Difference between revisions of "Talk:Value"

From Sharewiki.org
Jump to: navigation, search
m (merged bits from Value:Making of)
m
Line 1: Line 1:
 +
=About Originality value=
 +
See the actual definition [[Value#Originality|here]]
 +
 +
Values are relative, relationals to the evaluator's constitution especific context. They are permanently updated or modified (or changed). Not any value could be equivalued to another, like there's not any perfect meassurement for an outcome of for 2 different people (or plants) reading the same piece of text, which creates an uniqueness in each action
 +
which is i.e. for humans this is what grants the Not boredom. and/or it that can't be endlessly produced.
 +
 +
....There are positive (worth sharing) values and negative values depending on how much the (child) action allows others to act in the same direction or not from now on, quality measurement[[Value#6|[6]]] depending on how much the action develops the Value itself and (potentially) other (positive) Values[[Value#7|[7]]] and more or less Values' consistency verifiable by the election of a more or less axiomatic Value theory as a framework. 
 +
 +
Values are the same for each all, but each all adds their own original interpretation bits which will lead to different outcomes in the form of actions, which are always ''new'' due to the permanently dinamic contexts caused by the actions themselves.
 +
 +
 +
*mention quantic view at originality?
 +
*Uniquiness is a escape from the ''fear of'' deterministic unknowns?
 +
 +
 +
=About high level's values=
 +
See the actual definition [[Value#High level's values|here]].
 +
See the [[:Category:Human values|Human values]] category
 +
 +
See also:
 +
* http://sharewiki.org/w/index.php?title=Value&oldid=3655#High_level.27s_Values
 +
* http://sharewiki.org/w/index.php?title=Value&oldid=3713#High_level.27s_Values
 +
* [[Human values (2)]], [[Human values (3)]]
 +
*daniell dennet conscious explained and philosophy of mind
 +
*Quotear de "Inteligencia social" i de stirner
 +
*chakras, perinneal philosophy
 +
 +
 +
Monist religions: there is just one (this) God and that God is (in fact) You. (=quantic view?)
 +
 +
 +
valors espirituals - metafisics, biologic value, above virtues?
 +
 +
 +
 
=Doubts, open questions, piefights=
 
=Doubts, open questions, piefights=
  
Line 17: Line 52:
  
  
==About Originality value==
 
See the actual definition [[Value#Originality|here]]
 
  
Values are relative, relationals to the evaluator's constitution especific context. They are permanently updated or modified (or changed). Not any value could be equivalued to another, like there's not any perfect meassurement for an outcome of for 2 different people (or plants) reading the same piece of text, which creates an uniqueness in each action
 
which is i.e. for humans this is what grants the Not boredom (selfantivalueing). and/or it that can't be endlessly produced.
 
 
....
 
 
*mention quantic view at originality?
 
*Uniquiness is a escape from the ''fear of'' deterministic unknowns?
 
  
  
Line 201: Line 227:
  
  
=About high level's values=
 
See the actual definition [[Value#High level's values|here]].
 
 
See also:
 
* http://sharewiki.org/w/index.php?title=Value&oldid=3655#High_level.27s_Values
 
* http://sharewiki.org/w/index.php?title=Value&oldid=3713#High_level.27s_Values
 
*daniell dennet conscious explained and philosophy of mind
 
*Quotear de "Inteligencia social" i de stirner
 
 
Monist religions: there is just one (this) God and that God is (in fact) You. (=quantic view?)
 
 
 
valors espirituals - metafisics, biologic value, above virtues?
 
 
 
==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.
 
 
<blockquote>
 
*Shareable: (Free) Love & Friendship
 
*Shareful:  [[Engage me]] + Optional Permissible old school's BDSM added contracts.
 
*Valor potencial: Future time: Freedom ('s weight): promises-wishes historickly represented by religions with the concepts of Paradise & Hell, Uthopy, Interest, Projects, ...[[#Skilled Value|Skilled Value]]
 
*Originality value: Genes and other inputs. Historically religions valued it like: (There is just one (this) God and that God is (in fact) You. Physics valued it through Metaphisics and the Quantum physics,
 
</blockquote>
 
 
===Liked and-or Shared human values===
 
Values that you choose to have in common with other people or at least you like them on them. They are represented by the Qualities, Virtues, adjectives for shareable or shareful human acts.
 
 
Historically people liked to call this type of value metrics like I'm very religous, civilization, culture, antropological, and more specially ''Social values'' which are normally represented in the network forms of family, mates, friends, parties in the shareable reductionist approach.
 
 
The Potentiality of this type of value is represented by the concepts of  increasing, Utopia, Metaphisics, Happiness, Paradise, (techno)gaianism and so.
 
 
Your Interests are part of the potential value of some of Your Qualities proves that there's a [[Not having, not getting but doing]] Values' dynamic. 
 
 
 
This type of values are the ones more subjected to polydefining getting into big ambiguity or intentional misvalueing. See the [[:Category:Human values|human values]]' category.
 
 
 
(i.e. what you call a 'brave (value) sharing offer' from you. 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 (plus their other added values). In the worst case it could be valued as an 'agressive (value) sharing offer' from you which would be right if your offer don't comply too much with the values' system evaluation shown in this page for example.
 
 
(i. e. Brave, solidary, ...). They are never isolated from the shared or liked values' influence but needed to be classified differently because 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.
 
 
 
==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|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 ([[:Category:Sharism|Sharism]]) ([[Category:Sharefulism|Sharefulism]]) [[:Category:Concepts|Concepts]] categories for the required values that have to be present for [[:Category:Human values|human values]] (full) sharing and this [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue 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. 
 
 
 
 
 
<blockquote>
 
*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. 
 
</blockquote>
 
  
  
Line 299: Line 249:
  
  
===Further sources===
+
==Further sources==
  
 
The structure making of this proposed Values' theory is been created on the fly by a collection of UFOs.
 
The structure making of this proposed Values' theory is been created on the fly by a collection of UFOs.

Revision as of 01:51, 19 October 2010

About Originality value

See the actual definition here

Values are relative, relationals to the evaluator's constitution especific context. They are permanently updated or modified (or changed). Not any value could be equivalued to another, like there's not any perfect meassurement for an outcome of for 2 different people (or plants) reading the same piece of text, which creates an uniqueness in each action which is i.e. for humans this is what grants the Not boredom. and/or it that can't be endlessly produced.

....There are positive (worth sharing) values and negative values depending on how much the (child) action allows others to act in the same direction or not from now on, quality measurement[6] depending on how much the action develops the Value itself and (potentially) other (positive) Values[7] and more or less Values' consistency verifiable by the election of a more or less axiomatic Value theory as a framework.

Values are the same for each all, but each all adds their own original interpretation bits which will lead to different outcomes in the form of actions, which are always new due to the permanently dinamic contexts caused by the actions themselves.


  • mention quantic view at originality?
  • Uniquiness is a escape from the fear of deterministic unknowns?


About high level's values

See the actual definition here.
See the Human values category

See also:


Monist religions: there is just one (this) God and that God is (in fact) You. (=quantic view?)


valors espirituals - metafisics, biologic value, above virtues?


Doubts, open questions, piefights

Interpretavism

In fact are not strictly 4 catgs. There are 3 (Meta, bio and property) under a triadic view. There could be just 2 (I.e. Our human relationship with the bio) or; there can be just one (i.e. our human merging within the bio) under a monist interpretation....


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 exceptionally aplied unofficial patch? (=bartering within the biosphere)

SO, should this bits be added to the Top level values' sharing definition?

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:

Another way to say it:

  • DO NOT extracting non-renewable resources like fossil fuels and minerals at a faster rate than they can be replaced by the discovery of renewable substitutes.
  • DO NOT depositing wastes in the environment at a faster rate than they can be safely assimilated.

(or pay the footprint if you do)



Other values' names

They are somehow included in the actual categorization and this namings have been refused:

Inherent value vs Added value, intrinsec, Principle, ethical/moral values, core beliefs (those you may be actively thinking about) and dispositional beliefs (those you may ascribe to but have never previously thought about) doctrinal/ideological (religious, political) values, social values, aesthetic values,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentional_stance


Qualitat: Si un valor A, funda a un valor B, el valor A serà més alt.


Meta, Bio, Human, Material instead of added, top, high, low ?


