Axiology is probably the more proper achademical field from social science to locate this life set in (if any needed).
Axiology is a field placed in one of the corners of ethics, which is practically deprecated by social scientists probably due to its
- over-objectivist appearance
- lack of colloquial narrative
- lack of systeming from former past axiologic ranters.
Social sciences achademies are poorly referred to each other (some of them wouldn't exist if they were to have a path to merge with others..).
The taxonomies are very poor compared to extensive and well coded documentation most of all made for backing such final rants, only abstract or very partial proposals.
Pro-objectivizers tend to always have a god-like criticism from the vast majority of social academic (pseudo)intelectuality, (more proofs in this other post). Probably because of such this pressure, none of the values system in historical philosophical works will be worth if valueing by their systems themselves.
- Philosophy is and it is just worth as the science for criticisizing the absolute and needed values (Windelband)
- Ethics should not be afraid of facing values' diversity and multiplicity for not failing in axiologic reductionism(Hartmann).
- [Fun] Politics is the art of quality economic doing. Art's beauty is apolitical. I meassure Axiology as boring [Someone].
Axiology and linguistics
Axiology is something most linguists sadly consider not their deep business, but this default life view axiology could be useful in the research for an universal grammar (deep estructures on phrases, see more). This will imply that, regardless of linguistic relativity, we code communication through any language because mainly “we basically want to finally express love, lack of love (and derivates..) only or mainly” in a more or less evolved or twisted but finally limited (or universally common) ways to express so.
What this life set already shows is a high functional operating thanks to its well contrasted accesible semantics. Axioms are networked in a redundant way or feedback loop (thanks to process) and that allows us to:
- Recover lost information lost due to the noise (axiom-entropy) in the channel (semantics)
- Making the universal unacceptability of remaining big axioms from the more parent definitions (i.e. natural and universal vibrations) "not that much axiomatic - very acceptable in the end" since we already know "very well" all their more and less direct childs of each.
- Study the flove language with both anachronic or diachronic perspective either way
The keywords-concepts not included in this life set could be copies or derivates of the exposed ones i.e. in this life set "sad" is not exposed, but "sad" could either be the aggrupator of "cultural dark" (in a more basic life set) or something between "vain" and "bore" closer to "bore" than to "vain" (in an extended life set)
The life set could be a formal theory of language because it has its inference rules
Every vibration is transitional, regressive if it is before, progressive if after and positivised by its narrower ones.
Paradigmatic rank: x flow in set overall
Sintagmatic rank: x flow in x dimension, or frequency
Inclusive: love is only in passional
Placeover: dark and light sometimes present
Vibration: form, expression, grammar, determined
Process: meaning, content, semantic, unknown
Universally formal is process
Universally substantive are vibrations
...Maybe... "love" has its universal semantics, and that could play a universal (gramatic-sintactic) role in the deep structure of phrases ...maybe...--- John Lyons
There is sociometry, psicometry, etc. Axiology would still ask any of those:
How much is it afterall? What other values are you deprecating?