The Nature and Necessity of Value By Virtue of Occurence
The nature of value is emergent within the human condition and scales itself, culturally, in various shades with a multivalent non-dual nature as each value is distinct and yet interrelate to reveal not just an entirely distinct value but effectively reveals its in the concrete dynamics of the pluralism of culture in the respect that while values may differ there are some that repeat across the differences while certain other values are entirely unique or appear to differ in appearance regardless of the primitive sameness in structure.
By these respects value is inseperable from the event of distinction, as not only is value distinct as the the value, but the value placed on values results in distinct meta-values within the general distinction of value itself.
By degree this distinct nature reveals value as a ratio of distinctions, rational by degree of this ratio, and in effect corresponds and interwoven witg basic reasoning. This reasoning results in the clarity of the distinction of the value itself and what it contains or interweave, by virtue of branching, into. Thus reasoning is pivotal by process of the event of distinction and the event of distinction always has a corresponding clarity.
Given reasoning, by degree of distinction and the corresponding clarity which results, implies the neccessity of an image to be revealed, image being synonymous to form in this context as what is distinct is both form and image, the establishment of a reason and the mode of reasoning results in a corresponding image and processing imaging (imagining as image giving) what remains of the assertion of "reasoning as clarity" corresponds to "reasoning as image/imaging(imagining)" as clarity is derived by the presence of image.
Image is clear in accords to the detail of it and this detail is derived from the event of attention. However a paradox ensues:
The emergence of percieved detail is localized in one respect and de-localized in another respect, with both respects happening simultaneously.
Think of a greatly detailed picture. There is n-degree detail everywhere. However you can only see the depth of detail in accords to where the attention is placed. Where the attention is not placed the detail is either obscure or non-existent.
Change attention from Point A on the picture to Point B and now the detail of A is obscure and the detail in B is emergent to the attention.
Both points A and B, as a whole context of point C, are equally detailed.
Both points A and B as relative are more detailed than the other relative to the attention placed;
A is relatively greater than B.
B is relatively greater than A.
Standing back further at point D where attention is not on the whole picture at all, but something else, than the detail is revealed as naught.
So the common thread between A, B, C, and D is the point. This point is the event of attention itself and this event has the detail emerge from it and dissolvd back into as A, B, C and D transition from eachother. A, B, C, and D are but the scaling of attention itself, attention remains invariant regardless of the scale it is applied. This scale is the various detail, distinctions, the emerge and dissolve from it.
So any question of distinction and the relation of value is answered by the form, as the question is detail through attention on a specific concept, and the corresponding concepts the concept itself contains. The degree of attention is the degree of detail as detail remains across attention however this degree is the focusing of it. The focusing of it is the condensation of this attention to a single point from which detail arises and dissolves. What remains is detail regardless.
So given detail remains, and while detail may differ in clarity, there is always a base clarity of the detail itself. In these respects in an obscure detail, as a detail, always has a base level of clarity and the differing clarities between one detail and another are differing degrees of attention.
In everyday life this can be seen:
Someone who has spent years paying attention to X gains a differing degree of clarity than someone who has spent less time than someone who payed attention to the same X. Someone who put effort into concentrating attention on X has a greater degree of clarity than someone who as spent less effort.
The acceptance of a thing is the emergence of it in attention. We see things that people do not accept and they either cease paying attention on it or pay attention to something else so to derive the elimination of the thing they do not accept.
The acceptance of a thing is the attention to its detail as acceptance, to accept, is to be imprinted by the thing and the thing is a thing by degree of its distinction via image/form. Therefore what remains of acceptance is the attention to detail. Even someone avert to Y, in seeking to overcome it via the aversion via conflict with it, must accept Y as occuring and in doing so observe the details of it. Thus acceptance has a dual nature, attachment and aversion, that effectively requires acceptance via attention to detail.
There is always a brute acceptance of a thing by degree of it emerging within attention as the emergence, the occurence, of it is a brute act....brute in the respect of "just being".
Now value...it is brute in the respect of just occuring, what is not brute is the level of attention directed towards it as the attention is placed in accords to the value behind it. People pay attention in accords to value. Thus value effectively is a director and maintainer of attention. The attention on one value results in the convergence of details of what leads to the value itself, and in these respects on value is the corresponding relation of other values.
Take for example political party X. John Doe values it. Upon examination John Doe becomes aware that his Dad also valued X and JD valued his Dad. He also observes that X represents financial system Y, and John also respects financial system Y. He also observes it rejects aspects of moral code Z, and JD also rejects aspects of moral code Z.
So the value of X is the corresponding relations of a set of subvalues. In this respect there is a mathematical/geometric nature to the basics of value itself. So value, by its own nature, is not only rational by degree of what it is as distinct, it is also ration by degrees of being ratios of other values. So an emotional element of value is not entirely seperate from reason itself.
From another respect values give rise to reason. A person values X and decides to give form to X within the world. So they apply physical and abstract distinctions to it to give is abstract or physical structure. This structure is rational by degree of the ratios of what occurs as the structure itself. So while a person may have some "insane value" the system itself may be completely rational, someone else may have some "sane value, and yet the value has no structure....and of course an insane value may have no structure and a sane value may have structure.
So in this reasoning process, if you payed attention, we have a fourfold nature to the event of distinction:
Presence
Absence
Both
Neither
Thus distinctions itself contains reason by virtue of its occurence alone. In these respect occurence is justification as occurence always has reason at the level of form and has meta-reasoning within it the deeper one pays attention.
But degree of occurence as distinction, via form/image(imagining), the nature of the attention which precedes, is mediated by, and process from value reveals a proto-geometric nature by degree of the fourfold degree of distinction as presence/absence/presence and absence/neither presense nor absence as form and image are conducive to this nature.
In these respects value becomes purely rational, by design, as the nature of distinction, from which it proceeds, is rational by nature as the value itself, being a distinction, is a scaling of the event of distinction.
Value effectively is the limit of identity as identity, while distinct from value, as identity is derived from the value of the emergent distinctions placed upon it and identity is subsumed by the value which emerges from it by degree of the attention directed and maintained upon it. While identity is distinct as identity and value is distinct as value, the emergence of each from the event of distinction and the emergence of the relationship between each, as reflexive, reveals a multivalent non-dual nature; a series of individuals which relate as a whole.
This multivalent non-dualism is geometric in image by virtue of the holographic nature of the event of distinction that proceeds, mediates and proceeds and transcends as distinction through distinction as distinction. This D(D->D) reveals the geometry has recursive by nature, this recursive nature as cycles within cycles.
This multidimensional cycle, geometric in image, reveals value by extension as reflexive;
The valued is the value of the valuer; the valuer is the value of the valued;
As value effectively a cycle in its relatively macro state. In these respects value, itself, reveals a computationally state, not computation, a computational state as basic economic actions, basic moral/ethical actions, basic social actions and basic subject and object actions are revealed by derivation of value as a recursive process.
By degree value is thus an expression of the event of occurence itself as occurence reveals and is maintained by value and what remains as both real and unreal is the emergence and dissolution of value(s). What knowing is, the assumptions it contains and reveals, is fundamentally rooted in value and the value upon the primitive(s) upon which knowledge it derived and maintained; to know is to make the distinction of value, to make the distinction of value is to pay attention from which knowledge is revealed as knowledge, by degree of detail via form/image, thus effectively relegating attention as both a valuated an valuable event.
The nature and necessity of value is the nature and necessity of attention.