'Mortal as I am, I know that I am born for a day. But when I follow at my pleasure the serried multitude of the stars in their circular course, my feet no longer touch the earth.'
 
HomeCalendarFAQSearchMemberlistRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 What’s wrong with value systems

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
AuthorMessage
quetz

avatar

Posts : 5
Join date : 2011-12-29
Age : 53
Location : somwhere else

PostSubject: What’s wrong with value systems   Thu Dec 29, 2011 5:30 pm

What’s wrong with value systems

Seams like sometimes the notion of value systems/judgements are assumed to be worthless, one may say; ‘that’s just a value system’ and in doing so make it seam as if ones ethics are defunct.

As long as value systems are adaptive and non-dogmatic I don’t see why they cannot be a basis in and of themselves. Moral relativism is a good thing imho but that’s surely not moral nothingness.

Lets take an extreme example:

Fucking female children can cause death via underage pregnancy [their bodies are too small for birth but may be fertile], thus it is wrong to do that.

Surely a value which works in its own right ~ even if there are other areas more questionable e.g. AOC.

btw, this is not meant as a debate about that topic specifically.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist


Posts : 245
Join date : 2011-12-26

PostSubject: Re: What’s wrong with value systems   Sat Dec 31, 2011 1:52 pm

I suspect that they have a poor reputation due to being both ill defined and ill conceived.

"We ALL know that this... is bad. So lets all hate it together."

The proposition that everyone should love or hate any particular thing alludes to mass delusion of righteousness and blind oppression. That isn't to say that a system could not be devised void of such outcome, but I have not seen ye-ole typical onliner even come close.

The issue isn't coming up with a system but rather finding that 1 in a hundred which is actually valid and helpful.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Abstract
Oracle
Oracle
avatar

Posts : 142
Join date : 2011-11-15
Age : 29
Location : The Moon

PostSubject: Re: What’s wrong with value systems   Mon Jan 02, 2012 1:00 pm

I'm beginning to believe that if something exists, there is at least something good about it, otherwise why would it exist?

 

___________
"There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance." -Socrates
"Nature herself has imprinted on the minds of all the idea of God." -Cicero
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily believing it." -Aristotle
"I have gained this by philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law." -Aristotle
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Abstract
Oracle
Oracle
avatar

Posts : 142
Join date : 2011-11-15
Age : 29
Location : The Moon

PostSubject: Re: What’s wrong with value systems   Mon Jan 02, 2012 1:02 pm

If there is a door "God" put it there to be opened... but humans are just good at opening doors at the wrong time.

 

___________
"There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance." -Socrates
"Nature herself has imprinted on the minds of all the idea of God." -Cicero
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily believing it." -Aristotle
"I have gained this by philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law." -Aristotle
Back to top Go down
View user profile
quetz

avatar

Posts : 5
Join date : 2011-12-29
Age : 53
Location : somwhere else

PostSubject: Re: What’s wrong with value systems   Mon Jan 02, 2012 4:45 pm

Quote :
The proposition that everyone should love or hate any particular thing alludes to mass delusion of righteousness and blind oppression. That isn't to say that a system could not be devised void of such outcome, but I have not seen ye-ole typical onliner even come close.

The two commandments;

X is right unless Y, Z, determines otherwise. [x may equal e.g. killing, raping, or the moral in the op]
Only apply where accurate I.e. don’t assume anything [like the woman is usually right/wrong].

Quote :
I'm beginning to believe that if something exists, there is at least something good about it, otherwise why would it exist?

Because ‘things’ exist.

Or if there is a creator god, not all things are created. We change stuff, the world changes stuff. The original creation idea/manifestation becomes non-derivative.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Abstract
Oracle
Oracle
avatar

Posts : 142
Join date : 2011-11-15
Age : 29
Location : The Moon

PostSubject: Re: What’s wrong with value systems   Mon Jan 02, 2012 9:00 pm

quetz wrote:
Quote :
The proposition that everyone should love or hate any particular thing alludes to mass delusion of righteousness and blind oppression. That isn't to say that a system could not be devised void of such outcome, but I have not seen ye-ole typical onliner even come close.

The two commandments;

X is right unless Y, Z, determines otherwise. [x may equal e.g. killing, raping, or the moral in the op]
Only apply where accurate I.e. don’t assume anything [like the woman is usually right/wrong].

