How and why the Hierarchy of Value formula is sound

[Logik]

If it does not have to, then we really don't need it do we?

And you are free not to rely on it.

Me? I hate mundane and repetitive tasks - I get bored.
So if I can automate it - I will. I am lazy like that.

Plus computers don't whine like humans when they work 24/7/365.

[Eodnhoj7]

If it does not have to, then we really don't need it do we?

And you are free not to rely on it.

Me - I like automating mundane parts of my life. I hate mundane and repetitive tasks - I get bored.
So if I can automate it - I will. I am lazy like that.

Automating everything is a mundane task of repeating the same thing. The problem is that you are lazy and cannot find meaning in the simple things.

[Logik]

Automating everything is a mundane task of repeating the same thing.

It's not. Every problem is slightly different. If it were repetitive - a computer could do it

The problem is that you are lazy and cannot find meaning in the simple things.

I can find meaning in simple things.

But I like traveling. And I have to pay for those 10 business class flights somehow.

I automate things - people pay me for it.

If you like simple and mundane things, make sure a computer can't do it. Or I will automate your job soon enough.

[Eodnhoj7]

Automating everything is a mundane task of repeating the same thing.

It's not. Every problem is slightly different. If it were repetitive - a computer could do it

The problem is that you are lazy and cannot find meaning in the simple things.

I can find meaning in simple things.

But I like traveling. And I have to pay for those business class tickets somehow.

I automate things - people pay me for it.

So it is all about money to you?

As to meaning...actually you can't.

You "need" other's.
You "need" machines.
You "need"..."need"..."need".

The only thing I need is to face reality for what it is and assume it for what it is, this is reason in its purest form.

Yesterday by dog was dying from kidney failure. He died like we all will. You know how I took that "darkness" and "converted" it to light? I showed compassion to my little buddy. I held him in my arms. We took a nap. And while he was dying I spent time with him and comforted him where I could. Why? Because he is a small extension of me...by "quality" alone. In show love to him, I showed love to myself. Sad? Yes. Hurt? Yes. But pleasure?...Yes by embracing all for what it is.

Now this is a lesser example of some of the extremes the human condition has to deal with, but it is a universal example nonetheless.

That is the same for all things in life. Why travel when those in front of us need us? What so I can see variations of the same thing?

That is something a computer cannot give: Quality to life and death. Calculate that into lambda calculus...you cannot. Yet you push "pleasure", but what good is pleasure if pleasure is meaningless.

The solution to the problem of life and death lies within the self...one must simply embrace what is in front of them regardless of the pain or pleasure which comes from it.

You see what you represent is a belief in avoiding all forms of death and displeasure through a hedonism which robs the human condition of any sense of "meaning" by providing a continual distraction.

[Logik]

So it is all about money to you?

I don't know about you, but economic freedom is a nice place to be.
Between poverty and this - I will choose this every time.

As to meaning...actually you can't.

You "need" other's.
You "need" machines.
You "need"..."need"..."need".

If straw-manning me at every step gives you meaning then whatever.

I'll be your windmill, Don Quixote!

The only thing I need is to face reality for what it is and assume it for what it is, this is reason in its purest form.

Really? You don't want to experience less death around you? You don't want to experience less suffering?
You don't want to reduce poverty?

And I am the asshole?

Yesterday by dog was dying from kidney failure. He died like we all will. You know how I took that "darkness" and "converted" it to light? I showed compassion to my little buddy. I held him in my arms. We took a nap. And while he was dying I spent time with him and comforted him where I could. Why? Because he is a small extension of me...by "quality" alone. In show love to him, I showed love to myself. Sad? Yes. Hurt? Yes. But pleasure?...Yes by embracing all for what it is.

We can do kidney transplants for humans. Why can't we do them for dogs? Now imagine a world where kidney failure was as easy to treat as a headache.

If we COULD get to such world, would you want to go there or would you rather let your dog die?
I want less pain and suffering - and you call ME the asshole...

