The Ontology of Value

[Amorphos]

Magnus Anderson

An event is said to be random if it cannot be predicted from its past.

even randomness needs to be generated in some manner. Some events are not directly connected because streams of events diverge like branches of a tree, but the all exist relative to a previous cause-event!

Ordering is the strengthening of one’s connections to the past

That’s philosophically true in that, logical ordering multiplied by its own exponent strengthens the relative correlations in the string. It is not philosophically true however that; >your< [‘one’s’] strength is tied to your past, because you didn’t create yourself nor causality, & everything is situational and inherited. You and your life can be switched at birth so to speak, such that you get a different perceived past and life. In a sense everything, every situation and event that your will didn’t create, but affects you and your life, is breaking any chain, perceived or otherwise.

Your past is not a line of connections which strengthens you, that is an illusion! You and your life are composed in a world of many causal lines, trees and patterns and random factors. The past is made up like a composition, you need only look at your own family tree and the stories which go with it to see this clearly.

You certainly cannot traverse your perceived line right down to a fundamental value [as in VO], as if there to be a seed of you. Then equally what VO + N is saying is that you born yourself into existence and will do so eternally. Then that your power in the world is derived of/in that seed/cycle. So basically YOU DETERMINE YOUR EXISTENCE! …by some quirk of eternal recurrence. Which should be a big lol

_

[Magnus_Anderson]

When we talk about what is apparent we do not talk about what is easy to see. We do not talk about instinct.

Instinct is just a learned reaction and in itself it isn’t good or bad.

When we talk about what is apparent we talk about what has the least amount of assumptions i.e. what is unaffected by pure imagination.

Instinct can, and often is, full of assumptions, and so, though what it sees appears to be apparent, it is rarely apparent in actuality.

To a delusional person it is “apparent” that they are the greatest person in the world. They find it very difficult to get rid of this false idea due to the strength of their instinct.

They find it counter-intuitive, confusing, difficult to comprehend, impossible even; but that’s merely because their instinct is too strong.

Such is the case with monists, who believe in substance, and strict determinists, who believe in strict determinism.

They mistake the strength of their instinct with reality.

[Arcturus_Descending]

Zoot,

Yes but there is nothing that commands and nothing that obeys in nature, Arc

.
Maybe I’m misunderstanding your thought here but there is fixed laws in nature, which determine nature. Wouldn’t you call that “obeying” in a sense or adhering to a pre-ordained pattern (but not by a personal god). Just an ongoing perpetual process of the Earth and the universe?
A kind of logical behavior in a sense - not random - except maybe for Tsunamis but even they are not random. They obey their own natural cause and effect pattern. Perhaps they are akin to the cause and effect pattern of the Big Bang…if that made sense. effect/cause/effect.

Just like there is nothing that ‘determines’ anything

.
Maybe you need to define the word "determines’ here?
Human beings are determined by their past history, their brain chemicals, the people around them, et cetera. Not totally determined but let’s face it, we aren’t as free as we give ourselves credit for, if we look back and examine what has influenced us, you know, those patterns we can’t see or choose not to see.
I think historians realize how history changes and is determined by acts which occurred years and years earlier.
Negligent parents will certainly determine the outcome of their children at times.
Doesn’t the Sun and the rain determine the outcome of the flowers and plants?

Of course, we do have free choice but even there I surmise that that has been determined or effected by other things. But still, it’s a good thing that we make a choice.

[Sauwelios]

@Magnus Anderson

Causa sui, or self-caused cause, is slightly distinct from uncaused cause in that it implies a cause and attributes it to self.

Well, to itself. But yes, an uncaused cause may have just always been there and then suddenly, spontaneously, started to cause all kinds of stuff (completely illogical); or it may suddenly, spontaneously, spring into existence out of nothing and cause all kinds of stuff (equally illogical). The only difference with a self-cause is then that a self-cause brings itself into existence out of nothing. This is no more illogical.

Randomness implies no cause and no self.

A self-cause does not imply a self, unless the self be itself the cause. It just implies a cause that causes itself.

Self-valuing is diametrically opposed to self-causing (here understood as self-randomization.) In fact, it is this self-causing that you deny by reducing everything to self-valuing.

This is where you’re completely mistaken. Jakob has been saying for years that beings exist because they value themselves (I have changed “because” to “inasmuch” because of the double meaning of this word: there are gradations of existing: thus Jakob and I knew a guy who existed only somewhat; we were reminded of him by the yellow Toad in New Super Mario Bros. Wii, because the latter was kind of hard to keep track of in the multiplayer chaos).

