Maslow's hierarchy of psychosocial needs

[austintorn@aol.com]

Even the idea of 'pure good just for the sake of good', mentioned way back, is not just sitting around in us as fundamental and intrinsic, but came to be there somehow (in some people) through the underpinnings of what we are from how we evolved and changed over millions of years.

[SteveA]

The 'choice' of the 3 primary colors by nature is arbitrary. Other 'choices' of wave frequencies could have sufficed.

Yes, not all animals (or even people - color blindness plus possible differences between sexes) see the same colors. Notice that an animals eyes will often reflect visible light and their eyes can appear to glow (to reflect heat and protect the cornea), where another human absorbs those wavelengths.

But if we use a digital camera, a persons eyes can appear to glow because the camera is using different wavelengths of light.

As a side comment from the thread, notice also that it's possible conscious perceptions in different senses arise from different areas of the spectrum. This isn't exact, but it's something interesting to consider:

From a few hertz up to hundreds of hertz we have vibrations that can be felt (touch)

From ~20 hertz to 20,000 hertz, we have hearing (though there's some overlap with touch)

For vision we have ~400nm to 700nm wavelength (300,000 (km/sec) / 400*10^-9 ~= 430 trillion to 750 trillion cycles per second)

For taste and smell we have chemical interactions with frequencies correlated to atomic bonds.

There are other frequencies ranges that could also be associated with various forms of sensation ... maybe perceptions encompass a linear spectrum?

I suppose they'd have to be not right next to each other.

This another good comment. The "dimensions" or unique/orthogonal/prime properties determine how expansive or informative it can be.

I see it as the dimensions or properties that a space possesses are defined by "prime" components that are irreducible. Each prime provides a unique property or dimension to that space. In many ways space is not just 3 dimensional because there exist more properties to objects in space than simply their relative position.

Though this might seem unrelated to the thread topic, it's actually very closely related because the value of objects within a space is determined by their properties, which cannot be seen to exist in terms beyond what that space is capable of representing.

If we compressed space down to 2 dimensions and lived in a universe on a sheet of paper, then any values that arise from that additional dimension of depth would be lost and similarly if colors were removed, a large loss of value similarly occurs.

[SteveA]

Even the idea of 'pure good just for the sake of good', mentioned way back, is not just sitting around in us as fundamental and intrinsic, but came to be there somehow (in some people) through the underpinnings of what we are from how we evolved and changed over millions of years.

I think when you dig down to what the commonalities of things seen as "good" are, they're the properties that allow growth into a future and in a complimentary sense, anything that leads to closed, finite and terminated systems is "bad".

[labelwench]

I think when you dig down to what the commonalities of things seen as "good" are, they're the properties that allow growth into a future and in a complimentary sense, anything that leads to closed, finite and terminated systems is "bad".

I have trouble with our subjective value system of 'bad' and 'good'.

Conceded that anything that terminates the potential for evolution, is probably less desirable.

Language is a terribly inefficient medium.

One spends far too much time rewording the back-trail, instead of moving boldly forward.

Subjective statement, granted.

[labelwench]

Music.

In all of it's diversity.

Satisfies many psychological needs.

Intrinsic and

Extrinsic,

Simultaneously.

Nature abounds with natural sound and rhythm....

[SteveA]

Music.

In all of it's diversity.

Satisfies many psychological needs.

Intrinsic and

Extrinsic,

Simultaneously.

Nature abounds with natural sound and rhythm....

Yes, life itself isn't enough. If someone had a painful illness but using life support in a hospital could let them live for another 5 years or so, I'm certain many people would question whether or not to live like that.

We might need to extent the categories of "food groups" for recommended daily allowances.

[labelwench]

Yes, life itself isn't enough. If someone had a painful illness but using life support in a hospital could let them live for another 5 years or so, I'm certain many people would question whether or not to live like that.
Originally posted by SteveA

Yes, I have engaged in more than one debate surrounding quality of life.

Without traveling that path just now, it does make me ponder on the intrinsic value of life itself.

