The phenomenon of importance:

[Dan1 (Dan~)]

The phenomenon of importance:

If I were to ever write I book, I would like to at least write about something important. So I thought to myself, why not make a little thread entirely about importance itself.

[1]:What is importance? Importance refers to something which is important, something which is valuable, needed, or vital to life. What is need and value? As far as I’ve learned, value is a sense which had evolved into mammals with their emotional brain regions. One alternative to this is that the evolution was caused by divine emanations and mammals were meant to have emotions and values for higher reasons than survival and chance. I am not saying that is true, but it is one alternative to the standard blind watch maker paradigm. Either way, the value system exists, in simple form amidst animals, and in complex form amidst humans. Now I would also like to comment about will-to-self. This will is itself a bunch of lesser conflicting, merging and co-operating wills. I think the will towards the inner power is the basis of value and importance. If we didn’t truly care about ourself, we wouldn’t bother taking care of our bodies, but between most creatures there is self love and love for life. If not love, then at least some sort of instinct. As soon as a structure forms, it begins its will to self. ‘Living’ structures are especially geared to work towards selves, to replicate. When a complex human being feels something is important, he does not need to care whether or not it is “truly important”, because no matter whether the self is true or false, it is already important, therefor what it wants is important, so that is the will to self, again.

Let us say that importance is truly good. It may not be an object. The universe may not care or agree, but we choose to care and not forget. That is life-affirming. Now when the mind holds many many values, we prioritize and categorize them. Each being has their own unique need and goal, but despite this, there is a common ground that each moral person has a goal, therefor having a goal, of any sort, is a most common form of importance. Goal-ness is very much akin to the mind’s function, because the senses and the thoughts are already geared with a sort of goal, a mechanism. It seems to be to be intrinsic that all higher and more complex minds have goals. They did not get to this point by simply sitting around and doing nothing. On some level their own complexity was earned. They worked for it, and through work and productiveness it was produced. All of the will eventually manifests as being, especially being-of-meaning. So I am going to suggest that importance, in its true higher essence, is the inevitable outcome of life, because all these things only exist via much will and living.

So, importance is life, and life is importance.
Value is life, and life is value.
I am not referring to simple cellular life. I am referring to the largest, most complex organisms.
If life is value, if life is rightness, then destruction of life is nihilism.
So far, this idea to me seems true.
This is not to be confused with destruction of life for the sake of producing and maintaining life.
This is instead destruction of life for the sake of less valuable things, or non-valuable things.

In my own spirituality, one thing that is glorified is the destruction of the destroyer.
This is life-destruction inverted. To me it seems like a good idea. But that is a different subject.

[2]:Since life is importance, we come to the next subject, what is life? To me life is not defined simply by organic materials being arranged and eating and reproducing. No, to me, the epitome of life is intelligence. The most intelligent life form feels, sees and knows the most things. He or she is most lively. Most sensual. A life with no mind is just a zombie, a machine, a lump of chemicals.

[3]:The purpose of life. Although lower life can loose meaning, I feel that the highest life creates much meaning instead of loosing its meaning. The purpose of the highest kind of intelligence is to become more intelligent. That is the chief goal, which all else is built around. The most spiritual of persons are the most willful and intelligent of persons. Any pacifying, neutralizing spirituality is mere poison towards the soul of life. It is greatly encouraged to seek out a perfection and expansion of the intelligences and the willfulness of existence. These to me at least, seem to be the essence of all meaning, because “Meaning” is all to do with consciousness, and does not exist without it. So far so that meaning and intelligence are one and the same things, having two different appearances but the same soul and root.

[Orbie]

@Dan~

The phenomenon of importance:

If I were to ever write I book, I would like to at least write about something important. So I thought to myself, why not make a little thread entirely about importance itself.

[1]:What is importance? Importance refers to something which is important, something which is valuable, needed, or vital to life. What is need and value? As far as I’ve learned, value is a sense which had evolved into mammals with their emotional brain regions. One alternative to this is that the evolution was caused by divine emanations and mammals were meant to have emotions and values for higher reasons than survival and chance. I am not saying that is true, but it is one alternative to the standard blind watch maker paradigm. Either way, the value system exists, in simple form amidst animals, and in complex form amidst humans. Now I would also like to comment about will-to-self. This will is itself a bunch of lesser conflicting, merging and co-operating wills. I think the will towards the inner power is the basis of value and importance. If we didn’t truly care about ourself, we wouldn’t bother taking care of our bodies, but between most creatures there is self love and love for life. If not love, then at least some sort of instinct. As soon as a structure forms, it begins its will to self. ‘Living’ structures are especially geared to work towards selves, to replicate. When a complex human being feels something is important, he does not need to care whether or not it is “truly important”, because no matter whether the self is true or false, it is already important, therefor what it wants is important, so that is the will to self, again.