The law of identity isn’t a mere assertion. It holds true so as long you do not take equality literally. It’s not a mere value. Sauwelios isn’t Sauwelios simply because I want it to be so.

It’s a law of thought–and who is to say in how far it’s a law of all thought? Sure, beings whose thought does not adhere to that law may perish in no time (except perhaps in civilisation, where human beings like that are protected against themselves and others); but for all we know it’s still only a value–a self-value–, and not a fact. Note though that this value is deeply instinctive; it’s not subject to your conscious will.

My philosophy can be described as Vague Ontology? Does this mean I am a self-vaguing?

No, it can be described as Ontology of Vagueness. You are self-befogging.

[Sauwelios]

@Amorphos

Sauwelios

However, in my view existence has come into existence out of nothing, through self-causation.

Then there must have been something in the nothing!

No, there need then be no “must” at all! But for those for whom the law of identity is a law of their thought, this is impossible to wrap one’s head around.

Even if it could perform the miracle of ‘self-cause’, the means to how it done that would have been there in that space and formed its potential.

No, for then the nothing would not have been nothing. The nothing is not a space. At most, it’s an “empty space”,–which is a non-concept, unthinkable.

In other words, if one particle can pop into existence, then another can do so in the same way, including prior to it.

Prior in time. But nothingness is beyond time. If one particle pops into existence at some point in time, another can pop into existence at an earlier point in time; but the nothing “from which” they pop is not divided by anything, including time.

The ‘self-cause’ you propose as being the base layer beneath the quantum mechanistic layer, is like a point of the existential mountain; whereas quantum duality says that the same particle can be in multiple locations, there can be more than one of the same particle etc, which means there is no apex to the mountain, only an ever greater fluidity.

That’s just another way of saying “nothing”. It’s the “flux” of KTS. The self-cause I propose is the point at which philosophy or science becomes mystical. You cannot make sense beyond that point. You have to go back. In fact, you want to. In fact, you only exist inasmuch as you want to. Then again, you’ve never struck me as the most definite of entities.

There are natural limits, and once we pass them the whole thing has to find a way to resolve into eternity/infinity. There can be no beginning, and so there can be no beginning of an existential tree with ‘value ontology’ at its base!

Q.E.D.

…especially one that’s a self serving ladle.

Heed this indignation of yours, it’s where you become real.

[Magnus_Anderson]

This is where you’re completely mistaken. Jakob has been saying for years that beings exist because they value themselves

There is no reason behind existence. Things exist because they exist, not because they “value”.

Atoms do not value, they cannot value.

[Magnus_Anderson]

Can you define the concept of value?

Your entire philospohy is based on the concept of value, so I would be suprised if you were unable to define the foundational concept of your philosophy.

Value is a preference, isn’t it? If we say that we value A, then it means that we prefer A over all other options that are familiar to us.

But does the term value apply to every kind of preference or is it more specific, more narrow, than that?

A preference of one model of reality over another is a preference, but is it a value?

If I think that 2 + 2 equals 4 and not 5, is that a value? It is a preference, sure, but is it a value?

If I think that Sauwelios is a real human and not just a forum bot, is that a value?

If I think that Sauwelios is the same Sauwelios from several minutes ago, is that a value?

The danger lies in conflating the two very different classes of preferences.

In the above examples, the logic of preference deals with how things ARE. The higher the accuracy with which a model of reality depicts reality, the more preferrable model it is.

But this isn’t the only kind of logic of preference. You can choose not based on what accurately depicts reality, but based on what gives you pleasure.

So for example, I can say that 2 + 2 equals 2 simply because I find the numerical symmetry more pleasing than asymmetry.

Or, I can say that Sauwelios is a forum bot (or a troll, as Jakob does with me), because then I wouldn’t have to take him seriously.

This kind of logic of preference deals with how things SHOULD BE.

The former logic deals with REALISM. This logic, on the other hand, deals with IDEALISM.

Since the two classes of logic of preference are very different, the question we need to ask is whether we should lump them all under the same banner of “value”.

The current tradition is that all preference that is guided by logic of realism is called “fact” whereas all preference that is guided by logic of idealism is called “value”.

You want to destroy this tradition. May I ask why?

And what do you mean when you say that the law of identity (A=A) is a value and not a fact? Are you saying that the law of identity is a preference based not on logic of realism but on logic of idealism? Is that what you’re saying? Or are you saying something else?

Because if what you’re saying is that the law of identity is a preference based on logic of idealism, then you are terribly wrong, because I don’t say that Sauwelios is the same Saweulios from several minutes ago simply because I want it to be so, but because that’s how things are.

