Re: Announcing a new science - its name is ETHICS
Posted: Sun Mar 19, 2017 10:47 pm
Greetings creativesoul
Yes, you are correct, cs, a "frame-of-reference" is a Systemic Value, an S-value.
As to your first question, see Ch. 5 at this link:
http://wadeharvey.myqol.com/wadeharvey/ ... Course.pdf
The title of that chapter is "What is Science?"
Yes, while the theory of a science is usually valued systemically, when that theory is applied to the world or the universe it is often valued Intrinsically, which as explained in Basic Ethics, is a valuation equivalent to the power of the continuum. S-value is merely finite, but elastic. See pp. 2-11 in the above link. It tells how the dimensions are appropriately measured. Yes, life is indeed "larger than logic." There is no contradiction. The polymath creative genius, Robert Hartman, the founder of Value Science, employed systems to put systems in their place ...in terms of the priority we should give them in life. Fractional value, the value of transpositions (confused combinations) is even lower than S-value. All this is explained in the early pages of ETHICS; A College Course.
See also pp. 5-8 here: http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/BASIC%20ETHICS.pdf
for another presentation outlining the dimensions of value - which form a spectrum analogous to the electromagnetic spectrum. The 2014 explanation is more compact, and assumes earlier study, such as that in the college course manual. The Kindle (look inside for free) pages of the 2017 book gives similar details about these dimensions of value.
Your second inquiry is about how the science defines "Morality." In the link offered in the previous paragraph, a link to Basic Ethics: a systematic approach, see pp. 29-35 for a thorough treatment of this issue. The symbolic logic symbols - not given there - are x epsilon X, which signify the class-membership relation of a self to a Self. It is all explicated clearly in the passage to which we refer: Pages 29-35 in the booklet Basic Ethics.
I understand that Philosophers don't read books any more.....?! due to the influence of the internet-shaped attention spans; but a little bit of study is necessary if one is to comprehend the latest in paradigm shifts and concept breakthroughs. Consider it as "Breaking news!!"
Yes, you are correct, cs, a "frame-of-reference" is a Systemic Value, an S-value.
As to your first question, see Ch. 5 at this link:
http://wadeharvey.myqol.com/wadeharvey/ ... Course.pdf
The title of that chapter is "What is Science?"
Yes, while the theory of a science is usually valued systemically, when that theory is applied to the world or the universe it is often valued Intrinsically, which as explained in Basic Ethics, is a valuation equivalent to the power of the continuum. S-value is merely finite, but elastic. See pp. 2-11 in the above link. It tells how the dimensions are appropriately measured. Yes, life is indeed "larger than logic." There is no contradiction. The polymath creative genius, Robert Hartman, the founder of Value Science, employed systems to put systems in their place ...in terms of the priority we should give them in life. Fractional value, the value of transpositions (confused combinations) is even lower than S-value. All this is explained in the early pages of ETHICS; A College Course.
See also pp. 5-8 here: http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/BASIC%20ETHICS.pdf
for another presentation outlining the dimensions of value - which form a spectrum analogous to the electromagnetic spectrum. The 2014 explanation is more compact, and assumes earlier study, such as that in the college course manual. The Kindle (look inside for free) pages of the 2017 book gives similar details about these dimensions of value.
Your second inquiry is about how the science defines "Morality." In the link offered in the previous paragraph, a link to Basic Ethics: a systematic approach, see pp. 29-35 for a thorough treatment of this issue. The symbolic logic symbols - not given there - are x epsilon X, which signify the class-membership relation of a self to a Self. It is all explicated clearly in the passage to which we refer: Pages 29-35 in the booklet Basic Ethics.
I understand that Philosophers don't read books any more.....?! due to the influence of the internet-shaped attention spans; but a little bit of study is necessary if one is to comprehend the latest in paradigm shifts and concept breakthroughs. Consider it as "Breaking news!!"