Revision as of 12:49, 16 October 2010 by Coco (talk | contribs)
Jump to: navigation, search

Doubts, open questions, piefights

Footprint debt

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


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.


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.



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."

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.

See also

  • (?)Introduce terms like:

less abundant

Abstract - concret , more abstract - more concret ()high values)

human abstracts, human body

monist view quantic view, monist religions: there is just one (this) God and that God is (in fact) You.

dual interpretation

triadic representation

quantic..... - uniqueness monist religions: there is just one (this) God and that God is (in fact) You.

Uniquiness is a escape from the deterministic unknowns

valors espirituals - metafisics, biologic value, per damunt de virtuts.

afegir a qualitat de valor potencial: en el futur i/o la capacitat del valor A de crear un valor B.

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.

Meassuring vs Evaluating

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

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

Other values' names: 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 Real versus nominal value

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

(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

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

Other ways to explain human values

See also:

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


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. [1]