Quote :
I'm beginning to believe that if something exists, there is at least something good about it, otherwise why would it exist?

Because ‘things’ exist.

Or if there is a creator god, not all things are created. We change stuff, the world changes stuff. The original creation idea/manifestation becomes non-derivative.
Creation aside... that's not where I am coming from... I'm thinking more along the lines that the universe cannot be upheld in its very nature without what things do exist in it... as such all things must serve some function that by being crucial to existence makes any negativity we perceive of it nonetheless 'fair'.

 

___________
"There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance." -Socrates
"Nature herself has imprinted on the minds of all the idea of God." -Cicero
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily believing it." -Aristotle
"I have gained this by philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law." -Aristotle
Back to top Go down
View user profile
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist


Posts : 245
Join date : 2011-12-26

PostSubject: Re: What’s wrong with value systems   Wed Jan 04, 2012 1:08 am

A value system is a philosophy or "tree of the knowledge of good and evil."

The problem isn't so much having such a tree, but rather the serpents that are found within the branches.

One must be designed such as to naturally inhibit serpent sustainability and in fact, repel such.

It isn't hard. What is hard is getting anyone to see it before they fall prey to the serpent that they already have.

It is a question of how to bring sight to the "blind of value" when their sight is blinded by the lust of presumed value. "We already know what is good and evil." Really?

We "know" that dogma is bad. And do we know that? Well, because experience has shown us. And by what means did you observe experience if not by the eyes of value already presumed? Preseeded value guides sight, causes both blindness and awareness. Once a value system is accepted, even if injected without awareness, the eyes of the mind and heart are already shuttered. The blinders are already formed and placed. The horse is already prepared to see only what his value-system blinders allow.

The trick is to ensure that the only value system accepted is one wherein each moment is monitored for the correct concerns and filters out only what was not of the correct concerns. But to fashion that, one must know what would constitute correct from incorrect, fundamentally what is good or bad to the life itself.

Life, any life, has specific needs that can be outlined, categorized, analyzed, and labeled. Fundamentally, they are all the same for every instance of life. But beyond the fundamental category, all else is relative to the individual situation, hence from that point upward, all secondary morality is relative or conditional. What is not conditional is the set of fundamental values that allow for the life to persist at all.

Thus to design a value system that does not mislead, one must first know of what a life is and thus know its most fundamental needs for sustainability and persistence. Within that knowledge, is the knowledge of how to discern the conditions of the secondary moralities. Regardless of what those secondary moralities turn out to be, the ability to discern the conditions must be maintained, else they cannot function in accord to their own conditional restraints.

Discerning conditions or situations is called "awareness", "sight", "enlightenment", and "clear mindedness".

And in that, you have what I always have accepted as the very first concern of Life, "Clarity".

To allow oneself to become unaware, is to force oneself into presumption, acting unaware; the very seed of sin from which ALL error/sin arises.

And there you have, merely for an example, the beginning of a value system that does not in itself confine the individual to dogmatic particulars, but rather merely states;

"Thou Shall NOT Intentionally Do What Brings Confusion to the Mind and Heart."
Or from the more positive perspective;
"Thou Shall Always Seek Optimum Clarity of Mind and Heart."

Serpents function by virtue of shadows, obfuscation, and confusion.
"The devil hides in the details."



Back to top Go down
View user profile
without-music
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 37
Join date : 2011-11-16

PostSubject: Re: What’s wrong with value systems   Wed Jan 04, 2012 10:05 am

Seems suspiciously Socratic, James.

 

___________
“…to act is to modify the shape of the world…”
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: What’s wrong with value systems   Sun Jan 08, 2012 7:14 am

James S Saint wrote:

The trick is to ensure that the only value system accepted is one wherein each moment is monitored for the correct concerns and filters out only what was not of the correct concerns. But to fashion that, one must know what would constitute correct from incorrect, fundamentally what is good or bad to the life itself.

Life, any life, has specific needs that can be outlined, categorized, analyzed, and labeled.
But in exactly knowing these needs, could an amoeba have evolved to man. Evolution occurs through the combined factos fo consistent self-valuing and the random or unpredictable encounters with different types of factors and conditions, of which parts may be valued in terms of self-value and of which parts may not. Coincidence is as instrumental to evolution and therefore to life as as consistency in self-valuing, or as you call it, clarity. It is true that this consistency is logically prior to what the being is consistent towards, buit it does not hold the answers as to what it may be in itself. Not unless all the possible factors which are not itself are known by it, and this almost amounts to a logical contradiction, for knowledge also constitutes being. It seems that one would already have to be "God-like" to amount to the clarity your ethics demand.

