What do people yearn for today?

[prof]

I'd really like to read your comments on this new approach to the ethical life.

I am not claiming they are conscious of it, yet today people are hungry ... but they don't know what they are hungry for. However, when they see it, they want it! When they learn about continuous value creation, they know they want it. [Recall that there was no particular market for the i-pad before it came out, but once it did, there turned out to be a strong demand for it. ...and, lately, for the i-phone. I am in what follows suggesting an analogy to this... only in the realm of ideas.]

Some of us want to change the world for the better. We pioneers are looking for people who are early-responders, trend-setters, the first to try a new technology. We praise them for being among those few who are the first to take a look at something new -- in this case, the axiogenic perspective. For once they know how plausible and sensible it is, they begin planting seeds - like a farmer who nourishes an entire village. Let me explain what I mean:

I speak of "seeds." These ideas are seeds. They are kindling and sparks that start a big fire. These ideas - these sparks - may lead us to keep asking ourselves the Central Question of Life, and ask others to do the same. [See the recent book, ANSWERING THE CENTRAL QUESTION by Demerest & Schoof, (2011)]. What is the Central Question? It is: How can I create value, here and now? For life is about creating value. . Let's work for this to be the commonsense norm, the prevailing ethos.

Now, today, the commonsense norm is: "Life is all about ME How can I get what I want?" It's a win/lose mentality. It's about ruthless rivalry. That's the prevailing perspective. But it's out of whack.

Here's why. Life isn't about me winning and you losing. It's about us maximizing value (or at least increasing it.) {Net value - for all concerned - ought to be continually improved, wouldn't you agree? Value, and the Universe, is infinite in its potential. Let's go on the assumption that we can extend its outward horizons.}

In an imperfect world there are limits; you will concur, won't you, that this world isn't yet perfect. However, the better we can make the world, the more we remove the limits ....or at least extend them outward.

The ideal -- as many who post here have written -- is balance, harmony, and clarity. If one overvalues things or systems, then one is doing it at the expense of other factors and qualities which are pushed aside. Our internal life is then out of balance. Systems (as well as theories, hypotheses, philosophical ideologies) are wonderful in their place. But if a focus on them results in dis-valuing people then one's life is full of needless stress. It will wear a person down and have other unwanted consequences. There is a price to pay for distorted thought processes. [Research has shown that some people are so preoccupied with rules, and with authority, that they 'step' on people.]

Those who believe, with all sincerity, that the universe is a remarkably harmonious system tend to be at peace with themselves. They have a serenity that others don't have. But those who overvalue that thought, rank it too high in their personal value pattern (their self-image), they are NOT at peace. They have a high need for it, but haven't a clue as to how to have it. They may be passionate and focused on many other aspects of life, but serene they are not.

As you know, thought processes may lead to behavior, but they are not behavior. Those who have tension - due to a habit of overvaluing or undervaluing - tend to develop compensating behaviors ...as research studies show: Due to frustration and anger, instead of "biting your head off", many individuals will bite their tongue - literally! That's behavior.

Yes, now and then our amygdala region in our brain, lights up, it gets stimulated; some events (when interpreted) trigger it off. (The brain at that point seems to be hijacking our quest for morality, our striving to be a good person, to be ethical.) Then we show frustration. We are quick to anger. It happens. But if, at that moment, we ask ourselves a Centering Question [which Schoof & Demerest talk about in their work], the frustration tends to rapidly dissolve ! These new tools are now available. It is a new technology,, an ethical technology, applied Ethics at its best.
Maybe enough has been said to provoke further discussion.

What do you think? Do you like the new moral technology presented here?

[prof]

.


LIVE WELL AND HELP OTHERS DO THE SAME ...UNTIL EVERYONE DOES!


Give – at least – a little more than what you take. Contribute to your community.



So tell us, how do you feel about all this? Do you believe this new approach to Ethics has promise? Can you offer an upgrade? Comments? Questions?

[WanderingLands]

.


LIVE WELL AND HELP OTHERS DO THE SAME ...UNTIL EVERYONE DOES!


Give – at least – a little more than what you take. Contribute to your community.



So tell us, how do you feel about all this? Do you believe this new approach to Ethics has promise? Can you offer an upgrade? Comments? Questions?

