Negative Definition Ethics

During discussions with James S. Saint and now also Capable, I've been made acutely aware of the gap between value ontology and a practicable philosophy that is non-mystical, logical. How to proceed from the notion of self-valuing and value deriving from that, to a concrete conception of value? I think I just got an idea for an approach. If self-value is so fundamentally embedded in all my reflections, it must perhaps remain unattainable to me, my type of reason. The most fundamental "things" I may "observe" are perhaps the objections to my self value - that which functions as a negation of it, me, - what is bad for me. I must try to externalize what limits me by conceptualizing it in terms of a physics, chemistry, electricity of valuing. The dynamic divided in objects, restrictions.

A first classification of restrictions; necessary ones (implicit in the being that creates its environmental cosmos) and unnecessary ones (subject only to the laws of time-space, the "consensus between subjects", the common ground without which the majority could not survive.)

Ok, this gets overly political in its orientation -- good, because chemistry is nothing other than the different distributions and tensions of commonly recognized qualities, politics.

Someone now opens the french windows next to me and cold streams in. Let me just repeat that an ontological ethics means a scientific ethics, and that this must contain what (I) clearly perceive as a threat.

The reason for this to work is its geometry. Logic is subservient to a triangle: object subject and otherness. These can be both forces for good and bad, in any given situation - what matters is the proportion of the facets.

I am taking a direction on speculation. I am only sustained here by the Parodital term 'speculative ethics', and by my own inexhaustible taste for speculating 'intuitively' - recklessly, without hindsight.
The intuition that came to me writing this post... and it makes sense because geometry is a form of beauty, and beauty is of course in the eye of the beholder, but despite its pure and exalted subjectivity, or even because of it, conceptions of it range within certain bounds - beauty not to be confused with 'object of desire'. A thing is only beautiful if one can enjoy it without possessing it.

What this has to do with negativity, objections and negative powers, - my coffee is getting cold.

1. The distortion of beauty, the reduction to appetite.

The meaning of philosophy/art/evolution.
All is driven by art. The means to overcome unattractiveness, to cause attraction.

Essential attraction is unoperative without a pulsating dynamic pushing outward. "Time" is such pulsating sustaining the noticeable attraction/value.

2. The cessation of time/pulsating dynamic.

Hmm, so next to ugly lust, lethargy is bad. Now then pride... which is perhaps the distortion of self-value by exaggeration of its contextual importance -- by misplacing it out of excessive demand. Pride is then excessive demand (for being) - lack of being. Would rank pride as one of the severest conditions.

3. Manipulating the affect of lack into the appearance of excess so as to draw resources under false pretenses. (Would require a lot more specification)

Wrath...
4. Destruction of objects that negate ones values.

Is this a sin against value, under the paradigm of value ontology? "Questionable." - Nietzsche.

Then there is the most obvious "sin against the spirit of value"... envy.

5. Valuing a value one desires negatively because of an incapacity to attain it.

A strange version of misplaced value:

6. To draw in materials containing strong value-signals, to experience these signals as value. (Interesting that gluttony would be the sin related to my Pentad post on Interestedness).

OI have to play the movie in my head to arrive at the seventh sins. The blood on the carpet.

Greed is perhaps jealousy continued in the condition of wealth. Greed is perhaps the automated mechanism of the experience of chasing value as value. Wrath and Greed would be lesser sins in a Nietzschean paradigm, envy would be far greater sin in a Nietzschean than in a Catholic world. Envy makes one a slave. Greed can be highly useful in becoming a master at times. So, and certainly more so, will generosity, voluntary expentidure of strength.

Of course envy can lead to a stimulus too - but Greed is self-sufficient - it relies on an aberration in the self-valuing rather than a systemic lack of it. It could be 'positively cured' - turned into a systemic advantage. It includes knowledge.

I am making a case for Greed to not be a sin on ethical ontological grounds. It means: taking advantage of the resources of others without consideration to suit a superficial fascination with the capacity to acquire. Or? Am I so greedy perhaps that I do not see greed for what it is??

7. Abstraction of value...?

For badness beyond the seven sins I'll have to draw in some more spiration. It's largely about a misplacement of the value because of an interpretation of it pertaining to a minor attribute of the value.
(Not) discerning the values in the goods.

Arg. A workable ethics requires a hierarchy of all the known attributes of all the known objects, as well as all their consequences. Difficult, heavy work bound to fail. The result of it would be quite beyond imagining - an active existence. Willing existence precisely away from the recurrence of the same.

Screw the same, never anymore the same! Let's hijack the universe, propel it from here into the billion year glory of the galactic polis, the mining of the black hole, -

But this is my positive ethics, composed perhaps of a mixture of the above mentioned conditions, be it from the seed of my virtuous philosophy.