How do you think we are ever going to get to such a world without somebody spending the time working on those problems?
Who is going to pay for those people's time? Nobody works for free!

That is something a computer cannot give: Quality to life and death. Calculate that into lambda calculus...you cannot. Yet you push "pleasure", but what good is pleasure if pleasure is meaningless.

Is that so? Have you looked at the field of bionics recently?

Deaf people can hear with cochlear implants ( https://www.cochlear.com/au/home/unders ... ar-implant )
Blind people can see ( https://www.israel21c.org/digital-glass ... -impaired/ )
Amputees can control digital limbs ( https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-mar ... ense-again )
Artificial organs promise a future where we don't need organ donors ( http://www.mirm.pitt.edu/our-research/f ... al-organs/ )

Inside each of those digital devices you will find a computer.

Your cynicism knows no bounds!

The solution to the problem of life and death lies within the self...one must simply embrace what is in front of them regardless of the pain or pleasure which comes from it.

You see what you represent is a belief in avoiding all forms of death and displeasure through a hedonism which robs the human condition of any sense of "meaning" by providing a continual distraction.

You are fucked up. You recognise pain and suffering. You experience it - fine. We all do.

But you wish it upon everybody! That makes you an enormous asshole.

[Eodnhoj7]

So it is all about money to you?

I don't know about you, but economic freedom is a nice place to be.
Between poverty and this - I will choose this every time.

I had economic freedom, it never gave me the balance all men need. Is it a part of life? Yes. Is it the whole of life? Definitely not. Rich people kill themselves all the time.

As to meaning...actually you can't.

You "need" other's.
You "need" machines.
You "need"..."need"..."need".

If straw-manning me at every step gives you meaning then whatever.

I'll be your windmill, Don Quixote!

Actually under-mining the human condition by quantifying is the ultimate strawman.

The only thing I need is to face reality for what it is and assume it for what it is, this is reason in its purest form.

Really? You don't want to experience less death around you? You don't want to experience less suffering?
You don't want to reduce poverty?

And I am the asshole?

I want all these things...and I see the world that men like you create and you multiply the problems and make them worse. Even then the human condition is not bound to this world alone, so paradise is a false way of viewing things. The only question is how one achieves balance.

Yesterday by dog was dying from kidney failure. He died like we all will. You know how I took that "darkness" and "converted" it to light? I showed compassion to my little buddy. I held him in my arms. We took a nap. And while he was dying I spent time with him and comforted him where I could. Why? Because he is a small extension of me...by "quality" alone. In show love to him, I showed love to myself. Sad? Yes. Hurt? Yes. But pleasure?...Yes by embracing all for what it is.

We can do kidney transplants for humans. Why can't we do them for dogs? Now imagine a world where kidney failure was as easy to treat as a headache.

Then it will just be another disease that cannot be treated. If not kidney disease then another. The only rational thing to due, when all option run out (and they do), is to practice compassion. Absence of compassion is what causes the majority of the world's problems to begin with.



If we COULD get to such world, would you want to go there or would you rather let your dog die?
I want less pain and suffering - and you call ME the asshole...

I am not calling you an asshole...I am calling your world-view the source of the complications.

How do you think we are ever going to get to such a world without somebody spending the time working on those problems?
Who is going to pay for those people's time? Nobody works for free!

Nobody will be working period when AI takes over. As a matter of fact AI will just quantify us into numbers until it implodes on itself.

That is something a computer cannot give: Quality to life and death. Calculate that into lambda calculus...you cannot. Yet you push "pleasure", but what good is pleasure if pleasure is meaningless.

Is that so? Have you looked at the field of bionics recently?

All of the below problems are premised on whether or not people can afford them. Those who society deems fit. Second many of these health issues are caused my modern means of living and well as modern industrial accidents/warfare. These issues always existed, the manner we treat them only changes.

I dealt with the amish plenty of times, they build great stuff but admit to more injuries with power tools than basic hand tools (I see it all the time on construction sites).



