Self-value categories

I am wondering if we need to create a new category, for things/entities/beings that exist only because they are valued by something other than themselves.

Could it be the case that something could exist and persist merely and only because another thing values it, and by valuing it so intensely or consistently basically gives existence to it? Or would this 'something' still need to actively self-value?

Or perhaps we might say that the fact that this 'something' has another thing that values it so intensely-consistently, and therefore gives existence to it, is precisely the fact of the 'something's' own self-valuing already, namely that it values itself solely in terms of the fact that something else values it. Namely, that it self-values precisely, primarily and perhaps even only in the way that it has managed to get something else to value it so intensely-consistently.

Does this make sense?

We can already create two basic categories, more or less: simple and complex self-valuings. Obviously not a perfect categorization, but I would say something like a rock is a simple self-valuing, whereas something like a human is a complex self-valuing. Of course there are plenty more categories, and ways to parse them. And of course it can be argued that even rocks are fairly complex. But admitting that in a vague sense such categories do exist basically, we might try to find a necessary logical differentiation between them; namely, this one self-values like this, and another self-values like that.

Or is all self-valuing universally the same? Indeed by the very meaning of self-valuing, it is the case that all self-valuing is universally the same, namely is (a) self-valuing. Self is understood in terms of self-valuing, value is understood as self-valuing.  Two sides of one coin.

Sauwelios said that will = power. Perhaps we might say that self = valuing? I am not too comfortable with these equations.

Basic certainty: self-valuing is a "metaphysical" (logical) postulate and principle that holds for anything and everything, necessarily, since it has already been defined/determined that if it did not hold for something then that something could not be. This approaches a truth-standard, but is not synonymous with truth itself, at least not in how I understand the meaning of truth. And yet this one truth is indeed certainly the case. Yes-- I see now that in answer to my first question here, if a thing existed that did not self-value but were valued highly by something else, this might theoretically-speaking grant existence to that thing, but in a practical or real sense it is not possible for this situation to arise, quite simply because there is no way that something could exist already in order to become valued like that by something else, nor could a self-valuing create something else that has no self-valuing of its own in order to then value-add it back to itself, attaching it to own value-sphere.

And even furthermore, it would not be possible for a self-valuing to value something else that, itself, had no self-valuing to speak of. This is indeed a matter of taste, and also of necessary ontology.

Thrasymachus wrote:

I am wondering if we need to create a new category, for things/entities/beings that exist only because they are valued by something other than themselves.

Could it be the case that something could exist and persist merely and only because another thing values it, and by valuing it so intensely or consistently basically gives existence to it? Or would this 'something' still need to actively self-value?

Yes, I think there is a lot that operates like this - it selfvalues passively. It absorbs enough that it can continue its function, but it has no power to influence its environment, except to die or malfunction. From alfunction some new active selfvaluings could occur, as chaos allows for both types. And I would say the active type requires chaos to emerge. Dancing stars.

Quote :

Or perhaps we might say that the fact that this 'something' has another thing that values it so intensely-consistently, and therefore gives existence to it,

Yes = but this would be an active selfvaluing. Value-creating, meaning allowing for coherence and 'the universe' - such value-creations must always involve other selfvaluing particles. It is inadvertently interaction, any creation Nietzsches conception of master morality is what Ive takento mean active self-valuing, value creating.

A table is such a value creation.
It is also a passive self-valuing. It allows people to use it in its capacity more than in another capacity, thus it values its users in its terms. But it exists not because users are ofv alue to it, but because it has use-value.

Quote :

is precisely the fact of the 'something's' own self-valuing already, namely that it values itself solely in terms of the fact that something else values it. Namely, that it self-values precisely, primarily and perhaps even only in the way that it has managed to get something else to value it so intensely-consistently.

Does this make sense?

Yes, exactly, Interestingly, this relates to Darwins peacocks tail paradox, where reproduction evidently involves a making-passive-to, anexpense of energy in order to be valued - as an object, essentially.

Quote :

We can already create two basic categories, more or less: simple and complex self-valuings. Obviously not a perfect categorization, but I would say something like a rock is a simple self-valuing, whereas something like a human is a complex self-valuing.

I would disagree to that - simplicity and integrity relate stronger than simplicity and weakness - a rock is not essentially a selfvaluing, as it can break into two and is then two rocks - nothing has changed. A human or a atom can not break into two anwithout release of gigantic turmoil and remain structurally the same  despite having split mass. In that sense a worm is not really a self valuing.

Lets use strong and weak integrity. We can categorize at least 3 levels of this and remain exact and precise.

Quote :

Of course there are plenty more categories, and ways to parse them. And of course it can be argued that even rocks are fairly complex. But admitting that in a vague sense such categories do exist basically, we might try to find a necessary logical differentiation between them; namely, this one self-values like this, and another self-values like that.

Or is all self-valuing universally the same? Indeed by the very meaning of self-valuing, it is the case that all self-valuing is universally the same, namely is (a) self-valuing. Self is understood in terms of self-valuing, value is understood as self-valuing.  Two sides of one coin.

The logic becomes more apparent when you reverse it: what is not entirely selfvaluing does not entirely exist.

Gold is perfect self valuing.
Its history of creation points to why that is. It has taken the maximal process that this universe has to offer, and is elite-outcome of that.

There are many levels of structural integrity systems, gold is the atomic level.
Humans tried to transform their consciousness to gold for ages. Religions are their posthumous dreams.

Quote :

Sauwelios said that will = power. Perhaps we might say that self = valuing? I am not too comfortable with these equations.

It is quite accurate in as far as there is a self-
selfvaluing is not itself a self that values, it is the valuing that is so consistent and 'lucky' that it refers back to itself.
A self would definitely relate most to itself through its valuing.
I do not see an atom as having a self - it is a self-valuing, it has some inner mechanism that we may compare to a self, but a self is a quite human and strange concept- is it the life, the moment, the experience, the actions, the values? Whatever it is, when it is active, and noticeable, thus when we can say that it exists
[onto-epistemic entity], it is in the process of strongly valuing. It 'appears out of nothing', it becomes 'part of the equation' when it is stirred to value. Ultimately it overcomes its 'self' which is a static image and becomes - power. Dionysos or rogue variable. Its actions cause the truth that its inner image represented and willed. (Only it looks different from the outside, like an animal)

Quote :

Basic certainty: self-valuing is a "metaphysical" (logical) postulate and principle that holds for anything and everything, necessarily, since it has already been defined/determined that if it did not hold for something then that something could not be.

The degrees of integrity determine the structures of the interactions: the golden rule - he who has the gold, rules - or simply, gold rules --
that is the most simple form of understanding how selfvaluing integrity reverberates rankingly throughout the entire tectonic cosmos. It is integirty that binds paradigms - all lack of integrity is stuck in and  suspended between paradigms, all great integrity has several paradigms revolving around it, trying to synthesize themselves to each other in the central stars terms and thus explicating it into a general selfvaluing paradigm.

difference in:
1/ integrity
2/ content
3/ size

1: principle of logic, valuing-recurrence, consistency.
2: value, quality
3: significance, quantity.

Quote :

This approaches a truth-standard, but is not synonymous with truth itself, at least not in how I understand the meaning of truth. And yet this one truth is indeed certainly the case. Yes-- I see now that in answer to my first question here, if a thing existed that did not self-value but were valued highly by something else, this might theoretically-speaking grant existence to that thing, but in a practical or real sense it is not possible for this situation to arise, quite simply because there is no way that something could exist already in order to become valued like that by something else, nor could a self-valuing create something else that has no self-valuing of its own in order to then value-add it back to itself, attaching it to own value-sphere.

This is indeed how much of the universe would have come into being. Much that is not merely atomic, and much that is in weaker atoms as well. In the human realm, perhaps almost all content, cultural identity has come about this way. This is what Ive meant when I said that when I looked outside of my window in Amsterdam and saw people passing by, I had the distinct impression that they were not in the process of existing, but being-existed. In Montreal most people appear to have the innocence of existence about them- meaning men are more animal than cultural, and thus mostly withdrawn.

It is a big challenge for something as vulnerable as a living organism to be a pure self-valuing - and yet precisely because of this vulnerability, it is also highly necessary.
The problem of the Greeks.

Quote :

And even furthermore, it would not be possible for a self-valuing to value something else that, itself, had no self-valuing to speak of. This is indeed a matter of taste, and also of necessary ontology.

No, every thing that is valued must have the basics of self-valuing, it must be able to respond consistently, exist.
So what accounts for weakness and strength of integrity is whether the entity forces its valuer to value it as a whole, or for its parts.... !

Ill be damned
that's formula
We're trying to look at the parts - but the whole observed paradigms structural integrity dissolves before us because of it.

Incredible, that post just blew my mind three times over. I'll offer comments in a while.

Your inquiry couldn't have been sharper.
Truth, as I understand your notion of it now, is probably the same as (the elemental value to) masculine self-valuing pure, in the human form.

A womans truth is her dream-man or man-dream, her ideal, around which her emotions revolve. Later it is her child, if she manages to have a worthy one, by being chosen right and by valuing that child so as for it to develop enough chaos within the order of nurture.

Chaos grounds
Order nurtures

A table values people in terms of itself qua table-- fuck. Yes of course. A table is a creation with a specific purpose, a value; thus what the table is is a value-being-a-"table" and exists in so far as it 1) keeps fulfilling that function and 2) maintains its adequate structural integrity. The material constituents of the table (wood, nails etc.) have their own requirements to continue existing, and the sum total of those requirements in tandem and in agreement with one another maintains the structural existence of the table; but the table is only a table in so far as it has a value-purpose, otherwise it would not be a table but something else.

The tectonic implications of this are endless.

Rocks broken become more rocks, yes; a human without an arm is still a human, but not the same human, literally his "human-value-being" has changed at least a little bit, his future is different, his entire being may be fundamentally altered. He will self-value differently. There is a primary logic here that distinguishes kinds of beings as regards self-valuing, but I can't quite articulate it perfectly yet.

But it's basically what you said at the bottom, about valuing parts versus a whole. I can value a whole rock and if broken the rock is not valuable to me anymore. But it is no less a rock now that it is broken; value-making confers being by creating purpose as wholeness-functioning-valuing. A rock is only "less than a rock" when broken if another being is around to include that rock qua "whole rock" into that other being's values-sphere, otherwise it is just a rock that becomes two rocks.

Lack of integrity-to-value is basically lack of consciousness or reason maybe, or what we call consciousness is already an integrity-being-making. Integrity integrates, rises; lack of integrity is equivocation. And equivocation lends itself to being valued actively by others and only passively by oneself.

What you say about people as lacking active valuing being more like animals. Not committed to anything, reminds me of something Peterson said, that men tend to polarize in IQ to either greatness or banality, high or low intelligence, you have men as either Michelangelo or men who fill the prisons, whereas women tend to cluster around the mean IQ. Let's not underestimate the significance of this insight. But there are subtler tectonic layers too, and passive equivocation indeee gives rise to ordered power and valuing-activity, as you alluded to with your comments on chaos. Active self-valuing benefits from a passive more equivocating dimension of itself, if only to avoid the trap of overspecialization. 'A system' is thus formed between personality types, also between genders-sexes. Indeed, gender is only an expression of this system-forming that occurs at the deeper organic-psychosocial levels.

Yes, we are most vulnerable and therefore it is most necessary that we address our vulnerability. And this fact is encoded fundamentally in our own self-valuing, and as our self-valuing.

To your last point: Marxism is valuing as parts, capitalism is valuing as wholes. Ironically this leads to a reversal wherein Marxist entities require to develop a deceptive image of "the whole", to compensate for the lack of it, while 'capitalist' entities (living beings, etc.) require to develop a deceptive multiplicity as catharsis-exporting of the already-whole (of "soul"). Namely Marxists value in terms of groups/class, capitalists value in terms of individuals/"resources"/"utilities-to". This latter is because a whole is already logically a "final" thing, and even the Marxists with the perversion of the whole into a mere image of deception-compensation cannot shake their valuing-being from that truth.

Something just dawned on me.
Selfvaluing-pure is the unfulfilled potential to value. *
As soon as valuing is attached to a specific value, the purity is no more.
Thus, there are no pure organic self-valuings. An atom is, as far as I can tell, a pure-selfvaluing, as it requires, once it has come into being, no external circumstance. Please correct me if I'm wrong, in that case a pure-selfvaluing might only be pre-existent, a hiatus in the world, a space of pure chaos, from which an autonomous possibility emerges, that can sink its hooks of potentiating into this or that selfvaluing beyond the chaos.

Philosophic skepsis in combination with creative powers is, that I understand, how a human can relate to self-valuing pure, to lack of attachment, to the full potential to value without any outstanding investments.

Fools try through askesis to also do away with the physical valuing, but they would have to do with air pressure and gravity and heat, and yet it does work to exalt ones self experience momentarily, if one abstains from certain values considered more or less essential, such as in a fast - or in the extreme some asphyxiatic methods - and yet all of this is ultimately nonsense, as it is a arched, not a reified state of detachement.

Philosophic skepsis is a a reified lack of need for definitive truths. It opens up the self-valuing to the thing called sometimes mind, sometimes, freedom, sometimes even god, but the thing in any case from which effortless power, vision and joy issues, waters that touch but never attack to the worlds already-existing values. And wherever valuing has run scarce in the world, the mere potentiating gaze of the self-valuing acts like water on dry clay.

A table has very little potential to reach such a state, as it exists by virtue of being attached to this value of it, the person who wants to have a table.

This allows us to distinguish active from passive self-valuing by means of principle -
we can trace what remains of the being if it has withdrawn all of its investments.
Organic life is always part of an ecosystem. This system regulates the integrities with respect to each other in time, life.
Abstract thought can attain to a sphere analogous to pure integrity.

The perfect mathematics only relates to itself.
The perfect logic relates everything to itself, and allows for no investments in anything that eludes it.








*
minumum: selfvaluing pure (dancing star)
maximum: selfvaluing complete (gold)