It has promises only if each individual within his/her sphere of existence applies it to practical use. I don't believe what you are talking about in the realm of ethics seem at all to be new; if anything, I think what you're talking about is the essence of what many philosophers in the past were talking about. But then again, ideas aren't really 'new' in the universal world, aren't they?

At least there's an appreciation of ethics out there in yearning to have some form of ethical life, especially in this world of 'unconscious' decadence.

[prof]

.


LIVE WELL AND HELP OTHERS DO THE SAME ...UNTIL EVERYONE DOES!


Give – at least – a little more than what you take. Contribute to your community.



So tell us, how do you feel about all this? Do you believe this new approach to Ethics has promise? Can you offer an upgrade? Comments? Questions?

It has promises only if each individual within his/her sphere of existence applies it to practical use.

Hello, WL

Yes, that is correct: theory without application, especially in the field of Ethics, is rather useless, except as an intellectual exercise. My approach to Ethics, however, emphasizes application, as seen in that section in my paper, BASIC ETHICS (2014), which applies the value-dimensions to the topic of Norms. It concludes that the Intrinsic norms are worth the most. They are the ones where an individual makes, with strong determination, a personal and deeply-felt emotional commitment to be an ethical person. This definitely is one way that the arid theory gets to be applied in real life.

Making such a devoted commitment is one way to create value, and creating value is what Ethics is all about.

I don't believe what you are talking about in the realm of ethics seem at all to be new; if anything, I think what you're talking about is the essence of what many philosophers in the past were talking about.

Thank you. I agree: what we find in the "new" 21st-century paradigm for Ethics, if we are familiar with the history of ideas in the realm of moral philosophy, is that the proposed Hartman/Katz paradigm is rooted in ancient thought, including concepts from Mencius in ancient China; and including this form of The Golden Rule {found in dozens of cultures in every time and clime}:

Don't do to others what you don't want them to do to you!

As you know, this principle can be derived from the Axiom for Ethics along with the definition of "Ethics." (By the latter word is meant the study, the discipline, the body of useful information which I sometimes refer to as 'the science of Ethics'. Of course, theory without empiricism is not science; so Ethics has an empirical, validated test as an essential part of it that measures how and what people value.)

But then again, ideas aren't really 'new' in the universal world, aren't they?

This is true. I have in many of my posts and threads made this point, and even offered a thread on the History of ethical ideas where I showed this. One could protest that I only went back as far as Augustine, and came forward in history only to Bertrand Russel, but Augustine was prettty far back in time, relatively speaking.

At least there's an appreciation of ethics out there in yearning to have some form of ethical life, especially in this world of 'unconscious' decadence.

What you say is so true.

I believe ethical technologies - some of which I summarize early in BASIC ETHICS - have been, are are being, developed. These, and those yet to come that you could assist in innovating, may serve to educate pupils and students about Ethical concepts and do it in an efficient and effective manner. Or they may just result in making it easier for folks to behave ethically. Or they could inspire a striving for social justice, given that many, if not most, individuals already have pre-wired within them a sense that recognizes injustice and unfairness when they see it.

I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on any of the above....

[Daniel Lezcano]

I'd really like to read your comments on this new approach to the ethical life.

In an imperfect world there are limits; you will concur, won't you, that this world isn't yet perfect. However, the better we can make the world, the more we remove the limits ....or at least extend them outward.

Fascinating post! My mind is reeling - where to begin? Of the many stimuluses’ I choose …

“In an imperfect world there are limits; you will concur, won't you, that this world isn't yet perfect. However, the better we can make the world, the more we remove the limits ....or at least extend them outward.”

I might challenge you to more deeply contemplate what might be a perfect world. I believe it necessary, because you must be indicating the perfect world concept is the absolute by which you measure your progress … correct? Therefore, it be essential to define a perfect world.

I furthermore, assert that this world is possibly perfect. Let us contemplate the reality of perfection. Perfection is devoid of alternatives. Perfection cannot be wrong; it would always be right. Therefore, perfection, as it relates to the world, would be devoid of any experience; for there would be no understanding of experience unless negative experience qualified positive experience – a classic concept.

If you were to completely define “perfect world,” and had the power to make it realty, then the world could never be anything more, or most importantly less then what you have created; therefore, existence would be unconscious or pointless.

What is more, one can argue based on the above premises that is, that the closer one gets to a perfect world (as defined by what I presume to believe you mean by it,) the more limited it would become, because the possible choices would become fewer. In fact, at the pinnacle, choice would be a non-concept. Therefore, what you perceive as imperfection might very well be an essential qualifying factor of a perfect world; indeed, be the quintessential element of a perfect world (inspired loosely by Alvin Plantinga's Free Will Defense.)

Moreover, if the better one makes the world, the closer to perfection one gets, and if my notion of perfection as being devoid of experience is true, would it therefore follow that the idea as defined by the meaning of life is to better the world, would be counter intuitive?

These questions I raise begin to point at suffering as being a necessary part of the perfect world. Furthermore, I do not assert that we should not act to relieve elements of suffering; I only point that the meaning of life cannot be related with to its removal.

[prof]

Greetings, Daniel Lezcano

I am glad you found the post in the o.p. here 'fascinating.' At your service!

According to Value Science [Formal Axiology], which is the meta-language for Ethics, a perfect world is far less valuable for us than is a good world. And a good world is not nearly so valuable as a unique world. So I don't want to settle for 'a perfect world.' The latter is worth about as much as a punch-card, or a paper doll that a child uses as a cut-out. Those are "perfect" for their purposes.

Further, I agree with Leibniz that this is the best possible world - because it is the only world to which we have access. He argued that this world is, as you say, devoid of alternatives.{Nowadays cosmologists entertain a theory that there are multiple universes in the higher dimensions beyond the three-or-four common ones. An implication of this is: Anything is possible! for it can occur in one of those universes, given enough time, and time is infinite.} ...but I digress into Philosophy of physical science. Let's get back to Ethics.

In that quote you selected, which, I admit, I phrased poorly, and thus was open to misunderstanding, for which I ask forgiveness, I was merely attempting to communicate with the person-in-the-street, the non-philosopher, looking to find an area of agreement; for then we could build on 'common ground.' It seems it brought out the critic in you. I did not mean to 'make your mind reel.' I don't mind if you were stimulated by some of the concepts to think, reflect, and hopefully, to come up with an enhancement or upgrade to the proposed system.

What I was getting at was a rejoinder to those who gripe about how limited our opportunities are to create value. The main thrust of what I was wanting to say was: "the better we can make the world, the more we remove the limits...." I was urging that we look for ways to add value to a situation we find ourselves in, for, as I argue - in the thread The Case for Ethics - adding value is just as relevant in Ethics as it is in the business world, if not more so.

Thank you for your kind comments. I welcome more of your thoughts.

[Daniel Lezcano]

Greetings, Daniel Lezcano

I am glad you found the post in the o.p. here 'fascinating.' At your service!

According to Value Science [Formal Axiology], which is the meta-language for Ethics, a perfect world is far less valuable for us than is a good world. And a good world is not nearly so valuable as a unique world. So I don't want to settle for 'a perfect world.' The latter is worth about as much as a punch-card, or a paper doll that a child uses as a cut-out. Those are "perfect" for their purposes.

Further, I agree with Leibniz that this is the best possible world - because it is the only world to which we have access. He argued that this world is, as you say, devoid of alternatives.{Nowadays cosmologists entertain a theory that there are multiple universes in the higher dimensions beyond the three-or-four common ones. An implication of this is: Anything is possible! for it can occur in one of those universes, given enough time, and time is infinite.} ...but I digress into Philosophy of physical science. Let's get back to Ethics.

In that quote you selected, which, I admit, I phrased poorly, and thus was open to misunderstanding, for which I ask forgiveness, I was merely attempting to communicate with the person-in-the-street, the non-philosopher, looking to find an area of agreement; for then we could build on 'common ground.' It seems it brought out the critic in you. I did not mean to 'make your mind reel.' I don't mind if you were stimulated by some of the concepts to think, reflect, and hopefully, to come up with an enhancement or upgrade to the proposed system.

What I was getting at was a rejoinder to those who gripe about how limited our opportunities are to create value. The main thrust of what I was wanting to say was: "the better we can make the world, the more we remove the limits...." I was urging that we look for ways to add value to a situation we find ourselves in, for, as I argue - in the thread The Case for Ethics - adding value is just as relevant in Ethics as it is in the business world, if not more so.

Thank you for your kind comments. I welcome more of your thoughts.

I've not had any formal training as a philosopher; rather, it seems my nature to be one as evidenced by my attraction to it ever since childhood. So I am grateful that you provided me with terms to study …

- Axiology - The branch of philosophy dealing with the nature of value and the types of value, as in morals, aesthetics, religion, and metaphysics.
- Formal Axiology – derived from Axiology, it ia specific branch of the science of Axiology. The late Dr. Robert S. Hartman developed this science between 1930 and 1973. It is a unique social science because it is the only social science that has a one to one relationship between a field of mathematics (transfinite set calculus) and its dimensions.
- Metalanguage - any language or symbolic system used to discuss, describe, or analyze another language or symbolic system.

Those definitions will go on my dry erase board. I will continue my research on all of the above, as well as your argument, and attempt a contribution later ….

[Bill Wiltrack]

.



What do people yearn for today?

Food, clothing, shelter.



.......................................




And I think, for many people, including the original poster - a voice; a microphone so that other members and beyond can hear their opinions.



.

[prof]

Greetings, Daniel Lezcano

I am glad you found the post in the o.p. here 'fascinating.' At your service!

According to Value Science [Formal Axiology], which is the meta-language for Ethics, a perfect world is far less valuable for us than is a good world. And a good world is not nearly so valuable as a unique world. So I don't want to settle for 'a perfect world.' The latter is worth about as much as a punch-card, or a paper doll that a child uses as a cut-out. Those are "perfect" for their purposes....

The main thrust of what I was wanting to say was: "the better we can make the world, the more we remove the limits...." I was urging that we look for ways to add value to a situation we find ourselves in, for, as I argue - in the thread The Case for Ethics - adding value is just as relevant in Ethics as it is in the business world, if not more so.

Thank you for your kind comments. I welcome more of your thoughts.

...I will continue my research on ... your argument, and attempt a contribution later ….

Excellent

A good way to do this would be to go to this thread viewtopic.php?f=8&t=14391 and click on each link offered there, study the referenced material that is linked to, take notes of concepts learned. Then ask questions here if there are points that require clarification.

It may also help to acquire background knowledge by reading these earlier papers or documents:

Ethics as Science, published here: http://www.workforworldpeace.org/ethicsasscience.htm

ETHICS: A College Course - http://www.hartmaninstitute.org/wp-cont ... course.pdf

A Unified Theory of Ethics (in five parts) - A UNIFIED THEORY OF ETHICS - http://tinyurl.com/crz6xea

These two are rather brief parts - actually Parts II and III - continuing in the same literary style of dialog:
ETHICAL ADVENTURES - http://tinyurl.com/38zfrh7

and see also the paper, ETHICAL EXPLORATIONS - http://tinyurl.com/22ohd2x

Your impressions, Dan, are welcome !

[Daniel Lezcano]

I'd really like to read your comments on this new approach to the ethical life.

I am not claiming they are conscious of it, yet today people are hungry ... but they don't know what they are hungry for. However, when they see it, they want it! When they learn about continuous value creation, they know they want it. [Recall that there was no particular market for the i-pad before it came out, but once it did, there turned out to be a strong demand for it. ...and, lately, for the i-phone. I am in what follows suggesting an analogy to this... only in the realm of ideas.]

Some of us want to change the world for the better. We pioneers are looking for people who are early-responders, trend-setters, the first to try a new technology. We praise them for being among those few who are the first to take a look at something new -- in this case, the axiogenic perspective. For once they know how plausible and sensible it is, they begin planting seeds - like a farmer who nourishes an entire village. Let me explain what I mean:

I speak of "seeds." These ideas are seeds. They are kindling and sparks that start a big fire. These ideas - these sparks - may lead us to keep asking ourselves the Central Question of Life, and ask others to do the same. [See the recent book, ANSWERING THE CENTRAL QUESTION by Demerest & Schoof, (2011)]. What is the Central Question? It is: How can I create value, here and now? For life is about creating value. . Let's work for this to be the commonsense norm, the prevailing ethos.

Now, today, the commonsense norm is: "Life is all about ME How can I get what I want?" It's a win/lose mentality. It's about ruthless rivalry. That's the prevailing perspective. But it's out of whack.

Here's why. Life isn't about me winning and you losing. It's about us maximizing value (or at least increasing it.) {Net value - for all concerned - ought to be continually improved, wouldn't you agree? Value, and the Universe, is infinite in its potential. Let's go on the assumption that we can extend its outward horizons.}

In an imperfect world there are limits; you will concur, won't you, that this world isn't yet perfect. However, the better we can make the world, the more we remove the limits ....or at least extend them outward.

