Assignee's Prerogative vs. Value:
A.P. (for short) could be the root of value. A.P. is defined as "the decided worth you assign to your paradigms." (notice I said "your" paradigms, they must have been evaluated and authenticated.) But Value is immesurable from a place of Paradigm Ignorance or Paralysis. How can one evaluate the unsubstantiated? To quote myself, "To contemplate the ancient concept of self with a being that is truly “not-self” without even the ability to conceptualise having rules put upon you is to perpetuate ignorance and demonstrate the absurdity of modern human existence. To even achieve the question requires a paradigm shift that instantly opens an endless stream of possibilities." A.P. also allows you the room you may need to breath in terms of questions unanswerable, ie. Faith. (See Putting your Prostitution Paradigm in it's Place.)
So how is value decided? Often from within socially engineered paradigms. Even if you are paradigmically authentic the contemplation of value can and probably will be influenced by phenomena outside your understanding or control. (I'm speaking here about the desires of others, misunderstandings, oxytocin, suppressed memories, etc.)
There is also the consideration of "decided" value vs. "actual" value. For instance: The dome of the rock. Millions of people make the pilgrimage to the site because they have decided to value it as holy. The anticipatory sections of the brain will ensure that the trip has "actually valuble" results but these results stem from the paradigm that decided there would be value and results. The actual value (if any) will vary from worshipper to worshipper and may never be realised or understood.
So it seems to me that Value may be measurable truly only in hindsight (or else it's speculation.) It must also be contemplated from the most authenticated paradigm(s) possible and preferably with eudaimonea as the ulitmate goal.
Owen Flannigan has said that Eudaimonics = human flourishment but with the caveat "Let's see how far one can get promoting platonic hedonism: the idea that eudaimonia is to be sought at the intersections of what is true, good and beautiful." I submit, nowhere. Eudaimonics is the ultimate goal, I agree, but the definitions of how to get there and what it means to be there are still argument points. Figure out formulae for flourishment and we'll put this "Value" baby to bed!
Other scientists (yes, this one is going unnamed, for he seems to be mocked alot,) say that Value must be decided upon at the intersection of Science and general opinion. This, in my opinion, is far too general a pathway to success. The "general opinion" he speaks of has too often turned out erroneous or worse, counterproductive. If we presently think that the general opinion of even scientists two hundred years ago is embarrasingly lacking, how arrogant is it of us to assume that we've somehow already sussed out the deficiencies that will be found in us, one hundred years from now?
Still others proclaim that value is chemically assigned. They are natural, unavoidable mediations of social attachment via oxytocin, vasopressin, dopamine, endorphins, etc. Patricia Churchland, "Existentialism is essentially wrong that we have to assign values." I argue that Pat is right, taken down to the mechanism, it is all chemical, but EVERY thought is chemical if you extrapolate far enough. And while there is worth to the chemical understanding of thought, (and to the energetic proponent, for that matter,) I'm sure the appreciation of "thought" alone is worthy enough to prove effective.
Let's examine one poignant phenomena, reduced to it's lowest common denominators.
Economic "Crisis" Encapsulated: 1.) Some idiot decides that everyone in America should own a home. (or at least that is the reason we're given.) 2.) Banks make crappy loans. 3.) Insurance companies offer to insure the crappy loans. 4.) Insurance companies roll insurance of crappy loans into funds for purchase. 5.) People purchase crappy funds. 6.) People are unable to pay crappy loans. 7.) So much insurance is needed to cover crappy foreclosures that crappy funds are devalued. 8.) People lose homes and funds. 9.) Banks and Insurance companies lose money. 10.) The government bails out (some) banks and AIG by essentially buying back the same crappy loans, reinvesting in the same crappy funds.
Diagramming these ten statements into a philosophical proof validates no value to me, at any one level, to any combination of levels. Yet, intelligent, powerful minds argue that this action is not only valuable but imperative. There's a question being begged here... I think we'll all find the answer to the value of this thinking in too short order as gain is not the opposite of loss and "Value" is often exclusive to "Values."
Finally and in the interest of creating value, allow me to offer this:
"Value" = quantifiable individually decided worth via scrutinised eudaimonic exemplars.
"Assignee's Prerogative" = the ability to consciously assign value.
This may seem flippant, perhaps circular but please keep in mind that the ability to utilise A.P. comes only through an understanding of the difference between Paradigmical thought and original thought. It's not that the unaware are not using A.P., it just happens. Awareness of it happening is the engine to truly assessing value.
Thank you to Patrick Lockerby for pointing out that A.P. could be the root of Value. It is, provided you're conscious of it. Patrick is the only person here, so far, who has commented on the actual nuts and bolts of my work. (Other people have said nice things, but I think it's only because I can string together words in an entertaining fashion.) Patrick, you've made me sharpen my definitions and I find value in that!
Assignee's Prerogative vs. Value: