On a Theory of Objective Value
Originally written March 2021. Edited 2026.
Objective value vs. Mimetic Value
There is something “fake” about mimetic value in a way that is difficult to describe, and slightly sinister.
It’s common to describe value in terms of willingness to pay. A customer’s willingness to pay for something is an indication of the value of that thing to them. In other words, they might perceive 75 for that thing, then mimetic desire actually increases their willingness to pay. The value has increased.
But has the value increased? You tell me. Mimetic value isn’t something that we can trust to stay static through time. We can’t always sell a speculative piece of art for the same price at which it was most recently auctioned. Mimetic rivalry for the object might fall dramatically, thus lowering the price. Or vice versa.
There is an actual difference (though perhaps difficult to measure) between objective and mimetic value. An object might have tremendous mimetic value (say, one twin out of a pair becomes a famous child actor), but the physical composition of that object might be identical to another (the other twin). Are we truly to say that the child actor twin is a more valuable person than her sister?
We can attach social investiture into an object to increase its value. But the increase is solely mimetic. If you removed all of the social investiture, it would still exist, and it would still have some value. How can we measure that remaining value?
A hammer is still a valuable tool, even if no one wants it or knows about it. The first person to discover a hammer (innovation) saw the objective value of the tool. After, some social value must have been attached merely by the value he saw in it. His desire for it alone is enough to add mimetic value to the tool.
This isn’t to say that objects have “objective” or “divine” value without human judgment. The value comes from within the phenomenology of conscious experience. But the “objectivity” of the value comes from consistent, replicable value to humans, disregarding mimetic status.
Compare a sonata and a random mashing of piano keys at the same pace and tempo. This is what I mean by objective value. To expand this work of classifying the objective value of things into a science is non-trivial. Surely it is worth pursuing objective value and beauty, instead of merely competing over mimetic value. This supposition implies that one route out of mimetic rivalry is a broader focus on the pursuit of objective value.
Theories of where objective value comes from
Qualia Research Institute / Symmetry Theory of Valence: Objective value comes from “symmetries” in consciousness, and all such symmetries are pleasant — pleasantness IS symmetry in the brain. This, then, is at least one source of human value. https://opentheory.net/2021/07/a-primer-on-the-symmetry-theory-of-valence/
Aristotle / Virtue Ethics: Objective value is the cultivation of virtue — the golden mean between two vices. You don’t know in advance what value is, but you know it through comparison. The sonata vs. the random mashing of keys: you know through comparison that the sonata is superior, is therefore a higher good. Virtue is the cultivation of this capacity for discernment, and the more you cultivate it, the more good you produce. Value is known through comparison, not through definition.
Christianity: Some Christians believe objective value comes from God. Specifically, the only concrete example of God in the earthly realm is Christ’s example. The metaphysical and objective good is to live by Christ’s example, to live through Christ. Christ literally is the good — the objective good made flesh, made material. Therefore anything which is not living in Christ’s image, following Christ’s example, connecting to God through Christ, falls short of the true good. This doesn’t need to be narrow — there’s a huge variety of interpretations of what this means. But regardless: we have this one example of the true good, which is Christ’s example, and that creates the benchmark by which all values can be judged. Obviously extremely different from mimetic value.
A world plagued by a focus on mimetic value might find itself in many zero sum games. People may compete for status and ownership of arbitrary objects of attention. We might even be willing to sacrifice value in order to win an object of desire (a negative sum interaction). Economists might tell you that consumer surplus is increasing, but there are no number of Supreme bricks (https://stockx.com/supreme-clay-brick-red) that can be sold to create the world we want. More likely, Supreme bricks serve to decrease net value, by causing us to sacrifice opportunities and attention in exchange for a cynical instantiation of brand identity (pure mimetic value). Having something others want might feel good in the moment, but surely producing branded bricks is not a long term strategy to a flourishing society.
I long for a more cooperative mindset in which we try to maximize our flourishing. It should quickly become obvious to observant minds that thoughtless consumption and uninspired production don’t lead to improvements in the human condition.
In a world focused on flourishing, we would see less neurotic desire to own that which others have, which is the very definition of mimesis, and more pursuit of new genuine value (perhaps more focus on being a patron, or on innovation, or on exploration, or on analysis, or on meditation…). Simply put, what is the objective value of ownership if you were able to measure and subtract any mimetic value from the object of ownership? Only occasionally will this objective value exist. It might exist for my primary means of transportation, but not for several more. It would definitely exist for my food, which I must own, since it is going to be consumed and destroyed by me.
New ideas
-
One way to think about this is as compound technologies. The objective value of something is actually its total combinatorial value, when that something is used across all affordances, alongside all other combinations. We can restrict this by deciding to only consider all “realistic” contexts. And we could restrict it further to consider only all existing contexts. The hammer is illustrative here. What is the value of a hammer, if no one has invented the nail? But then we invent the nail, and the value of the hammer has increased dramatically. But objectively, the hammer already had this potential, and it has merely been converted into recognized value. There are surely more potentials to be unlocked.
-
There’s a related essay (author unidentified — possibly discovered through Dan Wang or Tyler Cowen) about how underneath all economic activity, what matters is real production. Different societies represent different allocations of production. Measuring increasing demand and prices doesn’t tell you whether you’re actually producing more. Real progress is the ability to produce more. Related to supply-side vs. demand-side economics, progress studies, and possibly housing. Top leads: Michael Pettis (Trade Wars Are Class Wars), Oren Cass (American Compass), Eli Dourado.
Next Steps
- Publish this essay (include original date March 2021, note 2026 edits)
- Find the production-allocation essay (Pettis? Cass? Dourado?)
- Develop the three theories of value section further — could be the strongest part of the essay
- Connect to Frontiers — objective value as a frontier of knowledge