The ideal -- as many who post here have written -- is balance, harmony, and clarity. If one overvalues things or systems, then one is doing it at the expense of other factors and qualities which are pushed aside. Our internal life is then out of balance. Systems (as well as theories, hypotheses, philosophical ideologies) are wonderful in their place. But if a focus on them results in dis-valuing people then one's life is full of needless stress. It will wear a person down and have other unwanted consequences. There is a price to pay for distorted thought processes. [Research has shown that some people are so preoccupied with rules, and with authority, that they 'step' on people.]

Those who believe, with all sincerity, that the universe is a remarkably harmonious system tend to be at peace with themselves. They have a serenity that others don't have. But those who overvalue that thought, rank it too high in their personal value pattern (their self-image), they are NOT at peace. They have a high need for it, but haven't a clue as to how to have it. They may be passionate and focused on many other aspects of life, but serene they are not.

As you know, thought processes may lead to behavior, but they are not behavior. Those who have tension - due to a habit of overvaluing or undervaluing - tend to develop compensating behaviors ...as research studies show: Due to frustration and anger, instead of "biting your head off", many individuals will bite their tongue - literally! That's behavior.

Yes, now and then our amygdala region in our brain, lights up, it gets stimulated; some events (when interpreted) trigger it off. (The brain at that point seems to be hijacking our quest for morality, our striving to be a good person, to be ethical.) Then we show frustration. We are quick to anger. It happens. But if, at that moment, we ask ourselves a Centering Question [which Schoof & Demerest talk about in their work], the frustration tends to rapidly dissolve ! These new tools are now available. It is a new technology,, an ethical technology, applied Ethics at its best.
Maybe enough has been said to provoke further discussion.

What do you think? Do you like the new moral technology presented here?

Ok … here are my thoughts.

Life is about creating value – in the classic sense, one cannot deduce this to be the meaning of life; for it, as a definition is too narrow. For instance, this definition leaves out many supernaturalists. In the latter view, one may or may not be the creator of anything at all, but it is the supernatural that does most or all of the creating.

However, this definition would hold well for the secular world, naturalists, materialists etc. etc. Moreover, in either case it is a rather profound definition; for even supernaturalists could indeed hold such a view to some extent. In any case I will maintain it as a premise.

You said: “Now, today, the commonsense norm is: "Life is all about ME How can I get what I want?" It's a win/lose mentality. It's about ruthless rivalry. That's the prevailing perspective. But it's out of whack.”

We are in congruence here. One can call it the idea of liberty, freedom, and individuality. Those values, again, come from the secular world view. I can argue that it is an unfortunate byproduct of a Godless culture. However, I am not foolish enough to only cite that possibility. Another related reason for what you describe is that, in the current shift towards the secular world view, the time tested principles of life are being washed away; however, it is not to say we are doomed necessarily. It could be that in the occurring transition we are left in the air, having to impromptu develop new strategies for coping with the world in which we find ourselves. In time, it is fair to say, the secular world view could succeed in establishing healthy principles for living, but in its infancy, there are many issues remaining.

As that as my premise for the following, I say: The system you describe is what religion has provided people for millenniums; you seek to deploy the power of that system, without God in the equation. If the meaning of life is based on creating value, then a belief in an omnipotent, benevolent being provides value to even another of the most daunting dilemmas of human existence: the question of suffering. Here is another issue the secular world view is far behind on. It is only more recently that suffering has become viewed as that which is to be avoided at all costs, as an inconvenience, an unfortunate reality of life that serves no purpose. This is the first culture to not, “value” suffering.

And now issues regarding Moral Absolutism arise. How does the secular view presume to give a culture, wherein the very defining principles of that culture directly oppose ethics that in the first place can only ever be subjectively derived, any hope at clearly defined ways of life and thought? It’s quite the mind f**k. If each is to be an individual, free in liberty; who might say “this man’s ideas are sound, let’s all do as he says?” Thus, the result is a very confused flavor of the weak culture that is the historically speaking least equipped society of all time to deal with emotional issues regarding the reality of suffering – we are weak.

If you want to add value; start with adding value to the reality of suffering. Without a God, how do you presume to do this?