage, with the wealth of the Ververs. All the same, however, there were other things; and they all together held for a moment her fancy. "Does crystal then break—when it IS crystal? I thought its beauty was its hardness."

Her friend, in his way, discriminated. "Its beauty is its BEING crystal. But its hardness is certainly, its safety. It doesn't break," he went on, "like vile glass. It splits—if there is a split."

"Ah!"—Charlotte breathed with interest. "If there is a split." And she looked down again at the bowl. "There IS a split, eh? Crystal does split, eh?"

"On lines and by laws of its own."

"You mean if there's a weak place?"

For all answer, after an hesitation, he took the bowl up again, holding it aloft and tapping it with a key. It rang with the finest, sweetest sound. "Where is the weak place?"

She then did the question justice. "Well, for ME, only the price."

Another one that come to mind is the Coke bottle discarded from an airplane that becomes an object of religious veneration for a primitive tribe in the "The Gods Must Be Crazy." Finally in Antonioni's "Blow-Up", David Hemmings fighting off concert fans to take possession of Jeff Beck's broken guitar neck-- a prize that is immediately devalued by being discarded on a street corner before indifferent passers-by.

As Lewm said, it's a tonearm.

Another one that comes to mind is the Coke bottle discarded from an airplane that becomes an object of religious veneration for a primitive tribe in the "The Gods Must Be Crazy." Finally in Antonioni's "Blow-Up", David Hemmings fighting off concert fans to take possession of Jeff Beck's broken guitar neck-- a prize that is immediately devalued by being discarded on a street corner before indifferent passers-by.

Two wonderful films! One hysterically funny, the other intellectual and enigmatic. And both very apropos.

Best regards,
-- Al