Values act as a latent call for doing in a certain direction.
This axiologic rant proposes solving the rivalness in the human vs material dualizing and the good/bad dicotomy with the worth(-ier, -iest). It also proposes including a sharingness degree as a necesary parameter at each evaluation.
Worth sharing could serve us for making other popular conceptualizations like money, property, social, psicology, philosophy, ethics, economics, interesting deal, god and so redundant for gaming about what's worth in human life.
|This article is a stub. If you have any information for this article, you can help by expanding it.|
- 1 Added value
- 2 Top level's values
- 3 High level's Values
- 4 Low level's values
- 5 See also
- 6 See also
Is value that has to be added to every lonely evaluation and to the other Added Value categories. There's not one more important Added Value Category than the another in a regular basis but the lack of quality in one can make worthless the whole rest of the evaluation.
Originality is an added value based on the special value that the evaluated thing can have due to its strict unreplicability or the remembering of the context where it was originated or used.
Values developments can be more or less fixed in some quite replicable direction but actions and results coming from them are always original even when they are tried to be strictly repeated. They are always creating new addons for interpreting the the old axiology.
The better your actual axiology is being developed, the better the originality (probably).
- When we are generally deeply happy, we tend to apreciate-evaluate accesory things much deeper worth.
- Art has intention
- The more the originality of a value fits-matches the scope's needs, the worthier the originality.
See also: Talk
The scope the intended audience the value is tried to be shared with.
The more audience the evaluation is willing to be shared with, the worthier the (sharing) scope.
A GOod should QUalify more by the more health, food, hospitality, transportation, energies and technologies increases with its OPtimal or PRojectedUSes, the safer and easier it could be USed by the more of US, the more it could last, be recycled, updated, reproduced and repaired the quicker and the nearer, the less energy is requiring for being used while causing the less environtmental DAmages, COmpensations and waste the nearer, quicker and safer disposed.
Some Other Not Really Shareful Invitations could also be worthier than Shareful Goods in some situations due to a specific contextual and-or strategic importance.
Shareful projects should qualify higher the earlier, the more and the better they are going to produce Shareful Goods.
- I love... you. ...
- Nobody can reach the sharefulest scope, so there have to be many many aproaches.
- Animals are not included in the Human rights' declaration, nor at economic deep plans of law.
See also: Talk
The consistency is about how fallacyless and axiomless the value is defined.
The more of actions' source information given, the worthier the consistency of the value.
- Half portion of a very tasty cake for you, is half worth valued for you than the doble of the portion. (on not exceptional hunger contexts) but Half fragmentised historical auditing (or a half of very worth art piece) is not worth even half of the full one, probably much more less.
See also: Talk
The potential added value is the expected durability and the prediction of the expected value for the thing in the future.
The more capacity for the value called A to be able to create a value B, the worthier A's potentiality.
- blabla has a lot of originality. Also has a lot of Potentiality (but the scope is too local).
- Even if the world ends tomorrow, i will plant a tree.
See also: Talk
Top level's values
Top values are the values that are available for all unrestrictedly.
These are the worthiest and the most abundant values, so their increases are a common interest for the short, mid and long term for each all.
The well-being and flourishing of human and nonhuman life on Earth have value in themselves. These values are independent of the usefulness they have for human purposes. Humans have an bigger capacity and responsability in acting on behalf of the maintaining or increasing of Biospheric value.
The more richness and diversity of life forms, the worthier.
Getting less Biospheric value than nature's ability to replenish is Increasing Biospheric Value. Getting equal value to nature's ability to replenish can be sometimes for some time compensated damages with the Footprint.
See also: Talk
Goods and-or Projects offered to the maximum posible scope with Use Dispute Resolutions for the less abundant resources aimed to preserve or increase sharefulness.
Increasing the ammount and quality of shareful basic and accesory goods decreases dependencies on low level (restricted use) values.
- Shareful Basic Goods:
- Accesory shareful Goods.
See also: Talk
High level's Values
These are the Human values developing the (future) (own & all) human body&mind's health and time.
These values are going to be the referents for deciding which low level values you'll push preferently to get them promoted to the top level values' type and the more or less quality of those. They will also guide the development of your Skilled Value.
- The more you increase Biospheric value, the more human values.
- The more future time you may have, the more free you may be.
- The more low level values you make shareful and the more quality of those, the worthier human values.
See also: Talk
The additional capacities you have for increasing the value of specific Time or Goods.
Low level's values
The low level's values are values where more restrictive sharing rights can apply. (Conventionally known as private property). Most of the times, these rights are reafirmed by given conventional law or cultural law,
The more low level values, the less Top level values.
Basic more restrictive goods
They are less available but basic goods for human life. The sooner they go promoted to the Top level's values, the more available value for each-all of us.
Accesory restrictive things
The rest of things that don't qualify as basic goods nor are (lesser) sharefully offered.
This proposed Values evaluating framework or Worth sharing theorem or axiologic rant also contains:
Direction or as a intention, tendency, actual default competition resolution, idealized preferences' regulator, ...
This (and also other) Values' rant is a kind of a kind proposition, a standard or protocol with an universal appliance intentionality. Noone is never going to know the exact worth of any kind of evaluation. The higher category the value is been analized in, the more axiomatic the evaluation will be. The more words for a definition, the more danger on having to define the definers.
The faking of a Value or evaluation (i.e. fallacies, If we choose not to act accordingly to them or if our acts are not verifiable by our publickly selected values) is simply an unconsistent Value (as in x), evaluation and action.
Value theory is a term used by who wants to give less objectiveness in their axiology connotation. Value system is used by people who wants to give a more strict looking to his-her value explaining rant. This is just a formality and it is not important-definitive or increases worthiness at all to choose (Axiologic) System or Theory as a noun for the Valueing' stand, it is just a way of beauty. That's why the page is named Value, without Ranting, Economic, Theory or System nor Sharing Axiology.
However, this pretended objectiveness is not entirely accurate because it is not offered as a dogma or doctrine with its uncompliancy punishments attached albeit it is being a stand in a way that denies other posible Values (and categories) to be included in as worth (or wealth). (You can add your bits at the talk page for reviewing, you can fork on this one too :).
There is a similar rival circular evolution during past history with the objectivizers promoters vs subjectivists defenders.
The axiologic subjectivists ortodoxs' stand (See: The real paradoxs of value) is just a circular debate, a trolling piefight bait in jargon and-or an appeal to etimology fallacy.
Valueing objectivism have been largely abusing others (i.e. religions, pòliticians, military, etc) by dogmatizing with suposed unchallengeable truths that weren't really defined enough for the degree of force they were used for.
Principles by Sidharta, Virtues by Plato, Religions' code of conduct to get to paradise, Illustration, Constitution, Ethics, Psicologic health and see also heterophenomenology ....
- 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].
- Adam Smith's Paradox of value is an approach to defining the contextuality of the evaluation (parameter) used as an irrelevant argument. Some of his readers have a personal interest in interpreting the parameter as a whole system, or appealing to it as a thing that makes imposible any other approach to a valueing system due to its entropy generation. Adam Smith (and also Keyness) also said: Once humans could resolve material needs, we could focus back again in the questions raised by i.e. religion.
- Manifesto comunista: It is worthful sharing because is fair, good and beatiful that the means of physical goods' production to be fully under proletariat control.
- Marketism - Capitalism - etc: Biosphere value is an externality because this is a short term prediction. Agencies rate(was: History review), Economists foresee.
Something can be now highly fair, good or beautiful but can be lowly worth sharing.
We all prefer Health, but sometimes we enjoy poisoning our health because we sometimes consider that less healthy thing as worth.
Someone who deeply values Biospheric value and because of that decides spending his-her whole life watering plants in a volcano.
Even if i know the world is ending tomorrow, i'll plant a tree today
We can say that that is a good, surely fair and maybe a beautiful action BUT probably is not a worthy doing for a better deep ecology sharing-promotion for the 2010 world ecological needs' context
this could be considered a very worthy sharing action by the ones who value provocating & apparently ridiculous actions due to its posible massive mediatization.
Higher categories (parameters) have interdependence between them and the lower categories have them as influencing parent.
Depending on the development's ammount and quality from the top category, its subcategories evaluatings will be more or less influenced causally. The child categories it doesn't influence more or less its parent category or it does it casually.
good/bad, holy/damned, fair/unfair and beauty/pity, value/antivalue, worthy/worthless or positive/negative dicotomist problem, even with real(er) in an upper layer.
Real(ly worth) sharing needs sharefulling because for verifying that is shared, "sharing" needs to know its extreme. (i.e. something useable can be useful or not, but you probably would prefer something useful instead of something just useable or at least you'll like to know how much useable could it be).
A less good-action-value could be worthier sharing than something more shareful in certain contexts (i.e. a shareful wip for someone unconfessionially needing respectful sadism).
A bit bad could be good...
...so then when we would say "good" we would really mean "good"...
...let's see how "good" could "good" be...
...who would care much about bad then.
Sharefulness is posibly one of the values that can't be overproduced or bored by humans so hopefully, at some point in the future, just plain or half sharing will be boring. Even then, we will probably still need to have The not really shareful paradox not really solved while playing the 'Sharefuler than the sharefulest' or the not really really [....] shareful games.