# Are People Intrinsically Valuable, or is Personal Value Created?



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

Draconic said:


> I think people create their own value. It's something we can't help but assign it to things and persons, including ourselves. *Especially* ourselves, even.
> 
> When I feel without purpose, I feel less worthy. Not compared to other people, but compared to possible 'me's' that could've lived the same moment *with* (a) passion.
> And of course, even though I wish I could say other people's attribution of value on me doesn't affect me.. it does. Of curse it does. There is no escaping that, unless you kill your own ego or some crazyness like that.
> ...


This was stated so perfectly it hurts. 

The part about how other possible "me's" could have lived the same moment with a passion - I love it. This post is a much better phrasing, overall, of what I was getting at. And you're not even an image type!


----------



## Lord Bullingdon (Aug 9, 2014)

Pressed Flowers said:


> I am a bit curious to know if @Entropic thinks this information about my view of people's intrinsic worth changes his opinion on my being Fe valuing.


Just btw, I feel kind of the same as you do on this. I'm Fe, but I strongly identify with the Fi "mission statement", enough that I typed as xNFP when first learning the functions: 

_"Fi leads you to take whatever a person thinks or believes as an expression of that person's unique nature--not to criticize it because it fails to live up to some externally imposed criteria like whether or not it's "logical" or "appropriate". As an ethical perspective, Fi leads you to act out of empathy regardless of the social status or "deservingness" of the beneficiary. Fi leads you to view all living things as equal in value, all needing to thrive in interpersonal harmony without giving up any of their uniqueness."_

To me, Fe is more about the calculations I'd make to convey my arguments than any deeply held belief about life and people.

Since this discussion seems mostly to involve gut types and image types, I was wondering if that biased the outlook toward the issues of 9 (the right to exist) or 3 (we are what we do). In which case, we're basically looking at two different aspects of our existence, and sometimes the core 9s realize this and acknowledge that point of view. I'm interested in more head types joining in.



cir said:


> Objectively from the bird's eye view and subjectively from the worm's eye view.


See, I think it's all subjective, meaning "based on human interpretation". Which is why it's a slippery slope for me--whose values will win? But how what would you say is objective value?


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

Quernus said:


> This is the kind of question that gets the Philosophy student in me all tied up in angry knots because I do not know how to begin addressing everything involved in this question. The foundation is logical but complex.


I laughed out loud. (In a good way)

Loved the rest of the post too  interesting angle.


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

Kipposhi said:


> Since this discussion seems mostly to involve gut types and image types, I was wondering if that biased the outlook toward the issues of 9 (the right to exist) or 3 (we are what we do). In which case, we're basically looking at two different aspects of our existence, and sometimes the core 9s realize this and acknowledge that point of view. I'm interested in more head types joining in.


Yeah but a few 9s - @Distortions, @Draconic, and partially @Quang, seemed to share my point of view pretty much exactly. So that can't be accurate.

9s grow to 3 when they realize and embrace their own sense of value.


----------



## Lord Bullingdon (Aug 9, 2014)

Animal said:


> Yeah but a few 9s - @Distortions, @Draconic, and partially @Quang, seemed to share my point of view pretty much exactly. So that can't be accurate.
> 
> 9s grow to 3 when they realize and embrace their own sense of value.


Do they totally share your view in a deeply held sense? Or is it commiseration, an understanding of your view? Or does it have more to do with the 3 connection as you mention? (Serious question, any one can respond with their POV.) 

I don't think my words are any more or less accurate than Fi/Fe, but I noticed a certain trend.


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

Kipposhi said:


> Do they totally share your view in a deeply held sense? Or is it commiseration, an understanding of your view? Or does it have more to do with the 3 connection as you mention? (Serious question, any one can respond with their POV.)
> 
> I don't think my words are any more or less accurate than Fi/Fe, but I noticed a certain trend.


Yeah, I see waht you're saying. To me, @Draconic summed up everything I meant but I said it in way too many words. My passion gets ahead of me.. but that was basically what I meant.

But I'd be curious how they would respond to this. I don't know. It's like their posts were a simpler version and I was saying so much stuff, so maybe they didn't relate to some parts of my rants , or maybe my rants were just overstated.


----------



## cir (Oct 4, 2013)

Kipposhi said:


> See, I think it's all subjective, meaning "based on human interpretation".


 Objective and subjective values co-exist. For example, objective values (Holy Perfection) on the top layer and subjective values on the lower layer*s*.



> Which is why it's a slippery slope for me--whose values will win?


 Hmm... hopefully mine... get it? Power-seeking triad.

But really, why does it matter? Do you think conflicts necessarily end in "lose-lose" or "win-lose" situations? What if people can find "win-win" situations in conflicts?

Do you think victory is eternal? Do you think the values under conflict are not in flux? Sure, you can win, but how long will this victory last you? For how long will it be meaningful?



> But how what would you say is objective value?


 "Existence" is the objective value. What is opposite of life? Death. So there is value in (life and death). The whole picture.


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

pancaketreehouse said:


> A cynic would say a beautiful person is useful insofar that he is beautiful, and a kind person for his kindness... which doesn't help, as what someone is useful for may be subject to appraisal..
> 
> People can be born with useful skills, or great potentials to be realized, but it is in the activation of these potentials that we see true profit/value... few things sucha s water are without any question intrinsically valuable..
> 
> ...


Oh oh, @Kipposhi..

On the subject of type influence, I agree fully with this post too, and @pancaketreehouse is a 6w7.


----------



## Lord Bullingdon (Aug 9, 2014)

cir said:


> Objective and subjective values co-exist. For example, objective values (Holy Perfection) on the top layer and subjective values on the lower layer*s*.


Well, whatever you say.



> Hmm... hopefully mine... get it? Power-seeking triad.
> 
> But really, why does it matter? Do you think conflicts necessarily end in "lose-lose" or "win-lose" situations? What if people can find "win-win" situations in conflicts?
> 
> Do you think victory is eternal? Do you think the values under conflict are not in flux? Sure, you can win, but how long will this victory last you? For how long will it be meaningful?


But amongst people, the practical reality is that some values _are_ overridden. Like I mentioned eugenics earlier--valuing life vs valuing some sort of vision of productive contributors to society. A bit outlandish, maybe, but I'm not speaking philosophy (where, I agree, everything can coexist, etc), I was talking about the implications of "you have to earn your value".



> "Existence" is the objective value. What is opposite of life? Death. So there is value in (life and death). The whole picture.