[Windelband]La filosofia és i nomes val per a “ciència crítica dels valors necessaris i absoluts”, L'ètica deu de perdre la por a enfrontar-se a la diversitat i multiplicitat de valors per no caure en reduccionisme axiologic[Hartmann], sino caure en la falacia social-neutral-objectivament nomes estrictament subjectivament interpretable. (See: NO/Neutral value and The paradox of value's paradox)


scope, intended audience is at meta or it's a quality factor or x. (love, community, .... )


determinació dels seus propis fins = consistencia en la potencialitat de la originalitat



antinòmies dels valors”, quan els valors entren en conflicte.


Taste is a result of education and awareness of elite cultural values;

Uniqueness, autentic value instead os original

will and desire

An aesthetic judgment cannot be an empirical judgement

noesis = rational intuitive or instinctive

noesis reaches the axioms of axiology

Moral(people) and Natural (objects)

respective quantities of labor required for their production

"Real Value" or "Actual Value."

Concrete and abstract

Absolute and relative

Intrinsic and extrinsic, instrumental http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsic_value_%28ethics%29#Life_stances_and_intrinsic_value Whole value

Total value

total value of the whole value of an object is its total whole value is the sum of the total intrinsic value and total instrumental value.

Positive and negative value

terminal value, essential value, principle value or ultimate importance

market value, use value, liquidity, adquisitve power, ...

average ethic or philosophic value and instantaneous ethic or philosophic value.

  1. A personal value system is held by and applied to one individual only.
  2. A communal or cultural

A realized value's consistency (was: system) contains exceptions to resolve contradictions between values in practical circumstances

An idealized value's consistency (was: system) is a listing of values that lacks exceptions.


Runaround, part of a science fiction novel by Isaac Asimov, this value system exemplifies a realized value system that is internally consistent and has abstract exceptions

Three Laws of Robotics

  1. A robot may not harm a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
  2. A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
  3. A robot must protect its own existence, as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_value

Truth or Equality or Creed

Hartmann estated that Scheler hierarchy was inacurate: In fact it is, it's redundant, but it's been very helpful. Here there's a resume:

  • Scheler Metavalues:
Durability (consistencia + potencial), Divisibility (originalitat), Fundation (Quality + added), Satisfaction depth (Quality's consistency), Relativiy (consistency)


  • Scheler (just human) values
religious, espiritual, vitals, sensitives or hedonists.


  1. What's bad
  • sw: NO/
  • scheler+etc: valors negatius,
  • In old Israel: es just pero desgraciat
  • Sidharta(budism): dolor, com combatre'l
  • At old Iran: separacio fisica del be
  • At cristianism: mistic anti cristiniasm(evil)
  • At old Greece: misformed, how to repair it?


Dilthey = nature ciences + spiritual ciences (+anti_intelectualisme)


Scheler = caràcter intemporal, permanent i etern dels valors. 1) Tots els valors són negatius o positius. 2) Valor i deure han d’estar relacionats, doncs la captació d’un valor no realitzat s’acompanya del deure de realitzar-lo.


Zubiri = Scheler + influencia de la realitat actual en les valoracions, be = valor, mal = antivalor, abans de preferir s'ha de compendre'l. el acto de estimación no es “valor” sino “realidad valiosa, que es igual a bien.El bé funda el valor, és la ràtio essendi. The valuable apriori is the value's intuition

Hartmann= Scheler - els valors són relatius, relacionals, a l´existència mateixa de la persona i a la seva constitució específica, no jerarkia lineal si dimensional,

Walzer

H. Lotze = Values are not, they are just worth.

Windelband & Rickert & Dilthey = Facts (nature) & Evaluation (= philosophy = consciousness ) filosofia és “la ciència crítica dels valors necessaris i absoluts”, la història com el vertader òrgan de la filosofia.

Meinong = Evaluation is just a psiquic and subjective liking (up to Husserl)

Ehrenfels = Meinong + wishes

Husserl, Scheler, Hartmann = Objective hierarchical values beyond human experience

Carnap, Ayer = Non verifiable evaluations are just feelings and never thruths

Liberal radical individualism is flawed because i could then don't ask the question of which ones not.

Lisón = Happiness is about knowing the development of which values will make you happier.

Etzioni, Amiati = Can they be justified? so they must be a framework, which can't be overdefined(?Bug!) for not making it a doctrine.

