Talk:Value

=Doubts, open questions, piefights= .... value = the ability to use, gift or trade something


 * 1) barter adds "...while paying its footprint debt"
 * 2) sharing: "...sustainably"
 * 3) shareful: "ability to use or the requirement to gift or trade something when you are not using it at some point generating own and others values' increase."

Footprint debt
Is it the paying of a footprint debt a part of the steady state economy principle? (=sharing within the biosphere)

or

Is it just an an exceptionally aplied unofficial patch? (=barter within the biosphere)

SO, should this bits be added to the Top level values' sharing definition?
 * 1) Bad-patchable sharing (or barter): Getting more than nature's ability to replenish which provoques environmental degradation (decreases Biosphere value) should be banned or exceptionally compensated (Footprint debt) like when:
 * 2) Extracting non-renewable resources like fossil fuels and minerals at a faster rate than they can be replaced by the discovery of renewable substitutes.
 * 3) Deposit wastes in the environment at a faster rate than they can be safely assimilated.

Formal high level's values
Adding this differentiation should give to the value's definition a set of non modifyable 'Core human values'-principles' for sharing or for sharing fully at least.

One other way
These are the Human values regarding our (own & all) human sensorial values which are normally resumed with the concept of human body&mind health.

We tend to separe ME from WE, which is a mistaken view because although we should firstly focus in evaluating from the nearer, it is absolutely wrong to think that YOU(r these values' type) end up in the end of YOUR Body or that YOUR Mind can work alone regardless of other's minds-values.

In a similar mistaken effort due to the technical impossibilty of fully sharing these values with the whole rest of people, WE tend to collectivize shared or liked values of this type in specific 'closed relationships' with others which we call them (Sociometric) (Free) Love or Friendship or-and even Insurrectional free love which is one way of effectively merging those both and for deleting the Sociometric reductionism.

These values are going to be the referents for deciding which low level values you'll push preferently to get them promoted to the top level values' type, for developing your Skilled Value and specially the more or less quality they will have.

Your Interests are part of the potential value of some of Your Qualities which proves that there's a Not having, not getting but doing Values' dynamic.

See the (Sharism) Concepts categories for the required values that have to be present for human values (full) sharing and this Virtues(=Qualities, nice adjectives ...) page for other historically mainly considered shareable & shareful human values.

This type of values are the ones more subjected to polydefining getting into big ambiguity or intentional misvalueing.

i.e. what you call a 'There is an added brave human value in this Electric Car sharing offer from you to me'. In the best case, that could be valued by other as a 'sensible (value) sharing offer' instead so the value which should have to be reducted to is a mixture of both virtues (plus their other added values). In the worst case it could be valued as an 'agressive human added value in this Electric Car sharing offer from you to me' which would be right if in your offer a)You didn't tell me that that Electric Car is vulnerating patent law, or b)That Electric Car consumes more biospheric value than the one working with oil, so it doesn't comply too much with the values' system evaluation shown in this page for example.

Within a sharing(fully) perspective if you say "I'm Brave, I'm solidary, ..." it will necesarily mean that you share or like Braveness on others, but you may like 'extroversion' on others and you'll say you are 'reserved', with having the to be 'more extrovert' as a project for you or not.

Historically people liked to call this type of value metrics like I'm very religous, civilization, culture, antropological, and more specially Social values. Conventions like the UN Human Rights Declaration have tried to create a definition-standard for human worth sharing values (rights) types which in fact is very similar and has the same unconsistency defects (shown with this page-forking need and with its nonbinding apliance for example) than if WE were going to call that Declaration as a Global(-legal) Values' System.


 * Potentiality: Future time: Freedom ('s weight): promises-wishes historickly represented by Uthopy, Interest, Projects, Willings, and by religions with the concepts of Paradise & Hell.
 * Consistentiality: How much free do you-we feel?
 * Originality: Genes and other inputs. Historically religions intentionally misvalued it like: There is just one (this) God(=Love) and that God is (in fact) You(=All). Physics valued it through Metaphisics and the Quantum physics but normally we develop this through (Skilled value's) Fetishitation.

The technical impossibilty of fully nor nearly reducting-meassuring Freedom's weight(Potential Human Values) to some ammount on us makes us choose these closed circles(friends, lovers, dogmas, ...) where we dump grants of our future time (partial freedom's surrendering) in front of the terrible weight of being even less capable of meassuring the human originality potential value.

=Previous content= Value

What is Value? There are different implementations of value. Is there value in trash? There are in fact two different concepts of value that answer this question. It is how you value it, what you can do with it and how useful it is to you. But also it is the value that, before dumpstering the food, there already was a process happening of value-creation - people making a profit out of it. Even things that are trash, have a social history of value-creation, even though the food that had been dumpster dived was given no value to by the market-people.

This interpretation is use-value and abstract value. Use value is something that you need, for example me getting information and figuring how to wpa on my laptop. From use-value to abstract value is a commodification / fetishisation process. This means that you take relations between objects as social relations and the relation between subjects as objectified relations. The labour that you put in making one thing is expressed in money-value. So we don't speak about people doing things, but about the products or things that people have done. What happens when labour becomes the prime determinant from value. How do you value your time?

A theory of value is needed to define a society of Sharism. A new theory of value would be an initial stage of creating sustainable forms of sharing.


 * Over accumulation
 * Affluence
 * David Graeber - Towards an Anthropological Theory of Value: The False Coin of Our Own Dreams.

Additional propositions to create a 'new' theory of value:
 * Ethical Economy. The next economy will be an ethical economy where value is no longer based on labour as in the capitalist economy (nor on land as in the feudal economy that preceded it), but on the ability to construct ethically significant social relations.

Wert