Revision as of 15:26, 26 November 2010 by Coco (talk | contribs)
Jump to: navigation, search

About the estructure


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?

History, Ontology, , Predictions, Research..., Participative antropologicosocial observation, Exonumia, Scripophily, Fetishitation... . Aesthetics, Spontaneity, Replying questions quick and so are fields that are also describing that.

About Scope

See the actual definition: here

Ownership, Network, humans' Barter, animal's community, ..., are fields that are also describing that.

About Consistency

See the actual definition: here

Unitization, Intensity are fields that are also describing that.

About Potentiality

See the actual definition: here

..., Resilence, Depth are fields that have been describing that. See also Carpe diem and this

About Biospheric value

(Deep) Ecological economy*, Technogaianism,... are fields that are describing it.

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


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,

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 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.

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,


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.


  • 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

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

at each chapter

ascendant and descendant

  • Nietszche tale