Deaf people can hear with cochlear implants ( https://www.cochlear.com/au/home/unders ... ar-implant )
Blind people can see ( https://www.israel21c.org/digital-glass ... -impaired/ )
Amputees can control digital limbs ( https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-mar ... ense-again )
Artificial organs promise a future where we don't need organ donors ( http://www.mirm.pitt.edu/our-research/f ... al-organs/ )

Inside each of those digital devices you will find a computer.

Your cynicism knows no bounds!

You eradicating the human condition knows no bounds, there will be noone left to even be cynical if people just live in virtual reality all day.

The solution to the problem of life and death lies within the self...one must simply embrace what is in front of them regardless of the pain or pleasure which comes from it.

You see what you represent is a belief in avoiding all forms of death and displeasure through a hedonism which robs the human condition of any sense of "meaning" by providing a continual distraction.

You are fucked up. You recognise pain and suffering. You experience it - fine. We all do.

But you wish it upon everybody! That makes you an enormous asshole.

No. What I am saying is that suffering is unavoidable and the only way to deal with it is to negate the sources of the suffering as much as one can. The modern world multiplies the very same problems it seeks to cure. Part of this is by avoiding the issue of suffering itself: Man's state of being. If one's values are wrong, as well as there perspectives, it does not matter what one invents...man will just ruin it.

You think suffering is walking 5 extra miles a day.

Seeing a kid put on psychiatric drugs is much worse and way more insulting to the human condition.


What you represent is a killing of the human spirit in the face of endless distractions and gadgets to give solution to the problems civilization created. It is just a pointless cycle.

[FlashDangerpants]

Examples of I-value are: life, love, liberty ... empathy, and compassion.

I-value is also very important when it comes to defining "Ethics." Ethics is a perspective. It arises when an individual is II-valued or a group of individuals are I-valued.

That is the definition of Ethics in the structural analysis of the moral/ethical field, as explained clearly in the Unified Theory of Ethics.

Your views are welcomed.......

Other examples of I-value being: hate, scorn, envy, 'chewing gum and kicking ass', exclusion, obfuscation, dismissal, fear, disdain and derision?

The answer to your question is, No. Those are not examples of I-value, although some of them, such as scorn, have an I-value component in their analysis, in the calculus. What is quoted in the paragraph immediately-above this one shows a complete misunderstanding.

Yes, I-valuation is the realm of emotion, emphasis, personalization, but disdain and derision are unethical and immoral; and fear and obfuscation are the specialty of trolls, and those, along with disdain and derision, are the opposite of being ethical.

As most of you know, Ethics pertains to kindness and consideration, to making things better, to helpfulness, assuming responsibility, and to cooperation.

There is no point in extending this thread further. I shall be leaving here now. The spirit of cooperation I was hopeful about has completely evaporated, if it ever existed.

What a shame

So they meet the criteria via your maths formula, but they are arbitrarily excluded because you don't want them in your schema.

It's almost sad that the first time you tried to explain and defend the actual undergarments of your theory you failed so badly that you had to ragequit the forum. But it was sort of predictable, as was the desperate insinuation that the failure of your life's work is our fault for not getting on board with a bankrupt theory.

[prof]

As most of you know, Ethics pertains to kindness and consideration, to making things better, to helpfulness, assuming responsibility, and to cooperation.

Here is part one of an essay I scribbled off recently, offered here for your interest and enjoyment:

-----------KINDNESS IS NOT ENOUGH!---------------

The Wheeling, Illinois Public School District has a program called “Show Kindness.” Here is a quotation with information about it:

“As part of their multicultural literature class, a group of Wheeling High School students raised over $1,500 to donate to Journeys, a local homeless organization.
Since 2012, Christine Pacyk, a Wheeling High School teacher, has run the Compassion Project, which allows high school seniors in her multicultural literature class to research and identify a cause they can support. This year, students chose Journeys.”

“Monday marked World Kindness Day, and fourth-grade students at Field Elementary School in Wheeling, Illinois did their part by paying a surprise visit to London Middle School to put up cheerful signs and Post-it notes.