Quote :
Fundamentally, they are all the same for every instance of life. But beyond the fundamental category, all else is relative to the individual situation, hence from that point upward, all secondary morality is relative or conditional. What is not conditional is the set of fundamental values that allow for the life to persist at all.
Which is the same as "holding itself as a value". Can this be specifically determined, explained, explicated, categorized? I think that it can be approached, but not intellectually so much as by various types of activities, such as "kung fu" as you have mentioned (which by the way means "good work", which is an apt summary of what we are looking for), but I can not see that it can be formulated "on paper", as metaphysics. I wonder how you have managed to done this and to what extent this accomplished amounts to an effectively attainable ethics.

Quote :
Thus to design a value system that does not mislead, one must first know of what a life is and thus know its most fundamental needs for sustainability and persistence. Within that knowledge, is the knowledge of how to discern the conditions of the secondary moralities. Regardless of what those secondary moralities turn out to be, the ability to discern the conditions must be maintained, else they cannot function in accord to their own conditional restraints.

Discerning conditions or situations is called "awareness", "sight", "enlightenment", and "clear mindedness".
I agree with this, but with the condition that this awareness must comprise an embracing of the unexpected. There is no gain without risk. Indeed, risks can only be taken responsibly if one is aware precisely of what one wishes to gain, and where this gain is possible in the encountered.

Quote :
And in that, you have what I always have accepted as the very first concern of Life, "Clarity".
Then it is of the greatest importance to further define this concept, Clarity.
Is it the capacity to extract value from uncertainty? If so, clarity is the same as active and consistent self-valuing.

Quote :
To allow oneself to become unaware, is to force oneself into presumption, acting unaware; the very seed of sin from which ALL error/sin arises.

And there you have, merely for an example, the beginning of a value system that does not in itself confine the individual to dogmatic particulars, but rather merely states;

"Thou Shall NOT Intentionally Do What Brings Confusion to the Mind and Heart."
Or: You shall not value that which can not be valued in terms of your own self-valuing.

Quote :
Or from the more positive perspective;
"Thou Shall Always Seek Optimum Clarity of Mind and Heart."
Or: You shall continuously seek to be aware of your own self-valuing.

But whereas I agree that, wherever LAW exists, this must be it, I do not think that always keeping to law is the most effective way to attain vitality, or vital experience. What is lacking her is the concept of suffering and overcoming suffering. Without allowing itself to fall prey to "sin" or uncertainty or unclarity for limited durations (limited so as for the threats not to get at the root of self-valuing) there is no possibility for the joy of extended power, overcoming, superseding ones expectations.

Compare the fate of Jesus, to stay in Biblical idiom: If he had not allowed Judas to betray him, he could not have been resurrected. By the ethics you seem to propose, Jesus would simply have avoided his capture, he would have have chosen to let the cup pass him by.

 

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides


Last edited by Fixed Cross on Sun Jan 08, 2012 7:51 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: What’s wrong with value systems   Sun Jan 08, 2012 7:40 am

Fixed Cross wrote:

But whereas I agree that, wherever LAW exists, this must be it, I do not think that always keeping to law is the most effective way to attain vitality, or vital experience. What is lacking her is the concept of suffering and overcoming suffering. Without allowing itself to fall prey to "sin" or uncertainty or unclarity for limited durations (limited so as for the threats not to get at the root of self-valuing) there is no possibility for the joy of extended power, overcoming, superseding ones expectations.
Consider the last part of the post linked here.

http://beforethelight.forumotion.com/t76-consistency-as-prime-mover

And let me extrapolate "life" to "being". It seems to me that being, following your ethics, would always amount in noble elements, and never into something as fragile as life.

 

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
without-music
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 37
Join date : 2011-11-16

PostSubject: Re: What’s wrong with value systems   Sun Jan 08, 2012 2:41 pm

We ought always to keep in mind that an increase of power, as well as joy, results from over-coming. Indeed, the strong man seeks out obstacles to overcome: he affirms his suffering in order that he may grow from it. Without "sin", no increase in power.

 

___________
“…to act is to modify the shape of the world…”
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: What’s wrong with value systems   Mon Jan 09, 2012 1:03 pm

without-music wrote:
We ought always to keep in mind that an increase of power, as well as joy, results from over-coming. Indeed, the strong man seeks out obstacles to overcome: he affirms his suffering in order that he may grow from it. Without "sin", no increase in power.
The last part may be overstated, as the concept of "sin" as Jame uses it may refer not to the concept of uncertainty, but to not doing the utmost to increase ones structural integrity (self-harmony) in the face of uncertainty.

Of course, the the subject, its surrounding reality is always uncertain, and he can only be certain of how it applies to him, if he has in fact formulated (brought to consciousness) to himself entirely his own worth to himself, in all its technical particularities.

I doubt that this is possible, but "sin" may also simply mean "to do what is necessary to maintain ones structural integrity", in which case, it may include a certain kind of risk-taking, within the margin of the expendable.

"We ought always to keep in mind that an increase of power, as well as joy, results from over-coming. Indeed, the strong man seeks out obstacles to overcome: he affirms his suffering in order that he may grow from it. "

Yes, this is where James' ethics differ from Nietzsches. To Nietzsche, I would say and perhaps you would know where to find this, far greater risks and experiments are justified than what may amount to losses falling within the margin of the expendable. And I would say that nature itself takes such risks, continuously, as nature is not per definition "clear" in its intentions, it is just that the type of nature that is "clear" in this way has a greater average chance of survival. It does not however have a greater chance at greatness -- for this a balance is required, a risk taking that measures the possibility of attaining enormous gains against the likelihood of death, instead of the likelihood of survival against the possibility of death.

 

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist


Posts : 245
Join date : 2011-12-26

PostSubject: Re: What’s wrong with value systems   Mon Jan 09, 2012 5:46 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:
James S Saint wrote:

The trick is to ensure that the only value system accepted is one wherein each moment is monitored for the correct concerns and filters out only what was not of the correct concerns. But to fashion that, one must know what would constitute correct from incorrect, fundamentally what is good or bad to the life itself.

Life, any life, has specific needs that can be outlined, categorized, analyzed, and labeled.
But in exactly knowing these needs, could an amoeba have evolved to man. Evolution occurs through the combined factors of consistent self-valuing and the random or unpredictable encounters with different types of factors and conditions, of which parts may be valued in terms of self-value and of which parts may not. Coincidence is as instrumental to evolution and therefore to life as as consistency in self-valuing, or as you call it, clarity.
"in exactly knowing these needs, could an amoeba have evolved into homosapian?".
My first thought was "Emm.. knowing those needs, I'm not so sure that an amoeba would want to."
But presuming that homosapian is in fact a higher or better life form to be taken, the answer is "certainly".

It is true that natural evolution (no longer existent on planet Earth) depends on naturally occurring accidents. But then a natural amoeba wouldn't be able to know of its needs.

Look at it this way..

In the interest of self-preservation, a man chooses to not sleep with a particular prostitute because he is aware of his needs as well as suspecting that she is carrying a particular retro-virus designed to reduce his particular set of genomes to a state of defenselessness.

Now is that "natural evolution"? Or is it a life being aware of its needs, aware of its situation, and making a choice to maintain its integrity? But then it doesn't stop there..

That same man, being aware of his actual true needs, discovers a food substance that seems to have no more effect than to enhance his awareness of his situation, it perhaps improves his eye sight or hearing, or better, his clarity of mind and heart. Does he choose to eat only other things? Does he choose to only accidentally imbibe the nutrient that he has discovered? Or does he intentionally eat of the fruit that promises to enhance his survival and "will-to-power"?

Is that "natural evolution"?

The filtering process that a life imposes upon itself is the issue. It seeks to have no more accidents of consuming foods that are not of sustaining value nor continue to allow itself to be exposed to other life forms (viruses or germs) that would diminish its capacity to cope. It chooses not only to protect what it currently is, but also seeks to enhance what it currently is into something greater, stronger, more capable. It chooses to not allow evolution, natural or not, to destroy it. And it is only by that method that evolution can actually work. Evolution can't function in a positive direction unless it is resisted fore it is a process of that very same filtering of all life, "I, Evolution, choose to no longer allow lives on Earth to choose the wrong path to survival. I dispel the effort, the spirit, the life that chooses wrongly."