It is an intistinct, true, but this instinct does not operate on the logic of idealism.

[Magnus_Anderson]

Is valuation something that necessitates brain? Or can it be applied to any pattern?

If something has a pattern, does it have values?

Do rocks have values?

Since there is a certain pattern to rocks, we can say (the emphasis is on the word say) that rocks have values. This is because at each point in time rocks are found in one state out of infinitely many possible states. We can say that rock “selects” to be a rock and not something else, and since it retains identity, we can say that rock “self-values”.

But do rocks really select anything, or is it us who infuse them with the mechanism of selection?

In order for a thing to be observed as a thing, it must have an identity, and in order to have an identity, it must have a pattern.

Thus, all things “self-value” in the sense that they have a pattern.

However, in all phenomena, there is a ratio between the maintainance of pattern (ordering) and its degradation (disordering.)

Nihilism is a name we assign to phenomena – human phenomena – that is dominated by the process of disordering. This does not mean that nihilistic phenomena has no ordering within itself, it simply means that this ordering is subordinated to disordering.

For this reason, describing all phenomena as “self-valuing” is inadequate, because it does no justice to the difference between phenomena whose “self-valuing” commands and phenomena whose “self-valuing” obeys.

The universe does not maintain its patterns. It degrades them.

[Magnus_Anderson]

I’d say that Sauwelios is being arrogant when he says that I am “self-befogging”.

What can be more self- and others- befogging than his philosophy of value?

What can be more strange than the idea that everything is valuing, and not only valuing, but also valuing in terms of itself?

How does it make sense to apply the mechanism of valuation to an inanimate object such as rock or an atom?

To him, this is clear as day, whereas the apparent idea that the universe is random, which is supported by physicists all around the world, whereas noone takes his philosophy of value seriously, is somehow befogging.

An arrogant man projecting his own confusion onto the other, that’s what he is. If a claim confuses him, then the one making such a claim is confused as well.

His friend Yuckob is worse, for he does not even bother to say anything on the subject of philosophy, spending most of his time on the topic dismissing everything as trolling and misinterpretation in order to protect his fragile ego.

He keeps writing pages and pages of words, but never on the subject itself, and always from a distance, inventing reasons why not to engage.

He’d rather spend his time posting pics of himself and sharing videos where he postures in front of a camera than explaining why the universe isn’t flux, or why flux is just a word.

He has no time, he’s a busy man.

The Jew has shut himself inside his own head. We should all just wait for his book where he will prove us all wrong.

He would take the source of lesser pain and praise it in order to pretend that he’s capable of withstanding conflicts.

How quickly he dismissed me as a troll. Simply because I called Sauwelios a moron for using circular logic to prove that existence requires valuation.

How quickly he deceived himself into thinking that I haven’t read anything he wrote.

How quickly he rushed for the “ignore” button.

[Erik1 (Erik_)]

The thing about Magnus Anderson is that, although he is obviously astute, he lives for altercation - altercation for the sake of altercation.
It’s a pattern I’ve noticed from his exchanges with various users here.
It’s not so much about him genuinely disagreeing with a position, so much as it is about conveying boldness and bravado.

This is something I do often myself, not immune to any criticism at all.
But just flipping the script a bit, as he has been butchering Fixed and others here.

[Sauwelios]

@Magnus Anderson

This is where you’re completely mistaken. Jakob has been saying for years that beings exist because they value themselves

There is no reason behind existence. Things exist because they exist, not because they “value”.

Atoms do not value, they cannot value.

Things exist because they ex-sist, that is, cause themselves to stand forth. In other words, beings exist inasmuch as they value themselves, stand out for themselves before all other beings and thereby before the nothing; prefer themselves, yes. To be sure, they may well look up to other beings–real or imaginary–; but they will always conceive of these in their own image: thus Nietzsche speaks of “themselves (or their own ideal, to put it more pleasantly–)” (BGE 131).

In fact, reality is itself an ideal, a value. “Truth” is a value. The most probable, the most plausible and sensible model of reality is that it consists solely of idealists–of idealisings.

[Orbie]

Right. The will before it’s re-presentation, demands the understanding of the freedom inherent in change.
This was so new, that Nietzche needed a new mask, but my opinion is that it was meant more for comic relief, and since everyone except a very few took it for real, he was condemned to act the part for those he knew would use it against him.

[Magnus_Anderson]

My disagremenets are genuine. If I present them in a bold manner, that’s not because I want to appear bold, but because I am bold by nature.