Wearing "Be Kind" T-shirts, the Field fourth-graders crossed Dundee Road to visit nearby London, where they will attend grades 6-8. A few London students were in on the surprise and helped the younger Field students as they moved around the building to attach colorful signs and notes to lockers and on walls.”
“At the fourth graders' suggestion, each class in the school made kindness cards to give to their buddy classroom. Students didn't know, however, that other classes were also creating kindness cards for a school-wide exchange. The cards were paired with small gifts, like boxes of crayons, keychains, water bottles, or small toys, donated by local organizations.”

"Our students are so kind and thoughtful, and it was incredible to watch them through this process," said Kate Lapetino, fourth grade teacher at Field Elementary School. "Their excitement was palpable as they were creating cards for their buddies. Seeing the surprise and appreciation on their faces when they realized they had received kindness cards in return was so rewarding."

“The surprise coincided with World Kindness Day on November 13. Throughout the year, Field students have focused on ways to show kindness through random acts like greeting someone in the hallway, holding open a door, or offering to help. Students track acts of kindness - performed by themselves and others, within and outside of the school - by following #fieldkindness on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. Generous donations from Indian Trails Library, Wheeling Police Department, Lakeshore Learning, Traffic Tech, and Nanooze Magazines made the kindness surprise possible.”

While it is commendable that the Wheeling Iilinois School District is encouraging and endorsing kindness, let us keep in mind that what people really want is a Quality Life (a QL); what this consists of will shortly be clarified. In order to have a Quality Life kindness is part of it but it is not enough. {The academics would say: “kindness is necessary but not sufficient.”}

[...continued in next post, q.v.]

[prof]

to continue that paper, here is part two....

What is needed for a QL is kindness plus for each of us to commit to moral improvement throughout all of our life.
The premiss we Life Counsellors start with is: Make things better! This is the axiom for human development.1
__________
1) See Marvin Katz – The Structure of Ethics (2019).
. http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/TH ... ETHICS.pdf

There are two components to this.
1) Make it better for yourself.
2) Make it better for others.
In order to make it better for yourself your behavior is to more-and-more approximate your image of your ideal self. This happens as you learn more of the moral principles and devote yourself to living them in practice.

You also better yourself as you come to know yourself, to accept yourself as you are (with all your flaws and weaknesses), yet you make the conscious choice to be true to your best self. Then you are to create yourself (i.e., develop your talents, gifts, and capacities.) And then you give yourself. (Express for the world these gifts.) That is the process for truly bettering yourself in this world.

Many kids growing up, if they have not inherited wealth from their parents or guardians, would like to have some money or the things that money can buy. What they need to learn is:

1) Before you can have you need to do. What does that mean? Before a person can have money s/he needs to accomplish something that society finds to be valuable.

2) Before you do, you need to be. That is to say, before a person can really accomplish something one needs to be true to one’s true self. How? The answer is to keep improving morally throughout one’s lifetime.


What is involved in moral improvement toward the goal of becoming one’s ideal self? It is simple: the more one gains knowledge of moral principles, and the more one lives up to them, one is evolving morally. These principles are not rules; they are merely guidelines.

One may ask: guidelines to what? They are guidelines to a smooth, well-lived life – a trouble-free life, a life with as little aggravation as possible.

That is how you ‘make it better’ for yourself: you claim your human rights while keeping in mind that there are no rights without responsibility! Therefore you assume responsibility. You seek it out. You take it on. To say it briefly, you DO. You insist on excellence in your own performance of a task. You want to do it both efficiently and effectively. What is the difference between these two ideas?
(to be continued....)

[prof]

continuing the essay....

To do something efficiently is to do it with the least cost of time, energy, money, and material.

To do something effectively is to put people first and foremost; things and stuff next; and systems, opinions, dogma, and creeds last. (To say that systems have least value is not saying that they have no value.) To be effective is to know your priorities! It is to care about others and avoid disparaging them, degrading them, failing to show them some respect. Give them this respect just because they’re human.

To be effective is to value individuals highly, to get involved, to care and share, to cooperate on a common goal, to work together for a worthwhile end in view.

Note that the Ultimate Goal for a QL is to provide a QL for one and all. For example, one could feed and shelter the homeless. See these websites: https://www.habitat.org/volunteer

https://nationalhomeless.org/references/need-help/

What is a QL, a Quality Life? It consists of happiness and well-being. (It also means an ethical life. It is living ethically.)

[How does the kindness principle apply in business? One part of it is known as “customer service” and customers cannot get enough of this.]

To learn of some basic Moral Principles, see pp. 27-28 of The Structure of Ethics book, referred to in Footnote 1.

To learn more details about the nature of “well-being,” see pages 33-34 of that same document.
To learn the properties of an ethical business, see Chapter Five in The Structure book.
~~~~~~~~~

Comments? Questions? Analyses?

[planetlonely23]

In a spirit of cooperation with Flash Dangerpants, I am taking a suggestion he offered to initiate a new thread.

This thread also is in keeping with Kant's book, Logik, written earlier, but translated into English in 1800, a book in which he introduces three basic kinds of concepts: the construct, the abstraction (or classification or categorization), and the unicept (or singularity.)

He also explains three kinds of method: the Synthetic - the method of science, where one begins with primary properties and then adds secondary refinements later;
the Analytic method, which is the procedure in philosophy [of clarifying and analyzing vague concepts in an effort to make them more clear and sharp. It proceeds by comparing and contrasting, by categorizing, rarely defining terms, 'having words chasing words,,' etc.;
and then Kant tells us about (what today we would speak of as) the axiomatic method where the "synthetic a priori" is central. That latter - the axiom - takes a fertile assumption, spins out its implications employing both deduction and induction.
=== Let's get started.

HOW & WHY THE HIERARCHY- OF-VALUE FORMULA IS SOUND

Robert S. Hartman (1910 – 1973) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_S._Hartman created the ‘Axiom of Value.’ With the Axiom of Value – which is the formal definition of the term “value” (which we will soon elucidate) - and with standard set theory, we will below demonstrate that once the axiom is applied to the concept value itself, it comes up with three basic dimensions: S, E, and I. This, as you will note, is a logical procedure.

{It yields potentially hundreds of definitions of other terms that are related to one another, bother both as to degree of “betterness”, and as to how they correlate with other terms having the same dimension of value.} Here is a link to a chart containing some of these new terms; there will, of course, be some primitive terms that are undefined, as in any system. See the table in End Note 4 (see pp. 64-66) here: http://wadeharvey.myqol.com/wadeharvey/ ... ETHICS.pdf

, we will explain later that when the axiom is applied to the concept “value” we derive three dimensions of value, as follows:

[There are three kinds of number which mathematicians acknowledge: finite; denumerable; and nondenumerable. Or, to say it another way, finite, countable, and uncountable.

[To illustrate, think of “7” (or the letter n in algebra which refers to) numbers which are finite. Then think of the integers: these numbers are countable but nonfinite since they go on indefinitely. And then think of the number of points in a continuous line segment: which is an uncountable number.]

So a value which - by definition - has only a finite amount of the properties required to fulfill its description (i.e., its concept’s intension) will be named S-value – where S stands for Systemic. (For all practical purposes, the intensions of these concepts are finite but elastic.)

A value which is defined as having only a denumerable (a countable) amount of properties will be spoken of as an E-value, where the E stands for Extrinsic.

And a value which – by definition - has a nondenumerable (an uncountable) amount of the property-names (attributes) which are needed to describe something (or someone) having uncountably-many properties {such as your mother, your wife, your dear friend, your priceless treasure, a museum-quality artifact, etc.) ...that value dimension we shall dub I-value, wherein I stands for Intrinsic.
...continued in next post.....

Hierarchial values created a dichotomy where the raising of one thing results in the lower of another. The creation of Good results in Evil, and vice versa and as such set morality as grounded in an inherent relativism that reflects within the divergence of values by the continual act of "comparison". Morality grounded in a progression necessitates a problem in not just observing "equality" but the very fact equality itself necessates a form of seperation in and of itself as "equality" already necessitates a form of seperation resulting in the inherent absence of "unity" necessary for any structure to occur.