Hume = Values are pleasurable emotions

Brentano = en la intencionalitat hi ha un “gust” o un “disgust” instintiu per determinats sabors; es dóna un preferir, i en el preferir es dóna a més una “gradació”. ell li dia bo.

J.L. Guerra = vale la pena

Ya te vale!

(Hobbes, Hegel, Pascal, Moore, Perry, Russell, Carnap, Ayer, García Morente, Polin, Lavalle, Le Senne, Raymond, Troeltsch, Meinecke, Ortega y Gasset, Putnam, …..)

Nietzsche complain: Allò noble, en el seu sentit d´aristocràcia i de superioritat, van donar contingut al concepte de “bó”, mentre que allò vulgar, plebeu, allò baix, coincidien amb allò “roin”


no implica la pèrdua ni aniquilació dels valors sinó la substitució d´aquestos: la transvaloració.


valors vitals

  • Abstract - concret , more abstract - more concret VS human abstracts, human body

Real versus nominal value


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."




See also



Further sources

The structure making of this proposed Values' theory is been created on the fly by a collection of UFOs.

The top level basic categorization & definition is been based on some principles from the ecological economies, deep ecology, earth jurisprudence, and biocentrism definitions.

The other top level values' categorization & definition is been based in a Shareful Invitation values promotion's strategy.


The high level categorization and defining is been based in works from the animal & colour test, the 'social' at ecological economies standard, edward de bono, daniel dennet, maslow, ethicaleconomy site, from a meta barter definition and other barter's axioms and specially based in the most valued things i have shared with actual or past people. People sucks, people is amazing.


The low level categorization and defining is been based in some principles from the Frederic Bastiat "Property as value"'s theory, with the graphics from the ecological economies(more explained below), with Simple living, Basic income, human rights declaration, ethics' field and basically on nice concepts reafirmed by contract, property and tort law along with some other humans' informal agreements mixed with some sharefulist brahmanic recomendation.

More bits

These bits are for being moved to some other place

The high level (human) values' development have to direct the technologic goods' development for increasing biospheric value by decreasing dependency on low level (property) values. The jevons paradox and-or Bastiat's insecurity that the increase of technology will surely create ecophagy or in the best scenario (other less valued) artificial needs are just necessary awareness advice for when drawing your human values' scale not choosing the bad ones.

(Wishing an hipotethic tragedy of the (global) commons being free rided is bad).


Technologies influence on values' scale designs

Developing technologies for increasing sharefulness makes logic sense and propably these are worthier basic goods than food, at least they have more potential value than the water.

Non shared(fully) technologic developments is probably the worst posible humans high values' election.

Transhumanism is flawed because it can develop beyond technogaianism standards, which are just recognized as a subtype of it instead of it being a core principle for all types which should also contain other core concepts like NO/Power over.


Whoever puts their high or low level's values' ahead of the basic top ones for evaluating is acting dangerously against himself and the rest of livings despite of other posible fallaced short term selfish interest based reasonings (s)he may use, which is humans' biggest defect or limitation.

If for example, me or a majority was going to be proud of the opposite, i-we was going to destroy the ecosytem faster and specially more cheerfully without having to hide or makeup any of my bad actions. So there's a default shame on a human when damaging the environtment and it should be the

Coertion on bad values' scales designs shouldn't be done through humans' lobotomy further than the (repeated) recommendation to rather copy & paste this logic values' estructure into your reasoning when evaluating.

By strickly and-or insurrectionally attaching to this evaluation, you could avoid getting lost, bored or misguided when developing agendas for the rest of your future time & health.


Etcs

  • afegir a originalitat: profunditat de satisfaccio.?
El concepte de profunditat es refereix al 'grau' de satisfacció. Quan ens sentim satisfets en els plànols profunds de la nostra vida gaudim les alegries superficials.
Pero aso es egocentrisme, si hi han molts top values i de qualitat, doncs estarem mes satisfets.. !



skilled value to 2 top of high depends lots on available free content, education, ethics, historickly...

It's about noesis. rational intuitive or instinctive capacity


1 top metafisical.... or below potential


Low: Material, private property, shareable = user owned goods shareful = user owned Goods, See top


quality
Sharing human values: .....
Shareful sharing of human values : No sociometry,
quality
By


at each chapter

ascendant and descendant


  • Nietszche tale

de:Wert