Let us say that importance is truly good. It may not be an object. The universe may not care or agree, but we choose to care and not forget. That is life-affirming. Now when the mind holds many many values, we prioritize and categorize them. Each being has their own unique need and goal, but despite this, there is a common ground that each moral person has a goal, therefor having a goal, of any sort, is a most common form of importance. Goal-ness is very much akin to the mind’s function, because the senses and the thoughts are already geared with a sort of goal, a mechanism. It seems to be to be intrinsic that all higher and more complex minds have goals. They did not get to this point by simply sitting around and doing nothing. On some level their own complexity was earned. They worked for it, and through work and productiveness it was produced. All of the will eventually manifests as being, especially being-of-meaning. So I am going to suggest that importance, in its true higher essence, is the inevitable outcome of life, because all these things only exist via much will and living.

So, importance is life, and life is importance.
Value is life, and life is value.
I am not referring to simple cellular life. I am referring to the largest, most complex organisms.
If life is value, if life is rightness, then destruction of life is nihilism.
So far, this idea to me seems true.
This is not to be confused with destruction of life for the sake of producing and maintaining life.
This is instead destruction of life for the sake of less valuable things, or non-valuable things.

In my own spirituality, one thing that is glorified is the destruction of the destroyer.
This is life-destruction inverted. To me it seems like a good idea. But that is a different subject.

[2]:Since life is importance, we come to the next subject, what is life? To me life is not defined simply by organic materials being arranged and eating and reproducing. No, to me, the epitome of life is intelligence. The most intelligent life form feels, sees and knows the most things. He or she is most lively. Most sensual. A life with no mind is just a zombie, a machine, a lump of chemicals.

[3]:The purpose of life. Although lower life can loose meaning, I feel that the highest life creates much meaning instead of loosing its meaning. The purpose of the highest kind of intelligence is to become more intelligent. That is the chief goal, which all else is built around. The most spiritual of persons are the most willful and intelligent of persons. Any pacifying, neutralizing spirituality is mere poison towards the soul of life. It is greatly encouraged to seek out a perfection and expansion of the intelligences and the willfulness of existence. These to me at least, seem to be the essence of all meaning, because “Meaning” is all to do with consciousness, and does not exist without it. So far so that meaning and intelligence are one and the same things, having two different appearances but the same soul and root.

? Well yes: if you are able to self evaluate vis a vis the important without fear of dicsrimination, or, a redundency of cognitive associations, (even reality testing becoming redundant…

[Drusuz]

The ship is leaking, now 2000 people will, to stop the leak is importaint, importance is good, good is true?

There is something wrong with such kind of logic.

[Orbie]

@Drusuz

The ship is leaking, now 2000 people will, to stop the leak is importaint, importance is good, good is true?

There is something wrong with such kind of logic.

  There is really no right or wrong with this, only in the most reduced ontology.  At the point of recognition, the truly redundant and the truly. Entropic meet at the perimeter of two identical circles.  It's an point made there, literally and perspectively. We can overlap the circles into a configuration where one will totally enclose the other, or contrary, they can be exclusively separated. Logical in this view is  a configuration: of functional elements.  Now it appears linear, now it doesn't.  Further, there is an internal logic, with different rules, premises, consistency, and an external one.  These too, can be postsribed by functional analysis.  The idea of a regression in this form , need not invalidate this scheme, since the regression can be the negative limit of the function.  

Importance too, is a concept that exists on two fronts, one internal, two external, and at the point of recognition, it is either, or, or neither nor, or both. It is the point of absolute singularity, the limit that is purely formal, having no substance except the hypothetical necessary.

Such necessity of evaluation in purely formal terms both defines and entails itself, through self/other differentiative/integrative processes.

The absolute singularity in this sense is a purely pre logical imbededness of formal, structural necessity.

This is why structurally ontology does support itself, and the positivist/materialist fear of a sense data reduction, or Ayer’s fear of a causitive reduction makes absolutely no sense in this ontology.

This fear of importance is nonsense, although in fact, the fear of un importance is which has brought havoc into the world.

[Drusuz]

@obe

@Drusuz

The ship is leaking, now 2000 people will, to stop the leak is importaint, importance is good, good is true?

There is something wrong with such kind of logic.

  There is really no right or wrong with this, only in the most reduced ontology.  At the point of recognition, the truly redundant and the truly. Entropic meet at the perimeter of two identical circles.  It's an point made there, literally and perspectively. We can overlap the circles into a configuration where one will totally enclose the other, or contrary, they can be exclusively separated. Logical in this view is  a configuration: of functional elements.  Now it appears linear, now it doesn't.  Further, there is an internal logic, with different rules, premises, consistency, and an external one.  These too, can be postsribed by functional analysis.  The idea of a regression in this form , need not invalidate this scheme, since the regression can be the negative limit of the function.  

Importance too, is a concept that exists on two fronts, one internal, two external, and at the point of recognition, it is either, or, or neither nor, or both. It is the point of absolute singularity, the limit that is purely formal, having no substance except the hypothetical necessary.

Such necessity of evaluation in purely formal terms both defines and entails itself, through self/other differentiative/integrative processes.

The absolute singularity in this sense is a purely pre logical imbededness of formal, structural necessity.

This is why structurally ontology does support itself, and the positivist/materialist fear of a sense data reduction, or Ayer’s fear of a causitive reduction makes absolutely no sense in this ontology.

This fear of importance is nonsense, although in fact, the fear of un importance is which has brought havoc into the world.

This might work when we imagine things, but out in the real world this falls apart and reality hurts.

[Orbie]

But the things falling appart are simulations of the things, not the things themselves.

[Drusuz]

@obe

But the things falling appart are simulations of the things, not the things themselves.

No, this is purely made up of beautiful rethorics.
My initial example was ample proof that what this is about is nothing but wishful thinking, make believe in it’s purest form.

Just because you didn’t like my example doesn’t mean my example is wrong, my example fist the bill perfectly, like it or not.

[Orbie]

@Drusuz

@obe

But the things falling apart are simulations of the things, not the things themselves.

No, this is purely made up of beautiful rethorics.
My initial example was ample proof that what this is about is nothing but wishful thinking, make believe in it’s purest form.

Just because you didn’t like my example doesn’t mean my example is wrong, my example fist the bill perfectly, like it or not.

 I did like Your example, but it's not the like of it, or the pain of it that's distracting, it's what goes in between the like and the pain:  unless they are on the same level. One can dislike the pain of it, or even get to like it, but, how  does one really know what they  like or dislike  about it? And whether it's even  likable it in first place?

[Drusuz]

@obe

I did like Your example, but it's not the like of it, or the pain of it that's distracting, it's what goes in between the like and the pain:  unless they are on the same level. One can dislike the pain of it, or even get to like it, but, how  does one really know what they  like or dislike  about it? And whether it's even  likable it in first place?

Completely irrelevant parameters.

[Orbie]

Dru: it may be but not unnimportant.

[Drusuz]

@obe

Dru: it may be but not unnimportant.

Then tell me what kind of buisness/professions who makes use of such thing?

[Moreno]

Importance is a flexible thing. I can find importance by looking at what I choose over other things, or wish over other things, and I can see this in other creatures.

Most of the time, because I am not homeless, say, I do not have to formally choose over certian kind of important survival type stuff. Sure, I will choose to eat, sometimes, over many other activities, but I may arrange my eating in a low ranking way. Unless I miss a meal or two. Then its importance shines through.

So there is this shifting from things of the heart, say, being creative, magical love moments, dancing, that are important and yearned for over other things. They feel particularly me. They are more important than anything.

Then from another angle certain other things are more important than anything. Either I need them, pure and simple, or it is important that they not exist near me or have power over me. And so their importance can shine and eclipse the other most important things.

[Orbie]

@Drusuz

@obe

Dru: it may be but not unimportant.

Then tell me what kind of business/professions who makes use of such thing?

 Moreno;  the OP makes a proposition of the phenomenon of importance.  Importance is then associated with values, self hood, will, spirituality, etc.

The way it is written is suggestive of a free flow of conscious style to make suggestions as to general philosophical concepts. The centerpiece of the thesis is importance, and makes the claim that it’s OK to put importance on this kind of level.

At least that is what I understood from it. Further it uses importance in a ambiguous way, as. Though to refer both: to the self as a subjective criteria, and an objective one.

Whenever we have a duplicity like this, what happens to the interpretation of value is that its either under or overstated.

Drusus being a realist, sees little value in a subjective evaluation of what it means to be important, since this begs the evaluation of the self by the self. This is where aberrations come in self appraisal, self image, concept. But since an objective evaluation of importance is equally suspect, since objective values can not be absolutely defined, he considers the whole argument irrelevant.

Perhaps he is right, since importance is such a loaded word anyway.

That’s the crux of the argument, and my idea is that relational, structural artifacts, functions, professions do have a place of importance, because they relate singular perceptions with social attitudes. Your examples arre of non-phenomenological uses, and so their importance are not a given. They are offsprings of usage, from the functions they serve, reduced to their definitions…

The OP is well, albeit obscurely hidden, to bring out inconsistencies in understanding, which may give rise to the above mentioned under/over evaluations.