The nature of hierarchy is not only relativistic, but necessitates all value systems as existing through a process of directed movement and the foundations of being are "again" reduced to spatial axioms and we are left with a common grounding in traditional values we inevitably progressed away from.

Hierarchial values should be replaced with cyclical ones reflective of the golden rule, where self and self/self and group/group and group values exist as an intertwine system of "reflection" where morality fundamentally is an act of creating the self/other's/self through the manifestation of certain limits within the human condition as the human condition. In simpler terms morality is a process of turning chaos into order by a process of giving definition to irrational elements.

Practically this can be observed in the practice of moderation as a universal habit by observing the center between two extremes as the embracement of both; thus necessitating morality as conducive to a process of "joining" or a rationalized version of agape, philios and eros as center points to the other.

Vice must be accepted and redirected, as vice is an inherent disintegration of the human condition and as such is subject to an inherent law of entropy. The golden rule necessitates a process of inversion where nothingness is fundamentally eliminated under a process of self-reflection in which common grounds are observed in seemingly seperate aspects of the self and self/ self and group/ group and group. To eliminate vice effectively causes it to expand.

In these respects, at the practical level, morality takes on the form of a dialogue necessitating all practical endeavors as reflecting on "truth".

Furthermore morality takes on a foundation in equilibrium; and the elimination of evil can only occur through the creation of good. The question of what is "good" however always necessitates a form of "unity" as order exists in accords with an inherent nature of unity. What is "evil" effectively is an act of seperation in a manner where unity is not maintained.

Creating technology to solve practical problems at the expense of the alienation of quality causes an absence of unity.
Avoiding technology dually results in the same problem.

Hence a middle path with equilibrium determined intuitively determined by a sense of quality and unity it brings, quantititively where resource formation and use are in equilibrium. Etc.

The moral grounding of the Golden Rule necessitates equilibrium by not just observing a middle path of temperance at the individual and group level, but also observing a change in a values system at the rational (not just intuitive) level where all phenomenon, and hence the human condition, are center points for further phenomenon; as such they are meaningful in and of themselves.

The question of a value system is grounded in the question of measurement.


This sets a strong problem for using "kant" as a foundation, as this nature of "space" as being primarily subjective results in a subject value system that effectually causes an inherent absence of objectivity in values causing the same moral dilemma he seeks to avoid.

Kant is dead, he is a ghost story for a time where philosophy is stuck in a blinding night. Western nihilism is grounded in the inherent entropy of reason previous philosopher's failed to take into account when setting a system of metaphysics as a cornerstone of the cultures they defined. If entropy is viewed as a law, and not as a problem, the nature of the problem will not be projected as a sort of "existential paranoia" that is the grounding for the lack of equilibrium in the values systems we currently "observe".

Values are not enough established in society we need to consider that values are necessary, and we must add them day to day in our lives, for example what about the idea of justice (but not only to analyse in a moral way which determine our idea of justice of each situation of life), but also we are not assessing in a educational way. Involving what is around justice, for example we decide by ourselves what to choice when you collect the onions under the ground, but you can not choice them when you go to a shop, because the grocer decides to sell you the ones he decides, so you had the opportunity to choice them, but ethics says us that he should give the right ones, but he needs to sell them to survive, so finally the idea of justice is showed as a subjective value and moral way, the ethic will say that the grocer should sell the best and healthy products. Justice is missing not for bad education but also for not having the right habit to use it, and if we enhanced the justice as major value, we will learn from it as something that is our priority to support others.

