tjj
|
Re: Friends of the Earth Petition
Feb 26, 2017, 08:59
|
Once again apologies to bumping up this now over long thread - it's all I can do really. I've just signed a FoE Petition which I particularly like for its clear language.
https://act.foe.co.uk/act/save-stonehenge-world-heritage-site?refsid=211655
|
jonmor
|
Re: Julian Richards gives his view on the tunnel
Feb 26, 2017, 09:54
|
Thanks Nigel an George. I've gone back through the documents and, whilst I don't agree that it is impossible, I think that you are probably both correct that the mechanisms to give the archaeology of the Stonehenge WHS a higher valuation (that would be acceptable as evidence in a consultation) either do not exist or would not be accepted.
It's been a very useful chat, thanks.
|
tiompan
|
Re: Julian Richards gives his view on the tunnel
Feb 26, 2017, 11:08
|
Jon ,
Glad the chat was of some help .
But to clarify : How can we raise the value of the WHS when it is considered as being of Outstanding Universal Value ? It doesn't get any higher . The problem from my perspective , is not the value but the belief that the value(s) can be quantified .
|
jonmor
|
Re: Julian Richards gives his view on the tunnel
Feb 26, 2017, 16:40
|
|
tiompan wrote: How can we raise the value of the WHS when it is considered as being of Outstanding Universal Value ? It doesn't get any higher . The problem from my perspective , is not the value but the belief that the value(s) can be quantified .
Aye, some of the wordings used in semi-governmental organisations can be difficult because some words have and ambiguous or other common meaning(s). If you're trying to frame a response in the terms of a consultation, you have to be absolutely sure that you've understood the meaning. It's much easier if you're making a purely technical response.
Is that what you meant or were you referring to my use of the word 'valuation'?
|
tiompan
|
Re: Julian Richards gives his view on the tunnel
Feb 26, 2017, 18:45
|
|
jonmor wrote: tiompan wrote: How can we raise the value of the WHS when it is considered as being of Outstanding Universal Value ? It doesn't get any higher . The problem from my perspective , is not the value but the belief that the value(s) can be quantified .
Aye, some of the wordings used in semi-governmental organisations can be difficult because some words have and ambiguous or other common meaning(s). If you're trying to frame a response in the terms of a consultation, you have to be absolutely sure that you've understood the meaning. It's much easier if you're making a purely technical response.
Is that what you meant or were you referring to my use of the word 'valuation'?
There could be problems defining value but that was secondary and not what I was concerned about .
Similarly I am not bothered about the use of the term valuation , but the problem is how you arrive at a valuation that would involve quantifying cultural values . It can't be done .
|
jonmor
|
Re: Julian Richards gives his view on the tunnel
Feb 26, 2017, 19:21
|
Why would you want to reference cultural values George?
The UNESCO definition specifically refers to value: The plural of that definition applies to either a multiple of the singular (values as in benefits or worth) or values (as in cultural meaning to people). Because they have been specific about the meaning by not referring to the plural, (even though the two plurals have a related meaning), any reference to the secondary plural meaning is likely to be ruled as irrelevant in a consultation.
The Australian Government tried to define meaning and came to the same conclusion about what it meant. If you're particularly interested, I can email you the document.
If you think that UNESCO meant something different, then you may be right, but it would be difficult to argue for your interpretation of meaning if a commonwealth archaeological authority has spent the time to define the meaning and found it to be something else.
|
tiompan
|
Re: Julian Richards gives his view on the tunnel
Feb 26, 2017, 19:41
|
Unesco has already attributed the highest possible award to the site .
In their Criteria for the assessment of Outstanding Universal Value first is .
1)“ represent a masterpiece of human creative genius; “
That is a cultural value and like all cultural values it is unquantifiable .
Cultural values are the most important values for humans in relation to all WHS ,again , these values are unquantifiable .
|
jonmor
|
Re: Julian Richards gives his view on the tunnel
Feb 27, 2017, 08:07
|
|
tiompan wrote:
Cultural values are the most important values for humans in relation to all WHS ,again , these values are unquantifiable .
That is an interesting and innovative interpretation George. No point in arguing about it because the actual meaning is defined elsewhere by far more authoritative sources than you or me.
Thanks for working through your thoughts George: It's sometimes very difficult, especially for people who work on this sort of stuff all the time, to work out how this sort of idea comes about.
|
nigelswift
|
Re: Julian Richards gives his view on the tunnel
Feb 27, 2017, 08:49
|
|
jonmor wrote: tiompan wrote:
Cultural values are the most important values for humans in relation to all WHS ,again , these values are unquantifiable .
That is an interesting and innovative interpretation George. No point in arguing about it because the actual meaning is defined elsewhere by far more authoritative sources than you or me.
Thanks for working through your thoughts George: It's sometimes very difficult, especially for people who work on this sort of stuff all the time, to work out how this sort of idea comes about.
On the contrary. It's not in the least innovative. People who work in the field are well aware that it's true.
|
tiompan
|
Re: Julian Richards gives his view on the tunnel
Feb 27, 2017, 09:14
|
|
jonmor wrote: tiompan wrote:
Cultural values are the most important values for humans in relation to all WHS ,again , these values are unquantifiable .
That is an interesting and innovative interpretation George. No point in arguing about it because the actual meaning is defined elsewhere by far more authoritative sources than you or me.
Thanks for working through your thoughts George: It's sometimes very difficult, especially for people who work on this sort of stuff all the time, to work out how this sort of idea comes about.
Jon ,
It's neither innovative or interesting . The vast majority of punters will tell you that , it's interesting that anyone should think otherwise .
The most authoritative source of the meaning of terminology will not change the fact that to quantify the value of that which is most important to us is impossible , I imagine Stern knows that too .
|
