On a Conditionality of Ethics/Axiology

[The Voice of Time]

Contrary to Prof and his Hartmanian system I'm here gonna present an ethical-logical system of operations conducted in the spirit of the Principia Ethica, that is, the basic difference is that I'm not gonna have any systemic values present, and the terms intrinsic and extrinsic when dealing with values will maintain their original meaning as "that which is valued in and of itself" and "that which is valuable for those things which are valuable in and of themselves".

My first point is a redefining of the terms. Intrinsic value becomes "that which is to be propagated" and extrinsic value becomes "that which propagates". In turn I introduce the following terms from my own philosophy of needs:

1) Tren -> the sum of intrinsic values as objects of a system which is itself a whole representing its parts, and whose dynamics is the loss and gain of new objects as things are either successful or failing in being propagated over the span of time
2) Recognizable -> this is an object which propagates any given object in the Tren by being turned on by a Recognized, previous to this it only exists as a possibility
3) Recognized -> this is an object which propagates any given object by pairing with any Recognizable and activating it, making it surface to existence
4) Propagation -> the pairing of a surfaced Recognizable with an object of intrinsic value causing its propagation
5) Reactionarity -> the success or failure of an object of the Tren, leading to further consequences, from deteriorations of the system to uplifting to new heights to chain-reactions of failure to chain-reactions awakening myriads of new objects

The movement of Tren, contrary to Prof's Hartmanian system is not analysed in language and language use. Rather it is analysed in nature as the atomic movement of value following a deterministic pattern (though not robbed of free will as we shall see). An example becomes as such: 'a person sees a sad movie', the Tren of the person's mind/neuroendocrinology is the state of the Tren (its line of intrinsic value objects) being affected by "experiencing" as the sum of two candidates of propagation, for instance "content of experience" paired with "experience processor" propagating the state known as "experiencing", this state again will most likely lead to reactionary causing the loss of objects whose value is neglected as the person prepares for receiving the "experiencing" and the gain of objects following the same reason. The new state in turn would cause further reactionarity introducing such things as "crying", "feeling sorry for", "despairing" etc.

These are all examples of temporary IOs (intrinsic objects), they fade away quickly and enter quickly, they are part of a new term I call the "Revolver of Ethics", which is the tendencational pattern of any Tren to move from different states of being to others and then back again to a similar state. The "Revolver of Ethics" comes from the "Doughnuts of Conditionality". The idea is simple, you have a doughnut-shape (call it a torus if you prefer), this doughnut represents the whole. In the void spot at the centre of the doughnut we put a label name which represents this whole in a single reference name. However, the doughnut, being a whole, consists of parts, namely, the doughnut can be chopped up into chunks where each chunk represents any part of the whole.

There never was any whole without all of its parts, that would not be a complete whole. However, from this spot on, we add a new doughnut, bigger than this one, making out an outer doughnut surrounding the now inner doughnut. The inner doughnut is the whole, with its parts chunked up, but what is the whole of the parts? What makes out a part? In any set you cannot change the members or the set would also change, however, the parts aren't sets, not proper subsets, instead they are representations of real-world phenomena, which has to be propagated least it would cease to exist and the whole as the set would therefore also no longer exist. The propagations needed for these chunks, these parts, can be represented in the first outer doughnut, however, here we have a different situation as although any set (of intrinsic objects) is unique (since all of its members are unique the set becomes a uniqueness through combination) the parts aren't sets (of intrinsic objects) and isn't subject to uniqueness, meaning, they have variations for what makes them themselves! Many different combinations of things can propagate the same object of intrinsicness! Here we get extrinsic values as we get things which are valuable in that they are some random (but bound by some possibility of combination) and yet only valuable because they ensure the intrinsic value. Additional outer doughnuts can be added to display the level of ensuring of the ensurings of the intrinsics.

The "Revolver of Ethics" rises as multiple identities unfolds all which needs such a set of doughnuts. As the Tren versions itself the choice turns up and becomes known as "the set of abilities", or the set of other identities for which the Tren can evolve to, and reasoning of choice becomes the influencing needed to trigger the determinate move to any of these other identities, to move into any ability.

In the system of ethics and axiology portrayed here value is treated as the will of the world to carry on with itself and the things in it. Humans are not as such "carriers" of value but instead subject to judgement of it conducted by the universe. That we are important to ourselves is both true and illusive, because we only find importance through us being part of the universe. When any Tren reaches an ensured state of ability, that is, it finds a "Revolver of Ethics" for which it will rest peacefully in and not deteriorate from or fly high from. Whatever choices humans make, whatever they may value, all of it will in the end be subject to this above, all of it will fall judgement to it, and all wills of succeeding must respect it, and utterly succumb to it, or they would sooner or later be neglected by the universe and they could say whatever they wanted about the value of what they did but whatever that value it wasn't real as it died in the face of reality, in the face of determinism.