Do you choose to have Evolution make your choices for you and thus defeat its very positive nature? Or do you choose to defend against Evolution in every way you can manage so as to either lead to the eventual success of your replacement or grow to the point of not being able to be filtered out of the mix and noise and having no further need to individually grow any greater?

Man doesn't survive by the evolution process. He merely comes closer to the lack of its ability to filter him out by ensuring more and more that each individual is in itself less susceptible to damage. When he chooses to allow evolution to filter out the "unchosen" by his own design and value system, he either becomes what life always was, or he proposes to dictate what life is. In the first case, he becomes great and eternal. In the second case, Life will End Him. So for sake of his own value ontological system, he will only survive by conforming to what Life has always been.

Thus yes, by truly knowing what constitutes true life to the last detail, even an amoeba, would ascend to the form of an eternal life, be it homosapian or what is replacing homosapian.

Back to top Go down
View user profile
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist


Posts : 245
Join date : 2011-12-26

PostSubject: Re: What’s wrong with value systems   Mon Jan 09, 2012 10:13 pm

If you place on a list the exact constituents of the essentials of your life, a value-ontology is easy to derive;

A) That which enhances the items listed is to be valued as "good". {helps}
B) That which destroys the items listed is to be valued as "bad". {hinders}

It might help to remember that often a challenge, although seemingly in the direction of a bad, can actually be a good, so the degree of disruption of the fundamental self-harmony is the actual issue, not a mere black-white or dichotometric assessment of "helps vs hinders".

The balance of the essential self-harmony guides the assessment.

It is that simple.

...well, until you get to the next stage.. growth. Cool
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: What’s wrong with value systems   Fri Jan 13, 2012 11:07 am

The problem is that can not see value directly in terms of "items".
For me the term holds a more fluid, more rudimentarily experiential - value.

What is the used meaning of the word value? A problematic question, related to that of the word power.
Power compares to valuing in terms of oneself as the feeling of power to self-valuing.

will-to-power is what the totality of these two things amounts to, and this is "the drive" "life", as a noun.
Will to power is a noun, where self-valuing is a verb as which this willing must be explained.

That which is good, i.e. of value, is what structurally (not momentarily) enhances the feeling of power.


 

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Arcturus Descending
arrow
arrow
avatar

Posts : 293
Join date : 2011-12-07
Location : Hovering amidst a battle of Wills

PostSubject: Re: What’s wrong with value systems   Fri Jan 13, 2012 11:13 am

Abstract wrote:
If there is a door "God" put it there to be opened... but humans are just good at opening doors at the wrong time.
Sometimes WE are the ones who create the door so it's also within our OWN power to open it to enter or to leave...or to simply leave it open to see what possibilities occur.






 

___________
Each of our lives is a part of the lengthy process of the universe gradually waking up and becoming aware of itself.


Philosophy is the childhood of the intellect, and a culture that tries to skip it will never grow up."


"If I thought that everything I did was determined by my circumstancse and my psychological condition, I would feel trapped."

Thomas Nagel
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Arcturus Descending
arrow
arrow
avatar

Posts : 293
Join date : 2011-12-07
Location : Hovering amidst a battle of Wills

PostSubject: Re: What’s wrong with value systems   Fri Jan 13, 2012 11:28 am

Abstract wrote:
I'm beginning to believe that if something exists, there is at least something good about it, otherwise why would it exist?
Perhaps it exists for you to ask that question.
Does it exist because it IS something good or is it the meaning which we place in something which ultimately gives rise to and creates its own value?
There is nothing under the sun, at least to me, which cannot at some point be seen as having a purpose. We draw that purpose out.
We are the ones who, depending on the amount of light which we allow into our experience and interpretation, will see either brilliant colors, black, white, or shades of gray.
There is absolutely nowhere that a lemon cannot be made into lemonade. Twisted Evil
There need be nothing wasted nor lost with nature.

 

___________
Each of our lives is a part of the lengthy process of the universe gradually waking up and becoming aware of itself.


Philosophy is the childhood of the intellect, and a culture that tries to skip it will never grow up."


"If I thought that everything I did was determined by my circumstancse and my psychological condition, I would feel trapped."

Thomas Nagel
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: What’s wrong with value systems   

Back to top Go down
 
What’s wrong with value systems
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 1

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Before The Light :: Tree :: Ethics-
Jump to: