Maslow's hierarchy of psychosocial needs

[SteveA]

for example there would be legal frames of mind, military frames of mind, theological frames of mind, artistic frames of mind, poetic frames of mind, musical frames of mind, research frames of mind...etc...

Something to consider also is how these can all tie into more fundamental needs (food, shelter, security, survival of a species etc.).

For example, someone needs to eat and that may be supplied via. a farm. The farm then derives some of the value of food, though the farm itself is not food and has additional requirements in order to preserve its value, so you now have property and that's similarly tied into social aspects etc.

So these values can be layered in complex ways as value is added or recognized in something that's a part of some valued relationship.

Of course nature, being not completely predictable appears to always allow some complex structures or institutions etc. exist that potentially provides greater security in meeting ones needs or satisfying those desires, but there's also the issue in that such complexity can obscure the fundamentals and this can be where some insight into those more fundamental forms can give some clarity and simplification and better allow values to be altered to match those needs and desires.

Strangely enough does it not seem like some evolutionary thrust to create a social order??? I mean has not every civilization marked history with its social order and culture???

Regards Mikal

Well specialization and coordination does help (it appears evolution naturally created people with some innate diversity) and so you have benefits from interactions, assuming they're not destructive, so yes, you have a derivative desire for social interactions from the potential benefits these can offer, though you can also have a breakdown of this when individual interests are overlooked in a society (ultimately it's just individuals and society/culture just represents typical forms of interaction between them - it's mental "inertia" between people, which on one hand can benefit in giving some stability, but in itself isn't inherently beneficial or detrimental except to the extent it impedes social/cultural change for better or worse).

Notice that one natural instinct is also the tendency to flee from oppressive systems and desire freedom. This has a natural evolutionary value in resisting dominated and self destructive interactions in society (a need for martial or military order immediately implies destructive aspects on both/all sides of an interaction, whereas a lack of these implies peaceful, private, mutually beneficial and anarchic interactions are occuring). So you have a mix of both desires for benefit in interactions as well as the complimentary desire to avoid detrimental social interactions. I think one major improvement would be to have a manner to allow people to better see where and how they can fit into a society in more compatible ways and work in ways that compliment each other better and that would also discourage people being socially abused as it would allow a greater social mobility (I'm referring to a broad spectrum of ways people interact).

[labelwench]

In any discussion of needs, there shall arise a discussion of values, what those values are, and how they are arrived at.

Intrinsic and extrinsic value.

How do these relate to Maslow's hierarchy of needs?

First, perhaps, a brief primer on Intrinsic value.

What Is Intrinsic Value?

The concept of intrinsic value has been characterized above in terms of the value that something has “in itself,” or “for its own sake,” or “as such,” or “in its own right.” The custom has been not to distinguish between the meanings of these terms, but we will see that there is reason to think that there may in fact be more than one concept at issue here. For the moment, though, let us ignore this complication and focus on what it means to say that something is valuable for its own sake as opposed to being valuable for the sake of something else to which it is related in some way. Perhaps it is easiest to grasp this distinction by way of illustration.

Suppose that someone were to ask you whether it is good to help others in time of need. Unless you suspected some sort of trick, you would answer, “Yes, of course.” If this person were to go on to ask you why acting in this way is good, you might say that it is good to help others in time of need simply because it is good that their needs be satisfied. If you were then asked why it is good that people's needs be satisfied, you might be puzzled. You might be inclined to say, “It just is.” Or you might accept the legitimacy of the question and say that it is good that people's needs be satisfied because this brings them pleasure. But then, of course, your interlocutor could ask once again, “What's good about that?” Perhaps at this point you would answer, “It just is good that people be pleased,” and thus put an end to this line of questioning. Or perhaps you would again seek to explain the fact that it is good that people be pleased in terms of something else that you take to be good. At some point, though, you would have to put an end to the questions, not because you would have grown tired of them (though that is a distinct possibility), but because you would be forced to recognize that, if one thing derives its goodness from some other thing, which derives its goodness from yet a third thing, and so on, there must come a point at which you reach something whose goodness is not derivative in this way, something that “just is” good in its own right, something whose goodness is the source of, and thus explains, the goodness to be found in all the other things that precede it on the list. It is at this point that you will have arrived at intrinsic goodness.[10] That which is intrinsically good is nonderivatively good; it is good for its own sake. That which is not intrinsically good but extrinsically good is derivatively good; it is good, not (insofar as its extrinsic value is concerned) for its own sake, but for the sake of something else that is good and to which it is related in some way. Intrinsic value thus has a certain priority over extrinsic value. The latter is derivative from or reflective of the former and is to be explained in terms of the former. It is for this reason that philosophers have tended to focus on intrinsic value in particular.

[Mikal]

I feel intrinsic values are discovered and realized in any conscious struggle that builds character, I feel these values are connected to the growth of ethics and the development of a good sense of judgement concerning life and how it is lived...


Regards Mikal

[labelwench]

Intrinsic value, and all value systems, are in my mind, human concepts, so I decided to have a conversation with Caramel on the topic, with the understanding that her subjective opinion might not be the same as one of her kind that had not lived in close proximity to our species.


"Caramel, do horses have an understanding of 'intrinsic value'."

"Go get your language book. Dictionary. You need to understand the context of the words you bring to me. This would be much easier if you had a greater understanding of the language of Equus. The philosophies, I mean. Your day-to-day is exceptional for a mere human."

"Umm, thank you, Caramel. Your humble student shall return forthwith with the Concise Oxford Dictionary."

**********************************************

"So what does the book tell you about INTRINSIC?"

"Intrinsic, an adjective. - Belonging naturally, inherent, essential. Also used as an adverb."

"Yes, a descriptive term."

"Value, noun & verb transitive - Worth, desirability, utility, qualities on which these depend."

"You wish to use these two words in conjunction?"

"Yes. They are used together."

"Okay, first question. Does Caramel exist?"

I reached out and touched my mare.

"I perceive through my senses, that a horse, known to me as Caramel, is physically tangible, and in my opinion, could be said to exist."

"Fine. I exist, therefore intrinsic is a given. You praise me and we work together in utility, therefore, in my opinion you value me. Short answer: Caramel has intrinsic value. To some humans.


Horses understand intrinsic. It is a given by nature.

Nature does not assign values in the same manner as humans. Nature brings about existence of all things, not only the things valued by humans. That these things exist at all may be their only value, but is value to that which exists, even if humans do not understand.

To change that which exists, changes all existence, even if this is not noticeable for a time.

Intrinsic is nature.

Value is human.

To attempt to use the words in conjoin, is human nature."

[SteveA]

I agree very much with your view Lorrina, and a clear view of where innate value arises from appears to be the key issue of discussion.

Intrinsic value is embedded within the existence of something itself, though the existence of something is dependent upon all of its interactions and relationships with other/external things.

If you gathered all extrinsic values, they're equal to all intrinsic values, and that all those intrinsic values taken together are the same as the intrinsic value of the existence of that thing.

And thank you for this short, but sweet version:

Intrinsic is nature.

Value is human.

Though I might recommend altering human to subjective or personal, but human works fine in this case too. When you trace them through they're always derived, assigned or determined by oneself.

So we could describe this similar to a tree in which 100% of the value of things is derived from ones own existence, but what one is and what values are contained in that self are interconnected to the environment - what is the value of a bird without space to exist in, or life without time to experience it, or legs without something to walk on or eyes without light to see, or the intrinsic value of a glass of water to someone in a desert versus someone swimming in a lake etc.?

[SteveA]

A quick note as to another factor that appears relevant:

A value that cannot be altered or influenced is in many insignificant or of no importance. If intrinsic values simply exist and cannot be altered (which would appear to be the case by definition because they simply exist inseparable from the object) then they would not appear to need any consideration.

On the other hand, extrinsic values being derived from relationships to intrinsic value can have these relationships altered and so in an indirect sense, intrinsic value can be generated or altered via. changes in an environment of extrinsic value.

So it may be that intrinsic value is better seen in terms of relationships between things and not as something inherent in any of those things - and figuratively, the dividing line or interface between objects could be seen to contain the value of that relationship, which doesn't exist in isolation within either.

[labelwench]

Given that values are subjective, it occurs to me that 'Intrinsic Potential' may be a more objective way of stating the case.

Then again, I view the intrinsic as part of each thing, making it a noun, instead of an adjective or adverb.

Being that language is merely a human construct, and that new words, definitions and meanings are added and assigned daily, this tweak satisfies the limits of my biology at this particular moment.

[SteveA]

I just thought of an interesting correlation with physics regarding values that are significant due to being alterable that arise from the equivalent of the relationship, division or surface of interaction between contrasting states of some property. Yes, that's a bit complex or confusing, so let me give a few examples:

The color green has a value as color because of the existence of a diversity of colors - if all that existed was a single color, it might as well be black or the equivalent of a void.

You can analogize this with Yin and Yang, though there can exist properties also with 3 or more states.

So let's say we have an apple - if we placed it into a universe of its own, it would not possess those features typically assumed to exist in an apple. It could not be set on a table, because no tables existed. It could not grow or be eaten. It could not decay or be altered etc.

Also, as I commented earlier, there is no benefit or additional value to considering a value that is unalterable. Whatever it is, it is and no attention or will need be given it as that attention or will would do nothing to alter it, and that can be where alterable external relationships change the properties of this value.

So we have a division between internal and external value that is alterable and the extrinsic and intrinsic values could be said to be equal in the sense that they depend upon each other.

In real life, in a similar sense, the interior of an apple is also quite detached from having anything immediately alter it. The surface of an apple is an area that could be seen as equal from both sides. The alterations to the surface over time and are where the changes/energy interacts, though either removing the space surrounding an apple or the apple from the space removes the value of its existence within that space.

So it could be that perceptions show the components of value in experience that are alterable and these correlate with surfaces of interactions between objects.

There was a similar view I came up with using some ideas in mathematics as well and it tended to imply that we only see or experience those things that provide useful information and could be viewed as important and alterable. I'd assume if evolution was true, then such a view would be quite appropriate.

[austintorn@aol.com]

The 'choice' of the 3 primary colors by nature is arbitrary. Other 'choices' of wave frequencies could have sufficed. I suppose they'd have to be not right next to each other.

[labelwench]

There was a similar view I came up with using some ideas in mathematics as well and it tended to imply that we only see or experience those things that provide useful information and could be viewed as important and alterable. I'd assume if evolution was true, then such a view would be quite appropriate.
Originally posted by SteveA

In discussing values, I would quite agree with this remark.

In the context of intrinsic potential, the intrinsic potential exists, regardless of whether or not we have a frame of reference in which to place it.

We are an interesting species, in that, if we can't describe something, it does not exist for us.

One of the more interesting thing I have studied in horses is their powers of observation.

They regard with suspicion, any new object placed within their comfort zone, until they have satisfied themselves that it does not appear to offer the potential of danger.

I recall there was a large bulldozer blade parked along a trail that I frequented. All of the horses I rode, soon enough trusted my assurances and would pay it no mind.

One day, it was gone.

Imagine my surprise to note that each horse I rode past that location stopped dead in it's tracks, at a distance of 20 yards approx. and stared at the empty space formerly occupied by the large piece of equipment. It took several trips with each to convince them that the resting predator had indeed departed.

Though the horse story ties but loosely to the topic under discussion, it deals with perception, and humans are not particularly astute when it comes to recognizing intrinsic potential, in my deliberations.

I subjectively recognize this failing in myself as well.