Value ontology is a philosophy that reads between the lines.
Value ontology equals self-valuing logic; the logic of beings, rather than of Being. Beings are given, Being, in as far as it would be a unified state inclusive of all things, is a hypothesis.
'A'><'A' ; within a logic of the ontos, difference is as fundamental to entity as it is to identity. Mathematical abstraction is a creative artform, not a faithful representation of reality.
New philosophical axiom:
Being is a word.
"Being" "is" "a" "word" (,:;?.!)
That is to say it might only be that. Unless we 'mean it right', 'shoot straight' - but for this our grammar is yet too crooked!
Grammar is under fire here. Grammar forms the lines between which philosophy must operate.
But this is not necessary. It is possible to approach language in the same way as one would approach physics; by first setting the terms, the calibrating operations to the reference frame. For this a term is required that refers to both physics and the human psyche. The terms "attraction" and "will to power" have been coined. These are both accurate, but not they do not produce a grammar around them. They do not explain themselves.
Philosophy crosses the long distance between word and reality. Or it has tried. By analogy, I would be claiming that value ontology is an arrow that hit the bulls eye. And this means there might be others that hit it - let's say Nietzsche was the first to hit the board, to prove it exists. In that case, VO might be just one ring closer to the center. But this is only a metaphor. As is "everything".
From hereon, we shall thus discuss “being” thinking of it as “the word “being”” . *
Into the words then. To value means to hold something distinct from another. “Being” = “Self-valuing” or extended “valuing registration (impacting physis) in terms of self” whereby "self" refers to the continuous (so as to be registered as existence, 'affect' if you will) form of the valuing, not to anything besides valuing, which if it is destined to be more than dissolution, entropy, amounts in self-valuing.
“self-valuing” is thus indirect, as is “being”.
What is 'direct' is action. It is involuntary but it produces our notion of will, this is enough for now to describe the power of its difference from being. Action is related to the term 'event' one action is never reducible to a single self-valuing. More on this, infinitely more, at a later stage.
All synthetic thoughts are actions; our nervous system pushes us to action, either inward or outward. Inward actions have formed the brain, through the organisms tendency to maximize its own self-awareness toward pleasure on a spectrum that all behavioral psychologists use.
Directness is what one might call a radical form of being, caused by a dense configuration of passive being that begins to be changed by the fact that its internal logics contradict the others, when they are in the same place at the same time. This is when the will to power arises; when self-valuing becomes active, an valuing becomes a matter of overcoming resistance and thereby inadvertently self-overcoming. Unless one is literally made out of gold, which can not be changed, and is thus perfectly self-valuing. Gold acts on its own terms; that is why the ancients called it a noble metal.
Some actions lead to death. An action also “self-values” but it has a very limited lifespan. An organic being is a collection of actions and results on the capacity to sustain similar actions.
Some beings develop a greater range of successful actions, others die and whither off because their range wasn’t sufficient to experiment. Experiment is the only way to acquire power. When one is given great influence but no experience, what some would call power quickly turns against and very likely annihilates its wielder.
Self-valuing logic is born out of endurance, out of rugged naked experience with the wild. It is both psychedelic an analytics. It is life, the circle, the imperfect always improving excellence of being that Homer sings about and that shall be exalted even above Homers imagination, to Olympian laughter among humans being as common as birds among a song.
Objects or characters or natures or individuals are no longer given. They are there only in as far as they 'give themselves' - self-value. Their nature is not different from their cause. Thus it includes many other natures by implication. But not, as ooSpinoza argues, all natures, for there is no whole; such a thing is not given, but again a hypothesis.
For instance: a tree still falls if there is no one around and it produces turbulence in the air and ground but it does not produce 'sound'. That is a phenomenon that derives from our eardrums, i.e. the thing between the phenomenon and 'that which gives' - the 'giver' - and I mean of meaning, of character, objectivity, nature, individuation; being-as-such. 'Sound as such' namely does not exist; there must be 'a sound' or 'several sounds' for 'sound' to exist. That means that it must becomes something within something else; a human experience. Therein can it self-value; i.e. respond to its environment in such a way as to continue to exist. That might be as an idea written down in a book, or as some grooves in a vinyl disc, or the memory of it in a mind... it needs to be recalled, ordered to presence to be verified but if it can be verified in theory, it 'exists'.
That is never to say 'strictly to itself'; often the level of involvement with other being determines simply the level of our involvement in our own being. This is very slippery ice; one can, with some discernment, become deeper and richer and 'happier', but many lives, most civilized lives perhaps, are lived excessively by other self-valuing terms than the 'spirit' of that person, the entity that might emerge if the mind was dead-seat on the values its spirit, fire, will sets for it. Such an entity can not be pulled into a Frankensteinian quasi existence by unknown hyperbolic assumptions. Detach! But slowly we proceed, in degrees.
What we need is visceral pathos, passion of the heart to direct the brains great madness, the violent ventures of which a man is inadvertently capable and often inclined, which must ultimately result in mastery of the Earth; that is to say, to behave in such a way that makes it possible to ay that the Earth self-values. Right now, man is a contradiction to that. A great one, requiring a great solution. Man is not capable of this in general, he needs his excessive warriors or that. These have now taken up the sword. Sword? what a I saying -- the pen. Far more dangerous.
* The word refers to a complex arrangement of things, namely everything. It does not, thusly, appear to do its object of reference any justice. It does not even show how precisely it must, as a word, contain itself within the vast, or infinite expanse of its reference.
But there never was a way to particularize the term being so as to represent, rather than to refer. Or so it seemed: in this very yearning for such a way was the way itself. The thinking mind needed required a 'self' (this is what philosophy is, the search for the self of thought), but it was looking in all the wrong places. It was looking at everything besides the ends to its passion. It could not acknowledge that all is selective passion, valuing, because that seems not noble enough. And - it wasn't. Man could not believe this, because he was not noble enough. He did not deserve to believe it.
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "