Value is a concept signifying a state of being corresponding to a positive judgment of merit.
X is valuable, because X is rare and beneficial to Y.
X is of higher value, the more rare it is; but it must always contain the nature of being beneficial, otherwise, it is of no value.
Organisms value, because they recognize, instinctively or intellectually, the value of X.
Valuation is inextricable from recognition.
Non-sentient energy does not value. It may mimic valuation ( gravitation ), but it does not constitute actual valuation.
Pan-experientialism allows for a ubiquitous value-ontology.
The striving, the animism, even if it be non-conscious, is a sort of instinctive recognition.
The value of something relates to a property or body of properties ~ information in the world. Or it can be non literal in terms of the subjective e.g. fictional. I cannot see how it has a ‘state of being’ or how it relates to judgement? Either something is measurable or it is not, and when it is not measurable it has no value other than approximations made via the relative positions of other things which do have values/measurable properties.
Pure psychobabble.
Value is an abstract projection of the mind, so when I say “it’s a state of being corresponding to…”, that’s what I mean; a state of “being” (is-ness) related to the mind.
Value is not a physical substance existing in the objective world.
Those deviate from FC’s “Value Ontology” unless he has changed it recently.
And it seems that if you are going to have an ontology of subjective value, you would have to accept solipsism.
Fair enough.
Its a tricky one, because value in the sense of being an abstract and representative, is not the same as being a value e.g. In maths and physics etc ~ of a thing which has a value.
So there is;
The valuing of something [conscious/ideas etc ~ adaptations or representations]
&
Something which has a value. [subconscious and mechanistic, informational, derivative, thingness or quality]
If we use the term to misrepresent those expressions, then go on to suggest or claim that everything we know is a ‘value ontology’, that is misrepresenting the reality. There are derivative and highly accurate informations and ones which can be corroborated by machines, ergo not everything is a valuing and some things do have value.
Our minds do project the world we experience, but not unlike a computer/camcorder, that projection is composed from information. This is largely unconscious, and a valuing in the sense you mean is a conscious adaptation of info!
_
Yes, our minds do project the world we each experience; our senses are biased - they only perceive what is of relative value to them.
Value-ontology proposes that all matter is self-valuing by the very fact that it maintains itself and expands (gravitation).
But honestly, this is really not much of an addition to Nietzsche’s Will-to-power principle; it’s really just a re-play on words; willing to power entails self-valuing intrinsically - it’s stating the obvious. Nothing enlightening, nor grand about it.
There you go again with the value ontologies; the perception is largely informed subconsciously, so a valuing is not occurring and values are. Like a camcorders instrumentation and processes have informational values, but are not valuing.
Do you mean; matter has values [energy amounts/info]? or that it is taking a subjective and introverted perspective and making a value judgement about itself?
It is not a fact that matter maintains itself, when it is the product of something [whatever was in the earlier universe] ~ which would probably mean it is sustained. Even with it being a ‘fact’ [if it were], that doesn’t mean ‘value ontology’ is a fact, it just means you are trying to describe something in an indirect and unscientific manner. frankly it sounds like your estimation of ‘values’, require a mind to give them value, as if you are saying that the world is merely a composition and not real. Whereas values actually mean that things with values are real because of what they are, rather than an attributive value. Everyone already knows maths is metaphoric, but we know its merely a measuring stick we are holding against a thing which has and is a value in and of itself.
_
Pezer calls this a good path for you. I am at least glad you understand that valuing has no requirement of consciousness, but consciousness does have requirement of valuing. That is already something that sets you apart from Satyr.
I offer this video as to why it is an advance over Nietzsche;
youtube.com/watch?v=0S20HRaqEYY
for one thing, Wittgenstein could not have existed after VO, whereas he was able to disregard Nietzsche.
You say it is a language game - it is only in as far as all language is a game, and in that case it is the end-game.
To address the more courageous instincts. You can not create them. But a man like Wittgenstein surely had them.
Nietzsche still spoke too much to rage and fear and awe, things an absolute aristocrat like Wittgenstein did not value as much. Value ontology offers cooler terms, but also more comprehensive ones, It allows the logic to sink in, and it inadvertently leads to deeper effects.
I do not claim to be Nietzsche’s equal, I claim to be his rightful heir, because I allow his thunderstorm to become more powerful. Unlike Deleuze, unlike Heidegger.
Hail Thor, friends. All hail!
May the storm become stronger.
Jakob,
I don’t get this unless I’m just not reading it in an orderly fashion.
You seem to be saying here that in order to value, to perceive something as being true and real, consciousness is not necessary.
If I’m correct in how I view what you said, then how can the latter part of that make any sense?
Only a consciously-aware being would have the ability to or find necessity in valuing/evaluating/making reasonable distinctions – if any of that made any sense.
Something about your sentence does’t make sense to me.
If the former is true, then who is it that does the valuing? Can a rock value, can a leaf in the wind value?
And if I totally misunderstood you here, I’ll be really embarrassed. 
jakob
Is this teaching by circling around opposing ideas ontologies ~ the philosophical equivalent of wearing blinkers?
also, you answered my position by suggesting the wisdom [clearly Hindsight] in your answer was inherent in PR’s earlier words. yet even that doesn’t give an answer to the said problems in value ontology itself!
_
Yes, according to Value-Ontology, a rock does value. This isn’t to say that the rock has some sort of human-like consciousness, but rather that it has a primitive awareness, subjectivity - a vital element. The self-valuing of the rock is its structure maintenance and striving to accumulate more energy to itself, its gravitation. We don’t see the activity of the rock, from our human senses; but on a deeper level, the rock is a hurricane of activity.
Also, even if the rock is completely unconscious, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t self-value. A non-conscious vital element of the rock could unconsciously self-value and strive.
What of those things that seek out their own destruction?
A droplet of mist gravitates to a larger body, perhaps of water, and absorbs into or over the larger body, thus no longer a droplet. Sometimes even no longer water.
A child feeds, works, and grows so as to become a man, no longer a child (in some cases).
Using every available resource, the seed seeks to become a plant, no longer a simple nut.
A balloon rises high in the sky until it pops, no longer a balloon.
People seek out like-minded companions, perhaps joining a cause, no longer individuals, but gang members, church members, party members, club members. And often giving their lives in such service (all militaries).
These, and many more are all not merely things that change due to outside (ontologically undefined influences), but rather they are things that actively seek their own destruction, entirely becoming merely a part of something else. Quite the opposite of “Self-Valuing”, yet quite real and very common.
Value Ontology speaks of half an ontology, half a view, half a mind, only half of what people actually do. In the real world, there is both giving and taking going on everywhere.
These ‘problems in value ontology itself’ exist only in the minds that ‘said’ them.
As all physicists know by now, ‘matter’ is not the grounding term. It means only ‘gravity’, and what ‘causes’ gravity is unknown. But ‘philosophers’ of this time still cling to materialism. They’re really very old fashioned in that.
Please try to understand that vo replaces the old ontologies, like the spherical earth theory replaced the flat earth theory, thus that you can not understand it in the old terms.
Arc - Erik is essentially correct, even though a rock, the most common example people evoke, is actually a bad example; its cultural pre-eminence as exemplary ‘object’ points to the fictional neutrality (sterility) we’ve invested in nature.
I have a problem with this.
I can’t see where anything without some kind of consciousness - like a rock has no consciousness, can self value. Does a rock have a sense of self, does it experience an “I”, is it capable of experiencing what’s it like to be a rock, like a human or animal can?
Humans and other living things of a sort animals birds have consciousness.
The rock’s striving to me would be no more than the natural processes and its characteristics which evolution has given to it would dictate. It has no awareness of a self or even of its swirling atoms. It has no thinking processes, it is just a random process, I think. It has not been embued with any sense of qualia or knowing nor does it with conscious effort value itself or evaluate itself.
Has science proved differently? Am I wrong?
I think that it is simply our own minds which give it the valuing that it seems to possess.
I can sit before a tree and feel its present, feel it has its own sense of presence, consciousness, that it speaks to me, but for me all of that takes place within the human mind. All of that presence and valuing comes from the mind.
Wouldn’t it be wonderful though if this could be - what a sense of solidarity and togetherness that all things might share. No more loneliness for people if we knew that we could speak to a rock and it would hear us and speak back to us in a way. But that only happens within the mind.
I just don’t see - the rock as self valuing - not yet anyway.
then what is the ground?
Seriously?
If you haven’t figured out by now that value ontology takes valuing to be the existential ground (ontos) then there is nothing I can do for you; you still have to make the very first step toward understanding the basic premise. When you succeed in that, you can start to think about whether or not you agree with it.
As I have evidently utterly failed where it concerns edifying you, I’ll refer you to Sauwelios, he may use terms that register with you. If not, then just let it go. There is no requirement that you understand it; first of all, one has to value understanding it to understand it. That valuing can not be taught, it is an instinct.
You are just lazy, Arc. Not reading. I have said at least a hundred times that consciousness has requirement of valuing, and not the other way around.
Also, I just quoted a piece about how not to take a rock as an example as self-valuing. But what do you do? You proceed to use a rock as an example.
If you are not willing to read, and still want to understand, then really, I ask that you really, really think about your values.
Can you choose your values?
Of course not!
Your values wholly determine your thinking process, and your metabolism, and your bloodstream, everything you are.
Food is of value to you. You value food. You are made conscious of that when you are hungry.
Your consciousness serves your valuing.
Do you not see that?
When on Earth did man come to the belief that his values were product of his consciousness?
It was the down-going. The utter vanity of consciousness. The tip thinking it carries the whole iceberg. Perdition.