In drusus’s terms, it can only lead to semantic/logical traps. So he is at once right, and wrong$

[Moreno]

@obe

@Drusuz

@obe

Dru: it may be but not unnimportant.

Then tell me what kind of buisness/professions who makes use of such thing?

 Dru you are right, its hard to find applications based on the phenomenon of importance per se, but what is important is a matter of opinion, and their application are not clear.  But even as a matter of personal discretion, importance has implications  to the general applications health improvement, personal motivation, interpersonal relations.

But this is by implication, and not by direct application of importance. Happy Easter, Dru.

I read this exchange a couple of times and I can’t really get what you both clearly understand but at least partly disagree on. But if I go with the phrase…

applications based on the phenomenon of importance

PR firms
Marketing
Status wear

are a few that come to mind. I suspect I have completely misunderstood, but perhaps whatever response I get will make it clearer to me.

[Drusuz]

@obe

 Dru you are right, its hard to find applications based on the phenomenon of importance per se, but what is important is a matter of opinion, and their application are not clear.  But even as a matter of personal discretion, importance has implications  to the general applications health improvement, personal motivation, interpersonal relations.

But this is by implication, and not by direct application of importance. Happy Easter, Dru.

Medical rescuers MUST make choises of whom to save first at an scene, where maybe a train has derailed and over hundrets of people must have medical attention.
There are endless of professions and buisnesses that deals with reality and almost all aspects of reality, it’s therefore i say this is an irrelevant discussion, as the very essence doesn’t make sense.

[Orbie]

Even in the aforementioned case which you desribe, importance still arises in conjunction with a hierarchy of qualifying. Whom to treat first, is the most obvious, women and children, the ones which will best survive tratment, followed by the hardest injured and the most critical, and down the line. These criteria are phenomenally important. There need not be a consesus reached as to who qualify, because it is a sensible thing to validate.

[Drusuz]

@obe

Even in the aforementioned case which you desribe, importance still arises in conjunction with a hierarchy of qualifying. Whom to treat first, is the most obvious, women and children, the ones which will best survive tratment, followed by the hardest injured and the most critical, and down the line. These criteria are phenomenally important. There need not be a consesus reached as to who qualify, because it is a sensible thing to validate.

You forget that OP claims that “it’s true” and put this concept of truth in random places where it logically doesn’t belong, this is the essence of my objection to this ordeal.
Nothing adhere logic, only because of wishful thinking it can be shoe horned into the magnificent castles in the skies.

[Moreno]

@Drusuz

@obe

Even in the aforementioned case which you desribe, importance still arises in conjunction with a hierarchy of qualifying. Whom to treat first, is the most obvious, women and children, the ones which will best survive tratment, followed by the hardest injured and the most critical, and down the line. These criteria are phenomenally important. There need not be a consesus reached as to who qualify, because it is a sensible thing to validate.

You forget that OP claims that “it’s true” and put this concept of truth in random places where it logically doesn’t belong, this is the essence of my objection to this ordeal.
Nothing adhere logic, only because of wishful thinking it can be shoe horned into the magnificent castles in the skies.

His use of the word ‘true’ is really rather complicated in the OP, even once saying that it may not be true or not and also that it may not be true for the universe. I think you are taking his post as a scientific claim rather than a suggestion of a way to look at the issue and what he considers true.

[Drusuz]

@Moreno

His use of the word ‘true’ is really rather complicated in the OP, even once saying that it may not be true or not and also that it may not be true for the universe. I think you are taking his post as a scientific claim rather than a suggestion of a way to look at the issue and what he considers true.

That would suggest one knew all parameters involved in any situation, which no one does. That’s why patiens dies in medical care, that’s why we make administrative errors, that’s why cars sometimes are called back because the engineers made judgement errors, as well as why huge constructions collapses.

It requires immens intellect, knowledge and rationallity to say anything is true or not. Therefore casually useing truths about a situation or a concept is pure nonsens.

Welders claim that the weld is stronger than the stell, where is the truth in that?

[Only_Humean]

@Drusuz

It requires immens intellect, knowledge and rationallity to say anything is true or not. Therefore casually useing truths about a situation or a concept is pure nonsens.

Welders claim that the weld is stronger than the steel, where is the truth in that?

Or it requires experience, or a basic understanding of the language. Truth isn’t something special, distinct, essential. It’s a property we give some statements, and not others.

Do you think that welds are never stronger than the metal being welded? If so, you’re quite wrong.