[FlashDangerpants]

There is no point in extending this thread further. I shall be leaving here now. The spirit of cooperation I was hopeful about has completely evaporated, if it ever existed.

continuing the essay....

So you as usual, you ran into questions you couldn't answer. Then you threw a little strop. And now you are just changing the subject completely to pretend nothing happened.

[prof]

The topic is setting priorities. The Hierarchy of Value formula (the HOV) aids us in doing that. For example:

Intrinsic Value: To be.

Extrinsic Value: To do.

Systemic Value: To have [money, stocks, bonds, credits, interest, or any constituent of a financial system.]

Thus it follows that in order to have, an individual first shall be, then do. "To be" is to be real, not a phony like trolls are.

...There was no 'change of subject.'


All constructive criticism is welcome.
Comments? Questions? Criticism? Contributions?

[FlashDangerpants]

The topic is setting priorities. The Hierarchy of Value formula (the HOV) aids us in doing that. For example:

Intrinsic Value: To be.

Extrinsic Value: To do.

Systemic Value: To have [money, stocks, bonds, credits, interest, or any constituent of a financial system.]

Thus it follows that in order to have, an individual first shall be, then do. "To be" is to be real, not a phony like trolls are.

...There was no 'change of subject.'


All constructive criticism is welcome.
Comments? Questions? Criticism? Contributions?

The topic is not how lovely you think the HOV is, it is how you propose to justify it properly.

You haven't actually addressed the problem with I-values. So yes, you did change the conversation - you always do when you aren't getting your way. Obviously you sulked and said you weren't playing anymore first - which is hardly out of character either. Now you call everyone who doesn't agree with you troll .... agaaaaain.

Your great discovery a while ago was time-units of attention - this was supposed to give the mathematical basis for calculating an I-value was it not? The other things I listed are just as much evidence of giving an object your attention as the things you like. You have no basis for excluding them from I-value other than that you don't like them, which is not sufficient unless you are going to finally drop the pretence of philosophy and science, and admit you are just a self-help guru with very few followers.

[prof]

My utility function is that which I spend most of my time doing.
...Preferences can be measured as actual choices between options.

Preferences, of course, are values, one category of values. Robert Hartman's friend, Nick Rescher, wrote a book offering a logic of preferences. It is a tiny book and is one that logicians can enjoy. "Preference" is a concept that Economists, Psychologists, and Ethicists find useful.

Your great discovery a while ago was time-units of attention - this was supposed to give the mathematical basis for calculating an I-value

Thank you, Flash for reminding readers of what they can find in my writings. You are turning out to be a good student. You have skill at doing research.
Yes, I did contribute that insight to value theory and to Ethics.
It was an independent discovery on my part. At the time I came up with it, I was unaware that Economists were already employing it as a measure of what they call "utility. "Utility, of course, is another sort of value.
When a time factor is introduced, empirical science has already shown us that measurement is present: for time can be assigned a number. For example, "3 milliseconds," "five minutes," "three years."

Once researchers can measure what they are working on, or with, they can devise technologies that will further enhance the evolution of ethical human beings. And then designers can go to work and improve the results to make them even more pleasant for people to enjoy. I am looking forward to readers contributing their insights: designing better institutions that serve the people more efficiently as we get closer to attaining the goal in the Preamble of the U.S. constitution: to 'provide for the general welfare.' In other words, for the common good.

Thanks to everyone here for doing your bit. Philosophy will continue as long as people have questions!

Actually, Robert S. Hartman gave a mathematical basis for calculating I-value, as readers can see from the Wiki topic 'Science of Value.' The measure of I-value is Aleph-one, which is a transfinite number from G. Cantor's Theory of Transfinite Sets. Hartman also developed an Algebra of Value which employs exponentiation of positive and negative numbers.

Ethics, and ethical theory, are concerned with kindness, with being nice to people, to being decent. Thus Ethics is not consistent with disparagement, disrespect, and disdain for others. Those who indulge in the latter conduct are either selfish, self-centered, or rather ignorant. It is true, isn't it, that such conduct is the opposite of being ethical.