I am here for intellectual stimulation. If I am stimulated, I respond, and I respond in a way that is in accord with the way I am stimulated.

I am stimulated very easily. Moreover, my reactions are rarely simple. Most of the time, my reactions are numerous, and most of the time, my reactions fire in multiple directions.

If I am stimulated to think in many different directions, then I will be obliged to explore every single direction. Otherwise, I become restless.

My writing style reflects this process. My preference for line breaks is not grounded in desire to appear bold, it is grounded in the way I am stimulated. It’s natural.

I could sit down and write proper paragraphs, sure. This would make my posts better organized, and so, more aesthetically pleasant. But at the same time, through the process of over-editing, this would end up concealing the subtle details that reflect the manner in which my brain is stimulated, thus denaturalizing the process.

Beside that, I do not want to. My thoughts are rarely organized in long paragraphs. Forcing them into organized paragraphs would merely introduce unnecessary organizational pressure.

My aim is to express my reactions. If you stimulate me to think of you as a moron, I will most likely say it, because that’s my reaction. I could hide it for the sake of politeness, or moderation rules, but that would be unnatural.

I repeat, my aim is to express my reactions, and if that means diverting from the topic, then so be it. If what you say stimulates an off-topic thought, then an off-topic response is what you’re going to get. It is unnatural to expect me to do otherwise. Topics aren’t, or at least, they aren’t supposed to be, forum shelters.

Those who accuse me of trolling are merely sheltering themselves from reality that their behavior creates negative reactions in my body. They want to believe that my reactions are unreal, merely a means used by a troll to achieve his ignoble ends.

[phoneutria]

aren’t you a fucking snowflake

[Ultimate_Philosophy (Ultimate Philosophy 1001)]

As far as value goes, well one time I kissed myself in the mirror and also I fancied marrying myself before, therefore I self-value, also my cat looked in the mirror for 3 seconds, so she self-values too, therefore we are one happy family of philosophical supremacists. It’s ontological.

[Orbie]

Not so fast, and not so …what? Stumped for the moment.

Expression if edited leads to doubt as to the value of the original, and naturally the thought arises as to the wisdom in expediting in the first place.

As far as the value of the original, , it may be a very delicate essential flower, that with which may be a mistake to tamper with.

After all did not Gertrude Stein declare : a rose is a rose is a rise, almost very similar to a tee: art for the sake of art. Or, even, : my kingdom for s snow-flake.

[AutSider]

VO doesn’t explain anything that hasn’t been explained before nor discover anything new about reality.

It’s just true in a stupidly basic way like A=A is true, from what I gathered in this thread.
Apparently all is self-valuing.
That which pulls things towards itself can be called self-valuing.
That which pushes things away, is also said to be self-valuing.
Anything and everything can be interpreted as self-valuing according to that, and you’re using self-valuing to refer to two, not different, but OPPOSITE actions. Not sure what to make out of that yet.

Another problem here is the use of the word ‘value’ which, as some have pointed out, is otherwise NOT used outside of the context of a conscious agent valuing particular things due to his needs and wants.
The fact that it is chosen here to describe something unconscious and non-personal exposes a desire to project the characteristics of living beings upon the world itself to personalize it and thus make it more tolerable and warm.
Also, as Satyr has pointed out, it indicates a desperate need to be valued regardless of a judging, evaluating mind.
The psychological disposition of those who invented VO seems to be desiring attention and praise by others, but not receiving it, so they resort to seeking it in non-judgmental otherness.

All in all, it’s meh. Doesn’t bring anything new or interesting to the table.

[Magnus_Anderson]

If I have a broad, square face does that mean I should value broad, square faces more than narrow, oval ones?

Is that what “valuing in terms of yourself” means?

Is it not possible for me to look one way and value another way?

It always seemed to me that Jakob is eliminating the distinction between the real and the ideal. The ideal is whatever is real to him. There is no need to strive for perfection, because he already is a perfection. The only thing he has to do is to impose his perfection onto the world itself (by posting pics of himself on philosophy forums and by posturing in front of camera.)

To make it worse, he seems to think that everyone is perfect and that everyone should strive to impose their own perfection onto the world itself. Scary stuff.

His aversion towards universal standards is telling of his fear of judgment.

He is an egoist, and as he said elsewhere, a tribalist.

[Magnus_Anderson]

@Arbiter of Change

VO doesn’t explain anything that hasn’t been explained before nor discover anything new about reality.

This is because you haven’t read between lines.

VO is a philosophy that reads between lines.

[Amorphos]

Arbiter of Change

Nice post, I have a new level of respect for your intellect.