Life for it's own sake.

Life devoid of politics or religion.

Life in all forms, from simple through complex.

Those forms of life that we deem to be non-sentient, perhaps have very basic needs. If these basic needs are met, the cycle of life continues, for these lifeforms or species.

With the evolution of sentience, comes the option of greater choice. In exercising a choice beyond basic need, is a species fulfilling or seeking to fulfill a want?

Among the more advanced species, there is also expressed
desire, a sense of longing for something beyond basic need, or want.

A wild bird caged, is ever a wild bird, not to be confused with domestic species that may appear at least, to be content with having their basic needs satisfied.

Humans often seem to mix the three together, or use the words interchangeably, yet when broken out into separate questions, the answers can be variable, unique to the individual.

What do you need? (require to sustain life)

What do you want? (beyond that which sustains life)

What do you desire? (most often expressed as longing, or craving, as yet unsatisfied.)

My plants need sunshine, water, and nutrition.

My horses want the stimulus of interaction with their kind and others, in addition to the sunshine, water and nutrition.

And most people with whom I have conversed have expressed desire for more than my plants and horses are content with.

The will to live is incredibly strong in most species.

Which begs the question, why?

Staying alive is hard work.

Life is the value, I would suggest.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

May I suggest a few links to clarify the definitions and understandings of 'Value'...? Understanding value, in all its implications, is one of the most important subjects__as it not only pertains to personal values, intrinsic and extrinsic, but also to philosophic, ethical, social and economic values, etc. It's best understood by the study of 'Axiology'__the study of Value. Here's a few links about what I've studied through the years:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiology which chases through to Value Theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_theory which further chases through to normative science: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normative_science which further chases through to the Pragmatic Maxim by C.S. Perice: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatic_maxim There's also Meta Ethics which may have interest to you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-ethics


There are also many other links listed in these pages with many explanations of value, and its related ideas and subjects, all the way from the Greeks to the present. Values, and how we interpret them, is imo, that major link in the understanding, of the evolution from our natural soul state of mind, to the higher intellectual maturation states of mind...rrr


P.s.
Here's a Russian philosopher of intuitional instinctual consciousness, you may be interested in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N.O._Lossky

First section: Determinists deny freedom of the will on the ground that every event has a cause. They mean by causality the order of temporal sequence of one event after other events and the uniformity of that sequence. Causation, generation, creation and all other dynamic aspects of causality are ruled out. Lossky proves that the will is free, taking as his starting point the law of causality but defending a dynamistic interpretation of it. Every event arises not out of itself, but is created by someone: it cannot be created by other events: having a temporal form events fall away every instant into the realm of the past and have no creative power to generate the future. Only supertemporal substantival agents-i.e., actual and potential personalities- are bearers of creative power: they create events as their own vital manifestations. According to the dynamistic interpretation of causality it is necessary to distinguish among the conditions under which an event takes place the cause from the occasion of its happening. The cause is always the substantival agent himself as the bearer of creative power, and the other circumstances are merely occasions for its manifestations, which are neither forced nor predetermined by them. The agents' creative power is superqualitative and does not therefore predetermine which particular values an agent will select as his final end.From History of Russian Philosophy section on "N O Lossky the Intuitivists" pg 260[4]

Yes, I have engaged in more than one debate surrounding quality of life.

Without traveling that path just now, it does make me ponder on the intrinsic value of life itself.

Life for it's own sake.

Life devoid of politics or religion.

Life in all forms, from simple through complex.

Those forms of life that we deem to be non-sentient, perhaps have very basic needs. If these basic needs are met, the cycle of life continues, for these lifeforms or species.

With the evolution of sentience, comes the option of greater choice. In exercising a choice beyond basic need, is a species fulfilling or seeking to fulfill a want?

Among the more advanced species, there is also expressed
desire, a sense of longing for something beyond basic need, or want.

A wild bird caged, is ever a wild bird, not to be confused with domestic species that may appear at least, to be content with having their basic needs satisfied.

Humans often seem to mix the three together, or use the words interchangeably, yet when broken out into separate questions, the answers can be variable, unique to the individual.

What do you need? (require to sustain life)

What do you want? (beyond that which sustains life)

What do you desire? (most often expressed as longing, or craving, as yet unsatisfied.)

My plants need sunshine, water, and nutrition.

My horses want the stimulus of interaction with their kind and others, in addition to the sunshine, water and nutrition.

And most people with whom I have conversed have expressed desire for more than my plants and horses are content with.

The will to live is incredibly strong in most species.

Which begs the question, why?

Staying alive is hard work.

Life is the value, I would suggest.

[labelwench]

Thank you for the links, Lloyd.

What is it, that you want, need, or desire from this posting, knowing that one can lead a horse to water, but one cannot make it drink?

I respect that you have considerably more knowledge of and experience of life than myself, and I also greatly appreciate your insights and points of direction.

What aspect of my lack of understanding bothers you?

You bring your understanding of values to this discussion.

My point is that value systems are a human construct and that the life force itself is it's own value.

Let's just lose 'value' entirely.

The life force is.

Each can describe it as they perceive it.

Off to ride a horse now. Catch you up the trail a piece.....

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Hi Lorrina, hope you're still beating the game of the world, as well as you usually do. First, let me state I find nothing wrong with your views. I just thought I was adding to the overall subject material of what you've posted on this thread, and on your money thread. I suppose sub-consciously, I did have ulterior motives to my own investigations of human values and motives__that being why so many, myself included, seem to have so many gaps in their minds about how to effectively communicate their full capacities. By this I mean, none of us are/seem fully aware of all the obstacles of inter-personal complexities of communication that we can actually face when we try to do so__whether in-person, or here on the web. Your value thread just awakened an area in me that Guille and I were working on two and three years ago, so I decided to post some areas we were covering, at that time, to see if you may be interested in furthering your own discussions of value/s.

As I mentioned, I think this goes deep into our psyches, and far into our past. After I entered this last post, I kept searching some of the links back through history, and came across some early Christian Era links to greed, values and their philosophy, which I realized could help fill in some of the blank areas between SB_UK's ideas and mine. So your thread has contributed a furthering of my thread, as I've searched many years to find the philosophy and value links between old Judaism values, Greek philosophical values and Christian values' transitions from those old thoughts to their newer thoughts. I had always had a sneaky suspician the Church was hiding many books and much early knowledge transition information from the public__and I accidently stumbled across it today, after posting those links.

I don't know if you'd be interested in my mini-investigation today, or not__but I'm gonna chance giving you some new links to this material. Here's one of the major players: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen and his teacher: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clement_of_Alexandria
And the history of one of the major missing(I thought) Books: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didache
These three links have helped me see, with the considerable information I already possessed, that all important missing link in values history, so I thank you for this very important thread...rrr

Thank you for the links, Lloyd.

What is it, that you want, need, or desire from this posting, knowing that one can lead a horse to water, but one cannot make it drink?[Sorry for not explaining myself, as just investigating values ideas deeper...]

I respect that you have considerably more knowledge of and experience of life than myself, and I also greatly appreciate your insights and points of direction.

What aspect of my lack of understanding bothers you?[No, no, no, you're beautiful Lorrina, and nothing about your thinking bothers me one single iota. I love your down to Earth perspectives__Always. Keep up the great work...]

You bring your understanding of values to this discussion.

My point is that value systems are a human construct and that the life force itself is it's own value.[I was just simply trying to find the specific area of history, where the human construct, went the most wrong__That's all...]

Let's just lose 'value' entirely.[I think here, we'd be in a bit o' trouble, if we lose 'value' entirely__No more government laws to protect anyone, or feed anyone...???]

The life force is.

Each can describe it as they perceive it.[If the evil man gains power, and describes it as he sees it__Do we follow__Again__Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Jones...?]

Off to ride a horse now. Catch you up the trail a piece.....

Please, I'm not picking on you now, just pointing out a few mini-mistakes, imo...