Are life and death opposites, or just part of the same flow? Doesn't death give other organisms the chance to live? Not trying to derail with philosophy, just that there are multiple ways to splice the same topic. Also, if one disagrees that existence has any inherent value...then who gets to assign that value to our work and creations?


----------



## dulcinea (Aug 22, 2011)

I like the point @Word Dispenser made about biological value vs. social value. I know someone who has a little biological value, at least she did once. She popped out a few babies. But ZERO social value. She does nothing but drugs and neglecting her children. 

I think everyone has the potential to have social value, but some people make way too many stupid decisions to actually have it.


----------



## galactic collision (May 1, 2014)

Commenting to subscribe, and once I catch up (tomorrow!) I will add in my 2c.


----------



## To_august (Oct 13, 2013)

Probably it's something about terminology or me understanding it differently, but I think rather than having intrinsic value people have intrinsic qualities, capabilities, aptitudes, talents etc. Common denominator for people in that each individual posses them. We are equally unique and alike in having each our own uniqueness. From there stems our equality in terms of ability to enjoy rights and be subject to obligations. 

While value is something that is assigned contextually. Value is relative, and intrinsic value sounds like an oxymoron to me. For my relatives I have high value, for people who never heard of me I have zero value. In X area I'll be more valuable than in Y area etc.

I don't know even how I can value myself without giving regard to some criteria. I can be proud of my accomplishments or displeased with what I've done, but value... I certainly don't think of myself in such terms.


----------



## d e c a d e n t (Apr 21, 2013)

Animal said:


> Yeah but a few 9s - @_Distortions_, @_Draconic_, and partially @_Quang_, seemed to share my point of view pretty much exactly. So that can't be accurate.
> 
> 9s grow to 3 when they realize and embrace their own sense of value.


Well, I'm not entirely sure about my type at the moment, but yeah, I would say it makes sense. Although the idea of someone feeling worthless does make me feel bad, so there is a part of me that hopes anyone will be able to find value in themselves.

(I guess what is 9ish is that I don't have _that _much interest in pondering this topic, in itself. So it is more of a response, or a reaction to certain things.)


----------



## cir (Oct 4, 2013)

Kipposhi said:


> Well, whatever you say.


 I'm not the only one who suggested that.



> But amongst people, the practical reality is that some values _are_ *overridden*.


 Right. That is exactly why I said this:


> But really, why does it matter? Do you think conflicts necessarily end in "lose-lose" or "win-lose" situations? What if people can find "win-win" situations in conflicts?
> 
> *Do you think victory is eternal? Do you think the values under conflict are not in flux? Sure, you can win, but how long will this victory last you? For how long will it be meaningful?*





> Like I mentioned eugenics earlier--valuing life vs valuing some sort of vision of productive contributors to society. A bit outlandish, maybe, but I'm not speaking philosophy (where, I agree, everything can coexist, etc), I was talking about the implications of "you have to earn your value".


 Sure, if that's what you believe or want, then on the subjective level, people can "earn their value". I don't necessarily agree that's the only way (as I think that belief is a smaller portion of the big picture), because I think even dead people are valuable.

Without eugenics (or atomic bombs) having existed in the past, people would not learn the lessons that comes from eugenics (or atomic bombs). Those lessons would not exist. If those lessons did not exist or was not internalized, then any day now, we're just waiting for some lunatic to convince an entire population that annihilating another entire populations is a good idea or is the answer to everything.



> Are life and death opposites, or just part of the same flow? Doesn't death give other organisms the chance to live?


 Yes. Yes. The thread's title is "Are People Intrinsically Valuable, or is Personal Value Created?" with the assumption that people are either living or are alive, so I thought to answer on the other side of the coin.

"People are intrinsically valuable" is the "objective value". "Personal values are created" is the "subjective value". They co-exist.



> Not trying to derail with philosophy, just that there are multiple ways to splice the same topic.


 I think being philosophical on this thread would quality as "on topic". 



> Also, if one disagrees that existence has any inherent value...then who gets to assign that value to our work and creations?


 If existence has no inherent value, then there's no point in creating anything.


----------



## Mr inappropriate (Dec 17, 2013)

I see a lack of experiencing life(things) as it is. Why should we operate on a value based system as humans ?
Why should things have to meaningful ?
I'm baffled.
I dont expect answers to my questions, btw. I dont even want to see them, either. I just wont accept that kinda outlook as valid(for myself to adopt) in any sort of way.


----------



## Darkbloom (Aug 11, 2013)

crashbandicoot said:


> I see a lack of experiencing life(things) as it is. Why should we operate on a value based system as humans ?
> Why should things have to meaningful ?
> I'm baffled.
> I dont expect answers to my questions, btw. I dont even want to see them, either. I just wont accept that kinda outlook as valid(for myself to adopt) in any sort of way.


You also obviously have some personal problem with value, otherwise you would be playing video games or eating till you die or whatever else you like to think your life is about instead of being here displaying your superior understanding of life lol
You already operate on a value based system.
You can try to reject the outlook because you don't like it but that doesn't mean you aren't affected by it.


----------



## ScientiaOmnisEst (Oct 2, 2013)

Oof. I followed this thread a little until my phone's data got shut off, and I've been obsessively ruminating ever since. I've thought about this plenty of times and my thoughts are still jumbled and inconsistent. But I can try.

Even now I'm frantically looking at all the different answers and trying to figure out which ones are right...

One thing I am noticing is a number of people stop just short of saying that personal worth and value has to be earned. So I might as well go ahead and agree with it: *most people have to earn their personal value, and most people do not have intrinsic worth.*

There are some people who are inherently valuable, whose worth comes from merely being what they are. Mostly these are the exceptionally brilliant or talented; the extremely strong of character and perhaps the beautiful may count too. These sorts of people naturally have more meaningful and worthwhile lives by virtue of their natural gifts, and are rather demonstrably more valuable. There's nothing to prove, really.

But the rest of us? We have to fight for our worth and earn it. Try to scrape by pretending we aren't totally useless trash, or try to claw out way up and out of mediocrity. Value lies in rarity, the common and typical have no value until they somehow distinguish themselves.

....I'm going to stop before I officially board the morning crazy train. Because thinking about intrinsic worth is difficult for me to do objectively - it always hinges on myself. I know I have no intrinsic worth; I don't know about others though. I admit, I tend toward a kind of self-pitying idealism. Then I found @_pancaketreehouse_'s post about most people being poisonous leeches...

Other times I've thought the following: most that everyone has some core of value. Some collection of traits that forms a kind of personal essence that makes a person valuable and worthwhile. Except for some unfortunate beings who lack that, who are dull and unimpressive. Granted, this is a kinder thought than the above, unless you believe yourself in the latter group. 




Living dead said:


> Why should anyone love you? Why should you love yourself?


I think it was one of your posts, way back on some opinions thread, that introduced me to the notion of having to earn self-love and self-respect. The portions of your post that I didn't quote are only half-relatable - it's not that I think it beneath myself to say I deserve good things or should feel good about myself. It's just that it's _objectively wrong_. It's delusional. I know I have nothing likable about myself, nothing worth anything.. I don't know if it's entitled to have self-esteem, though I've seen several people mention that and now I'm wondering about it too...

Which raises the biggest practical issue: how much is enough? When has a person earned the right to like themselves? When can a person say they are truly deserving of love and value by others?

Also the issue of deserving. I find I think in terms of deserving often - of deserving bad things or not deserving good things. How does that play in to all of this?

I'd write more but there's so much in this thread I'll just mess myself up.


----------



## d e c a d e n t (Apr 21, 2013)

Hm, I'm not sure I see this as a matter of deserving.


----------



## d e c a d e n t (Apr 21, 2013)

crashbandicoot said:


> I see a lack of experiencing life(things) as it is. Why should we operate on a value based system as humans ?
> Why should things have to meaningful ?
> I'm baffled.
> I dont expect answers to my questions, btw. I dont even want to see them, either. I just wont accept that kinda outlook as valid(for myself to adopt) in any sort of way.


Your existence seems like a good argument for value not being intrinsic. Fortunate for you that you don't care about it, I guess.


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

Living dead said:


> You also obviously have some personal problem with value, otherwise you would be playing video games or eating till you die or whatever else you like to think your life is about instead of being here displaying your superior understanding of life lol
> You already operate on a value based system.
> You can try to reject the outlook because you don't like it but that doesn't mean you aren't affected by it.


Exactly. Value is an issue for everyone and it is going to be expressed one way or another. How someone sees it, is a personal thing, perhaps related to type, perhaps not. (I'm still not sure if I'm seeing any type-related trends; trying to stay objective.) But it's undeniable that a sense of personal value affects people one way or another. They might not think of it in those terms, or they might not think about it consciously at all, but emptiness and sadness will ensue if someone's life feels meaningless. They will find ways to express themselves and have value and seek meaning whether they realize it or not.

Enneagram is a good model for this in the sense that anger, shame and fear affect every person. If a person has central issues around that specific thing, that is a clue about their type. But that doesn't mean they completely lack the other human emotions.




ScientiaOmnisEst said:


> Oof. I followed this thread a little until my phone's data got shut off, and I've been obsessively ruminating ever since. I've thought about this plenty of times and my thoughts are still jumbled and inconsistent. But I can try.
> 
> Even now I'm frantically looking at all the different answers and trying to figure out which ones are right...


Lol, this made me laugh  It seems this issue triggers people more than I realized, one way or other.



> One thing I am noticing is a number of people stop just short of saying that personal worth and value has to be earned. So I might as well go ahead and agree with it: *most people have to earn their personal value, and most people do not have intrinsic worth.*
> 
> There are some people who are inherently valuable, whose worth comes from merely being what they are. Mostly these are the exceptionally brilliant or talented; the extremely strong of character and perhaps the beautiful may count too. These sorts of people naturally have more meaningful and worthwhile lives by virtue of their natural gifts, and are rather demonstrably more valuable. There's nothing to prove, really.
> 
> But the rest of us? We have to fight for our worth and earn it. Try to scrape by pretending we aren't totally useless trash, or try to claw out way up and out of mediocrity. Value lies in rarity, the common and typical have no value until they somehow distinguish themselves.


I wanted to write about my experience with this. I know I've said this in various ways on this thread and the 369 thread, and I don't mean to make this "about me," but I can really only speak about my personal experience, because it's not my place to evaluate someone else's self-worth or figure out where it came from, even if I have had deep discussions about this with several people. 

But in my personal experience, I was born with tremendous music talent, and I was amazing in school. I sucked at classical piano lessons but unbeknownst to myself, taught myself music theory. At age 11 someone told me what a chord is, and I suddenly knew all the chords and could sight-read chord charts while also transposing them at the same time. I started singing lessons that year and after a few lessons I was already really good. I was being paid to play and sing in restaurants by 13. I was also hired to write original songs for local plays at age 12.

The down side was, I was ugly. Boys would say things like "Your singing voice is so good, too bad you're so ugly so you'll never make it in music." Directors would cast me in villain roles when my voice was clearly more professional and better than the ingenue, and when I would kindly ask them what I could do differently next time, the answer was always the same: "You aren't pretty enough to play the lead," "you don't look like a princess.." etc.

At 15, I got a nose job. Then, directors and major people were interested in me. I was recording my original album by age 15 in NYC - and someone was recording it for free because they saw me as a great investment. I was moving fast. my acting teacher had 37 kids in Les Mis and she was sure I'd be #38 and play Eponine. 

I worked hard, dont get me wrong, but I started out with tremendous vocal talent and energy. I will not lie about that - I was an extraordinary child, though I was ugly and rejected by boys and directors for my looks, so I was miserable. I experienced that one pocket of happiness for about six months when I was 15, and was no longer blaringly ugly (still not that pretty though) and my voice was enough to make up for it, so I was moving up. But then, at 16, I couldn't walk, lost my voice and hair, almost died, etc.

When I emerged from several months of 105 fevers, I had some kind of brain damage. My health comes and goes since then (I'm 34 now, still taking up to 50 medications a day)... I have good periods and bad periods. Random symptoms that I thought were gone crop up from nowhere. But, since that age, I have not been able to do math or science at all. As a kid I was a math wiz. I remembered everything in history. Now, my memory and ability to calculate were all but destroyed. So now, School would be very difficult for me for the rest of my life. I have to count out money on my hands. It's really pathetic. And, worst of all, since then I have spoken in a whisper. So my singing career was done, even if I ever had enough energy to pursue such a career again.

So, I went from having socially recognized and praised "value" because of my extraordinariness, to being unable to pursue the passions I worked so hard for, and also, being at a severe disadvantage, with outrageous medical bills, stuck to my parents for life, with tons of disadvantages. And I still wasn't particularly pretty. This begs the question: What was that value really worth, if I'm still alive, and it was able to be stripped from me?

So, I will present the other side of this. When I was 15, I was suicidal because of all the rejections based on my looks. I confessed during nose job surgery that I wanted to die, that nobody could ever love me. Of course I felt better once I wasn't ugly anymore but, I will never forget that even with so much talent I was still lonely and miserable, and focused on what was missing.

In my mid-20s, I sang on my own album through my whisper. I worked hard to overcome my severe disadvantages. When I listen to my album, all I hear is the mistakes and problems with the production - though I am happy with the whispery vocals. I was so obsessive, recorded them at home on an expensive mic and edited them myself. I got every note the way I wanted it, even if I had to cut/paste and record each track 30 times. I DID IT! But, my production was limited in money and resources and musicians, and I had not ever produced before, so I won't pretend it's perfect. I still feel like it could have been this or that. And I can't make a career out of it because I'm too sick for the band life and my whispery sliver of a voice comes and goes; despite obsessive attention to it, I could not control whether I had any voice for shows or not. Sound guys would make fun of me for singing lead when I whispered, and I sometimes received rude remarks like "Get a real singer." Some people loved the vocals, others hated it and insulted me to my face. But my self-confidence has never been higher than it was around the period I was doing music, because I fucking did it, with my blood sweat and tears. 

And since then I've had more confidence to do other things. For instance, I've been writing since I was 11. I've always come up with long, complicated plots since I was young and it is a passion. Yet my writing itself sucks. Once I had sang with no voice, I felt confident enough to pour tremendous effort into becoming a better writer. And I finished the first book of my fantasy series, which will be sent out to publishers soon. So now, I have even more confidence, that I can accomplish something in an area where my talent "starting out" was minimal.

And my confidence grows as such. Being naturally talented sure felt great when I was on stage and getting praise, but I was still suicidal , miserable and angsty, and felt that the only thing worth loving about me was my voice. But knowing that I worked, that I strove to be more, that I fought the odds.. this gave me real confidence. _I built myself. _And that is what makes me feel like I am my own woman, and I am worthy of love. My life is far from perfect. But I have the will to pursue what I desire, to believe in my own dreams. Because I chose this. After I got sick I went down a very bad path, but then, I made the CHOICE to quit drugs, quit dating the wrong people, and pursue my dreams in spite of tremendous odds. 

And now, I have something that illness, and circumstance, and rejection, cannot take away from me. It doesn't matter if I lose my looks and talents and assets - of course it would be a setback - but I have something that nobody and nothing can take away from me, and that is my WILL, my CONFIDENCE and my PASSION. I believe in those, so I don't need these extrinsic traits. I just need to know that whatever traits I still possess, I will wield them in order to achieve my dreams.

This is why I believe strongly that self-worth comes from a decision to build it. Worth and value are created. At least , in my own experience. I cannot speak for anyone else, of course.


----------



## Rafiki (Mar 11, 2012)

@Animal
That's brilliant!
Like... what's water in a world of fire or a world without water vs what is water in a world with enough for everyone...
my god.

back to the drawing board


----------



## Rafiki (Mar 11, 2012)

@Animal
why would it be nihilistic to think you have to create your own value? if value's potential exists, infinitely it does, no?


----------



## Brixby Jones (Apr 7, 2013)

pancaketreehouse said:


> @_Brixby Jones_
> 
> agreeing with the first part, although there are great contributors who live FOR society.
> I might countervail your quotation with
> ...


Regardless of the amount time spent on resolving whom is wrong and right, everything is nothing and nothing is simply what matters most to you alone. Arguments are merely distractions from the headlong cartwheel towards our end. I feel not for the parrying of phrases at this moment.


----------



## Brixby Jones (Apr 7, 2013)

Animal said:


> So what tooling would you suggest?
> 
> Also, is it necessarily bad to leave it vague and see where people go with it?


What I mean is that you leave far too much room for interpretation: are you interested in what I think of my next door neighbor, my friend across town, or the entire lot of human civilization? Anything and all in between can only partially answer the initial prompt.

That depends on what you're looking for. I tend to feel more comfortable directing the construction of events, rather than letting things unfold of their own volition.


----------



## cir (Oct 4, 2013)

pancaketreehouse said:


> Does a baseball card have value? Perhaps to the man who found it in a pack he bought with the one nickel his grandpa gave him for his birthday before dying, *sure*. Does it have an objective value? *No*.. that type of thing is void in a vacuum. Does a person have value? To the same extent the baseball card might.. It's not a lithified currency, value, it's a thing to be negotiated and bartered, if not privately immutable. some things are worth the world to him who is scoffed at by the rest of his peers.


 You rustled my MtG card-collecting jimmies. #peoplewhospendtoomuchmoneyonpiecesofpaperUNITE!

Does a baseball card have value? Perhaps to the person who has it? So this baseball card has potential value to its owner or perhaps a trader or buyer. Objectively, this card has value. The end.

An object is at rest. (And nines are like "inertia personified".) Does that object have potential energy? (Do type nines have potential?) What happens when an object starts moving? Potential energy *transforms* into kinetic energy. (Nines go to three.)

The questions are: does an object at rest have energy? Is potential energy a type of energy?

Potential value is still value. Therefore, value exists.



> Similar to people asking what the meaning of life is. It could be that there is no, and the existence of something doesn't indicate the meaning or value of something.


 Yeah, the problem is when people in power have this mindset. There is nothing restraining them from going "the existence of something doesn't indicate the meaning or value of something"... so why don't we clean some space and annihilate their existence?

If life has no value or meaning, then then there would be no reason to stop people from committing various acts of horror.



> It comes from our pathetic (not bad pathetic) attribution of other qualities to things which don't have them intrinsically.


 That's called "assignment of value". You know what's the opposite of intrinsic value? Extrinsic value. Both types of values are still types of values.



> Objective value is a term I'm struggling with because I can't imagine what exists in this objective void. I said a couple pages before that water is inherently 'valuable' to man. Is something necessary always valuable, something valuable isn't always necessary, is it?


 Yeah, something necessary is always valuable, because without it, people die. Something valuable that isn't always necessary is called a "luxury".


----------



## Rafiki (Mar 11, 2012)

@_cir_

are potential values values?
Jim is a boy and he is 4 feet tall at age 10. medical predictions say he will grow to be 6 feet tall at age 20.
let's say he's killed before he reaches 6 feet.
you can't say he was ever 6 feet, given the potential.

if i'm misrepresenting the potential argument, set me straight, but i don't think potential value is value, i don't believe something unactualized is something.


----------



## Ermenegildo (Feb 25, 2014)

Animal said:


> My argument is, in essence, that nobody can determine a person's value except for themselves.











*Wanted: Ayman al-Zawahiri. Value in exchange: Up to $25 million* 

*Adam Smith (1776): * The word VALUE, it is to be observed, has two different meanings, and sometimes expresses the utility of some particular object, and sometimes the power of purchasing other goods which the possession of that object conveys. The one may be called '*value in use*;' the other, '*value in exchange.*' The things which have the greatest value in use have frequently little or no value in exchange; and on the contrary, those which have the greatest value in exchange have frequently little or no value in use. Nothing is more useful than water: but it will purchase scarce any thing; scarce any thing can be had in exchange for it. A diamond, on the contrary, has scarce any value in use; but a very great quantity of other goods may frequently be had in exchange for it. …

Their highest price, however, seems not to be necessarily determined by any thing but the actual scarcity or plenty of those metals themselves. It is not determined by that of any other commodity, in the same manner as the price of coals is by that of wood, beyond which no scarcity can ever raise it. Increase the scarcity of gold to a certain degree, and the smallest bit of it may become more precious than a diamond, and exchange for a greater quantity of other goods. ... The demand for the precious stones arises altogether from their beauty. They are of no use, but as ornaments; and the merit of their beauty is greatly enhanced by their scarcity, or by the difficulty and expence of getting them from the mine. (S)



> I don't believe that I am entitled to anything, nor does anyone have to celebrate me just because I exist.


Whereas this hedonist (E7) believes that he is entitled to paradise. 



> Simply existing is meaningless and empty. Look up at the stars. They will tell you just how insignificant you are.


Okay, they tell you that you are insignificant. I fully agree. There is no convincing theory of intrinsic value. So all we can say is that someone or something is important or unimportant for us at a specific time in a specific respect, or we can make comparative statements. We decide. 



> I earned that sense of value through my own blood, sweat and tears, as well as the support of my parents in the early years. That is what gives someone a sense of value. Work. Meaning. Blood, sweat and tears. Purpose.


A sense of value? I am a fact, like a stone or a cloud or a fellow mammal. That's enough for me. Work? Works? Do you realize that nobody reads all the scientific literature except for the professors who are paid for it, plus their poor students? The same is true for the arts. We could happily live the next 2000 years without a single new idea, enjoying the treasures of the last 2000 years. But we want to believe that the new is better than the old, that the future offers salvation. Science isn't important. Art isn't important. Sitting on a validated throne isn't important. Enjoying other people is important, excellent food, cold and hot water, a luxurious bed. And just-in-time dying.


----------



## Rafiki (Mar 11, 2012)

Albeit the market perspective of value, I think that's really helpful.

Although I have to ask why Smith gives water no value of exchange, he must be presuming the abundance of the resource. I don't think a thirsty man would give any higher value to something other than water!
@Ermenegildo

thank you


----------



## cir (Oct 4, 2013)

Draconic said:


> How does objective value even matter?


 Morally, perhaps it inspires people think about whether what they're doing is harmful, painful, or perhaps, irrevocable. Makes people think about whether their actions are reversible. If you kill somebody, then just short of an actual luck-based miracle, they're dead.

That's why objective values matter.



> If we all have the same objective value, what is there to talk about then?


 The subjective values, the values which differentiates people and make them different.



> And I don't think people are irreplaceable and unique. *Well.. we're unique in so far one leaf is unique to the next.* Hurray.


 Genetics!!! Yaay!!



> We exist and have our time and place in the totality of the universe, and *what has been done cannot be undone*,


 My "undo" button disagrees. People who went to the gym for an awesome body, but then became lazy and lost their hard-earned figure disagree... probably. Bad relationships/trust/faith can be re-earned/repaired. etc.

Alternatively, if the thing has been permanently changed, if you have the raw materials for something, then you can re-create it. It's not 100% identical, but sometimes perfection has an area called "good enough". Or, you can make it better than it used to be!



> but that does not mean we have any more intrinsic value than the feces you just flushed down the toilet.


 Well, feces and decomposed bodies re-fertilize the earth...



> You do, however, have more *potential* than those feces,


 With science, we can measure this! We can stuff a bunch of poo in a cannon and start shooting it. But really, what do you think happens in the waste-treatment centers?



> But then you can say, it doesn't matter if *everyone has* different *potential*, it just depends on how they use it and in what circumstances.. And that's the point; it depends. It's relative. Hence, it's subjective.


 The objective part is that "everyone has potential". All of those extra words add subjective layers onto a blank slate (innocence? nah). The existence of the slate is the objective value.



> Also, if you determine that everyone has objective value.. how is that objective then? _You_ are attributing value to a whole species, in what way is that not subjective? In fact, how can value ever truly *be* objective? It's always attributed *to* something/-one *by *someone. It is always relative. And it's always dependent on human judgement.


 Intrinsic value and extrinsic value are, objectively, types of values. The _reason_ anyone would confer values, however, is subjective in nature.



pancaketreehouse said:


> @_cir_
> 
> are potential values values?
> Jim is a boy and he is 4 feet tall at age 10. medical predictions say he will grow to be 6 feet tall at age 20.
> ...


 In people terms, potential values turn into actualized values. Like "self-actualization". As long as movement is possible, potential always exist... pretty much by definition.


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

Animal said:


> No. I don't really care if their existence is "objectively" meaningless, nor do I care if my existence is such. This is outside of the way I personally think. I don't measure people by their value. I'm talking about what value I attribute to my own life alone. That is clearly subjective.
> 
> This makes sense and I appreciate the explanation of what others might be thinking. I would say that ideally, everyone "should" have basic compassion (if we are going to speak in "shoulds" which I also don't like to do, since I tend to err on the side of everyone deciding for themselves what they feel they should do) .... I guess, the way I see it, I have compassion and empathy naturally, so when I ignore that, I feel like shit. When I act on my compassion and empathy, I feel better. Again I couldn't presume other people feel this way. But obviously people overall are affected in a positive way when other people show them compassion.
> 
> But as for value, I think that's a different thing. Value is very much a personal thing, to me. Though I understand the argument about socially objective value. I mean, something as concrete as money can easily be compared: who is worth more... means, who has more money than the next person. But that is not a value I particularly care about or find crucial. Money is pretty worthless to me beyond just having the means to survive and pursue my dreams. Some people like having a lot of money because other people think it's cool. Okay, good for them. If that's what matters to them I don't judge.. it's great if they have something so concrete they can pursue and feel alive.


Essentially what I'm getting from this is that you do not understand the concept of objective, intrinsic value, or you at least do not think in terms of it. You see "noticing others' objective value" as equal to "compassion/empathy", which I suppose is one way of looking at it, but it's not how I experience it anyway. For me, compassion and empathy are possible byproducts of recognizing everyone's objective value, but the recognition itself is a fact and not an emotion.

Also, the POV of everyone having objective, intrinsic value isn't tied to external achievements like money and whatnot, as you mentioned above. It's tied to who they are and what they bring to the world, whether or not they actualize any of their potential. Recognizing everyone's objective, intrinsic value (everyone is unique, capable and irreplaceable) symbolizes a move away from objective, extrinsic value (money, power, social success). 

I would delineate the forms of value into 4. This could be an incomplete classification, but for the purposes of this discussion I will run with it:
1. Objective, extrinsic (OE) value. This is your social and professional value. Your achievements, your career, your appearance, how many friends you have, etc.
2. Objective, intrinsic (OI) value. This is the innate value you possess because you are different from others and present a unique perspective and set of skills, in a way no one else can.
3. Subjective, extrinsic (SE) value.  This is the value you assign to things outside of yourself based on your opinions of it. Liking person A over person B, liking ice cream over cake, etc.
4. Subjective, intrinsic (SI) value. This is the value you assign to your situation, circumstances, and how you're leading your life. You could be completely dissatisfied with your life, you could be loving every moment of it and feel it is meaningful, etc.

The discussion in the 369 thread revolved around shifting one's perception of oneself from OE value to OI value ("My value is in my external traits (strength, beauty, competence) as opposed to inside me"). What you discussed was shifting from SE value to SI value ("No one can tell me what's most meaningful in my life except me"). In both cases, the shift was from extrinsic to intrinsic value, and both points are equally valid. But you were talking about subjective, and I was talking about objective. That is where is the disconnect happened.

Now, on to @Draconic.



> How does objective value even matter? If we all have the same objective value, what is there to talk about then?


All of us have the same degree of objective value. No one person is more or less important than the other, objectively. But what we bring to the world is different for each person. 

However, just because it is the same, it does not mean it doesn't _exist_. It's important to talk about because a lot of people create extrinsic standards of value without realizing, HEY, I'm not defined by how put-together my life is, because I'm just as important as the next person! 

Now you could ask, if everyone is just as important as the next person, what's the point of mentioning it at all? The point is it's still a sort of value, even if it "cancels out", because some people feel devoid of value when they look at their outside selves. You may not consider it important in your life, but in the lives of many others, it is, and it cannot be dismissed.



> And I don't think people are irreplaceable and unique. Well.. we're unique in so far one leaf is unique to the next. Hurray. We exist and have our time and place in the totality of the universe, and what has been done cannot be undone, but that does not mean we have any more intrinsic value than the feces you just flushed down the toilet.


I disagree with these analogies, because this discussion is about living human beings, and we have several more factors which decide irreplaceability and uniqueness than a leaf or a turd does. We also have far greater mental capacity than other living beings, which is why we create all these abstract delineations in the first place. So it's not correct or helpful to compare us to inanimate things.



> You do, however, have more *potential* than those feces, so you can _attribute_ value to that. But it's not objective and definitely not the same for everyone, because people have different potential.
> But then you can say, it doesn't matter if everyone has different potential, it just depends on how they use it and in what circumstances.. And that's the point; it depends. It's relative. Hence, it's subjective.


Firstly, I disagree with the notion that potential must be used and actualized effectively in order to create a meaningful life. 

Secondly, this goes back to my point that despite objective value not mattering to you, it still exists. What you have mentioned here is that people have different potentials and cannot be judged on their differences (that would be an extrinsic way of thinking), but how far they go in terms of the potential they HAVE. 

a) A person isn't less valuable because they did not actualize their potential, they still possess the same OI value as everyone else
b) A person may find their "calling" (although, as I mentioned, I disagree with the notion of some fated calling, because I believe anyone can do whatever they like with their lives) and think they have given their life personal meaning. This is SI value. But the existence of SI value does not render the OI value invalid or incapable of existing. That is still there. 

Put those two statements together, and you get: someone who has found their calling and given their own life immense meaning is not less valuable than someone who hasn't done those things. The first person discovered their SI value and the second didn't, but this has no bearing on the fact that no matter how much the person has toiled to give their life meaning, objectively, they are just as valuable as the next person. Their OI value is the same. They are not gonna get a throne of honor because they discovered what truly mattered to them in life.



> Also, if you determine that everyone has objective value.. how is that objective then? _You_ are attributing value to a whole species, in what way is that not subjective? In fact, how can value ever truly *be* objective? It's always attributed *to* something/-one *by *someone. It is always relative. And it's always dependent on human judgement.


We can go on and on about how the entirety of reality and perception is subjective, but that won't get us anywhere. There is a reality we are living in now and we have to acknowledge it. Humans think in terms of what feels good and what doesn't. Yes, logically speaking, value isn't a property of the object. It's a concept we made up. But all of us assign value to things _regardless of who we are._ All of us think in terms of value, however much we may deny it. We may assign different values to different things; that is subjective. But the point is everyone should be able to recognize how all of us are just as valuable as each other, and use that realization when judging themselves and others. (If they don't, I really worry for them.) 

There is an "objective" within the context of value that is different from the "objective" that decides whether a quality is a property of the object itself or not, which is the far-reaching meaning of the word. Language is fluid, and each word has different connotations in different contexts. Currently, we are speaking _within _the context of value.


----------



## Daeva (Apr 18, 2011)

cir said:


> Morally, perhaps it inspires people think about whether what they're doing is harmful, painful, or perhaps, irrevocable. Makes people think about whether their actions are reversible. If you kill somebody, then just short of an actual luck-based miracle, they're dead.
> 
> That's why objective values matter.


But this is true regardless of objective value. Morality assigns value to life, but that doesn't prove the intrinsic quality of value.



> The subjective values, the values which differentiates people and make them different.


Yeah, I definitely agree there.



> Genetics!!! Yaay!!
> (...)
> My "undo" button disagrees. People who went to the gym for an awesome body, but then became lazy and lost their hard-earned figure disagree... probably. Bad relationships/trust/faith can be re-earned/repaired. etc.
> 
> Alternatively, if the thing has been permanently changed, if you have the raw materials for something, then you can re-create it. It's not 100% identical, but sometimes perfection has an area called "good enough". Or, you can make it better than it used to be!


You're still not undoing it. You're not going back in time and change the course of events. Just because the person became lazy and got fat doesn't negate the fact that they once were fit. Those moments happened and there's no changing that.
Re-creating something is making something *again*. You're not changing the course of history.



> Well, feces and decomposed bodies re-fertilize the earth...
> (...)
> With science, we can measure this! We can stuff a bunch of poo in a cannon and start shooting it. But really, what do you think happens in the waste-treatment centers?
> (...)
> The objective part is that "everyone has potential". All of those extra words add subjective layers onto a blank slate (innocence? nah). The existence of the slate is the objective value.


I see what you mean, but from my understanding of value, it exists because we can assign it to things (and people, and actions..) by comparing and contrasting. So this would mean an object couldn't have any value if it'd be the only thing in existence. So.. in this regard, the value is not objective, but rather, it's attributed and hence, subjective.



> Intrinsic value and extrinsic value are, objectively, types of values. The _reason_ anyone would confer values, however, is subjective in nature.


The _types_ of value are objective, but that doesn't mean value itself is.


----------



## Eclipsed (Jun 3, 2012)

Animal said:


> @_Illusive_ mentioned the idea of, should we value someone because they are great and accomplished?? ... the thing is, that is not my concern, I don't value others for this reason.. nor would I care to determine someone's value compared to another person. It's all about _my_ sense of value and worth. That is more what I'm getting at. I loved that post but I disagree that it's "dangerous." Any type structure or outlook has inherent dangers and inherent benefits. I also don't relate to the idea of my value being attached to being "great" or "successful" by society's standards. I have repeated several times on this thread, that was not my point.


I didn't misunderstand you, actually. I used greatness as an example because it's a common thing to strive for, and it's common for the general population to admire those who suffer in order to get what they want, no matter how unhappy those people end up being. I've never been interested in success defined by societal standards or expectations, but I mentioned greatness because it still applies as a means of supposedly gaining personal value. One's pursuit is often very personal and I reject the idea that someone who suffers for some higher purpose is not invested in the act emotionally. There's no way anyone would go that far for recognition, unless maybe what they are after is actually recognition- arguably a purpose in itself. Feeling like you have a purpose does not make your life any more fulfilling. My example was not an example of someone doing what society wants, because they certainly don't admire starving artists (unless they "succeed"), but an example of someone doing what they want to the point that it consumes and _kills _them because they are searching for happiness in the wrong place. Because their purpose is to do X thing and they believe in it so strongly that it becomes more important than their own well-being. Which is fine of course since people are free to do what they want, but when you acknowledge this and then claim



> What makes people *happy* is not having things and being complacent with them, but rather, striving and having a sense of purpose.




then your entire argument essentially falls apart because it clearly does not make people happy. It _can_, but that doesn't mean it will.

So yes, I _do_ think it is dangerous and limiting to define yourself based on some arbitrary purpose because we were not put on the earth for any single reason. The use of the word "purpose" implies something great, something that encompasses one's life entirely and not just a collection of simple, basic desires- which is really what most humans are made up of. Few people have one driving force that dictates the direction their life will go, and that's completely okay.




> It depends on how you define 'value.' I do not believe that just because someone or something exists, it has value. A person exists because their parents had sex and their mother gave birth. Once someone exists, they have potential, not value. Value comes when you explore, and then actualize, your potential to create something worthwhile.


If this was poor wording on your part, then it's kind of silly to say people are misunderstanding your perspective because it does indeed imply that you have to do something great or at the very least _good_ to have value.

And since you seem convinced that people are misunderstanding you in terms of what you mean by personal value, how does the purpose of "enjoying nature" that you mentioned relate to creating something worthwhile or actualizing some sort of potential? What are you striving for when you choose to admire the singing of birds in the morning or the reds and yellows of autumn leaves? Does that individual have "potential" at this point, and will only obtain value when they choose to share their enjoyment with the world or benefit society in some way by using their love of nature? Do they have value to themselves because they enjoy nature? I should not be asking so many questions in order to understand precisely what you mean.

Don't get me wrong, your perspective is perfectly acceptable, but you are contradicting yourself all over the place and moderating your argument in order to appeal to opposing viewpoints. That hardly makes for a worthwhile discussion. I understand your point of view and where it comes from because I used to share it, but it would help if you did a better job defending it instead of modifying your perspective and using your personal experience to back it up. You like having a sense of purpose, okay, but using an isolated case to back up the idea that it makes _everyone_ happy is not very convincing. _Your personal experience does not make for an absolute truth. _You can filter any opposition you get through this lens and adapt your arguments but that just breaks entire discussion down into a matter of semantics.



> It's about doing something that matters to me, making my life better, taking control of my life, my passions, my dreams. It's about striving. Not about how much money I have or how many people think I'm amazing at something. That is not what gives me, personally, a sense of value and worth.


Thing is, the way you see it doesn't really matter. I don't see it that way, so does that not refute what you're saying or will you insist that if I say I'm happy then I have a sense of personal value I'm not aware of even though that's not something that matters to me? Also, even if I did have some sort of value or potential based on my traits and not a clear idea of why I'm alive... would that not be inherent? Are my talents and good qualities not inherent? Did I just suddenly gain them through some sort of black magic? Absolutely everyone has strengths and weaknesses that give them value and the potential to obtain the value that you seem to be describing.

And do you honestly believe our existence can be defined based on one thing, or even many? Why is a sense of purpose viewed as something we should strive for? Humanity is not so simple- life is so incredibly complex and there are so many fucking reasons to live it's actually overwhelming. The misconception most people have is that they have to find some one purpose or talent, have to find some way to fit into the system. It's a waste of time because they are searching for something that's not there, and if instead of worrying about their value and self-worth they just did whatever they wanted to, perhaps they'd enjoy life quite a bit more.

Again, if may I ask, what is the point of discussing value in the first place? You say personal value is created, not intrinsic. However, if personal value is created, doesn't everyone create personal value in some way, even if it's not glamorous? That makes the question redundant, does it not? And if you argue and say it's not equal.... well, there's no way of measuring it and no point to doing so either.

You criticize those who simply choose to exist and stay complacent and in doing so, you're demonstrating a lot of bias. What if they're perfectly happy? Is that impossible? If it's not, then is it the _wrong _way to be happy, or imaginary?

I'm not striving for anything right now, and I have worked incredibly hard to separate happiness from purpose because it was the thing making me unhappy. I'm only beginning to get over years and years of depression because of the simple fact that I've detached myself from the idea of self-worth, value and potential.

If a sense of purpose works in making you happy, then good for you, but you are wrongly trying to apply your experience to all of humanity. Striving for something more did the exact opposite for me. What makes me happiest at the moment is admiring the stars when I walk the streets late at night or watching the snowfall illuminated by streetlamps. What exactly am I striving for in this situation?

At this point I'm beginning to repeat myself, so I'll end it here. *TL;DR* I disagree completely and I'm having a strong reaction to the ideas you're presenting because a) I know them to be incorrect and b) this way of thinking nearly destroyed me, not made me happy. I'm rather enjoying being complacent, actually. I don't condemn having goals and I would not stay purposely complacent for the hell of it, but does my happiness depend on how much value I think I have? Not really. I could do with or without it.


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

Night Huntress said:


> Essentially what I'm getting from this is that you do not understand the concept of objective, intrinsic value, or you at least do not think in terms of it. You see "noticing others' objective value" as equal to "compassion/empathy", which I suppose is one way of looking at it, but it's not how I experience it anyway. For me, compassion and empathy are possible byproducts of recognizing everyone's objective value, but the recognition itself is a fact and not an emotion.


Hmm.. interesting. I would place value as a separate issue.. I don't think empathy and compassion are a byproduct of recognizing value. To me those are automatic, something I can't help. I have read articles about different types of empathy. The type I relate to most is more immediate; feeling the other person's feelings. I'm high empathy and it is automatic, not something tied to value judgements or decisions. But I realize this may not be the case for everyone. And, certainly, while I have automatic visceral empathy (to some degree) for all living creatures, I have more _sympathy_ for people who I can relate to in some way, which would include sharing some values, relating to their particular method of finding meaning in their life, etc. I can't help that. I would not be inhuman to someone I don't relate to, but I might feel more driven to put myself out and take risks for someone whose plight I can, at least somewhat, understand. This understanding might include recognizing and relating to their perspective, because my personal sense of value is similar. That said, when I am already friends with someone (which implies we have had some understanding of each other at some point in our lives), and we can't see eye to eye on certain things, I still love them and help them and strive to understand where they are coming from. The empathy is still there. But when we connect and understand each other, then of course it is heightened, and I can almost feel like I am walking in their shoes and feeling their feelings at least in that instant.



> Also, the POV of everyone having objective, intrinsic value isn't tied to external achievements like money and whatnot, as you mentioned above. It's tied to who they are and what they bring to the world, whether or not they actualize any of their potential. Recognizing everyone's objective, intrinsic value (everyone is unique, capable and irreplaceable) symbolizes a move away from objective, extrinsic value (money, power, social success).
> 
> I would delineate the forms of value into 4. This could be an incomplete classification, but for the purposes of this discussion I will run with it:
> 1. Objective, extrinsic (OE) value. This is your social and professional value. Your achievements, your career, your appearance, how many friends you have, etc.
> ...


I love this list and explanation, and also how you pinpointed the source of the disconnect. That makes perfect sense.




> Now, on to @_Draconic_.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Do you think it's completely pointless, then, to strive for external goals? Do you think that no SI might come from pursuing SE? I have seen time and time again, that when a person achieves something external that is of value to them (whether it be learning to skateboard, becoming a doctor, writing a story or learning to cook something they love), their confidence builds. Do you see no value in having a sense of purpose?

And, my problem with saying "everyone is equally valuable no matter what they do," is that it negates the very real sense of value that people glean from external achievements. That is a very real part of human psychology that can't be dismissed either.




> Secondly, this goes back to my point that despite objective value not mattering to you, it still exists. What you have mentioned here is that people have different potentials and cannot be judged on their differences (that would be an extrinsic way of thinking), but how far they go in terms of the potential they HAVE.
> 
> a) A person isn't less valuable because they did not actualize their potential, they still possess the same OI value as everyone else
> b) A person may find their "calling" (although, as I mentioned, I disagree with the notion of some fated calling, because I believe anyone can do whatever they like with their lives) and think they have given their life personal meaning. This is SI value. But the existence of SI value does not render the OI value invalid or incapable of existing. That is still there.
> ...


Their OI value might be the same, but what about their SI value? Again, if you study human psychology or observe how actual people operate, it makes them feel good to achieve something that they, personally, attribute value to. As far as I can tell, this is universal. I'm willing to be wrong on that. But that is what I've observed and learned and read about human nature so far and it makes perfect sense. So, while I can see the merit in symbolically removing the importance of external achievements that society values, by saying "everyone has value," ... yeah, that makes sense.. but then, where would motivation come from? Why would people want to achieve things at all? Why would it be that people who attribute value to SOMETHING and chase SOME kind of dream, tend to feel happier? Whereas people who simply say "I don't need to do anything to feel valuable" end up feeling insignificant and worthless?

This is a very difficult topic because of how society values certain skills over others. In truth, no matter what we achieve, it will be washed away. Einstein's work matters now, but will anyone remember it in 2,000 years? What about 10,000? What about when the Earth blows up? So, obviously it is ridiculous to place more value on one person's work than another's, because none of it matters in the end. It also is mean and judgmental to place less value on someone because they don't work, or don't have some ultimate goal or sense of purpose... in the sense that, this could lead to having less empathy, sympathy, compassion. It doesn't help anyone, to judge someone else's choices.

Yet, time and time again, I have seen that when someone develops a sense of purpose - no matter how small it may seem to someone else - they feel alive. So what good does it do, then, to tell them that everyone is equally valuable no matter what they do? I would have no problem flat out saying we all have POTENTIAL, but I still struggle with the idea of "we all have equal value" because to me, someone's life only means something if they choose to give it meaning. If they don't, it doesn't mean they deserve to die or be judged or treated badly, but it simply means that they don't choose to place meaning or value on their pursuits. So it is what it is, and I don't mean that in a rude way. I can accept not everyone cares about that. What I can't accept is equating them, not caring about meaning and the value they place on their pursuits, to my caring about these things, when it is two different choices, two different lifestyles. Saying that someone rejects the idea of value is not the same as saying they deserve to die or they are unworthy of being in my presence. It is simply saying they don't create value. But that goes back to the point that value and meaning are created. And by creating meaning and attributing value to a pursuit, people _do_ place more value on their life, their time. They might also place more value on their friendships and relationships because they have learned the meaning of value and they have the confidence that they can work their way through something difficult. That, in itself, is valuable. It's why value is something worth pursuing.

It's hard to be good to others if nothing in your life has value or meaning. SE contributes to SI which contributes to someone's capacity for compassion and empathy. When you have placed value on something and struggled toward its pursuit, other people's struggles become more real to you. It's easier to understand their plight, if something matters enough to you, that it was worth suffering for.



> We can go on and on about how the entirety of reality and perception is subjective, but that won't get us anywhere. There is a reality we are living in now and we have to acknowledge it. Humans think in terms of what feels good and what doesn't. Yes, logically speaking, value isn't a property of the object. It's a concept we made up. But all of us assign value to things _regardless of who we are._ All of us think in terms of value, however much we may deny it. We may assign different values to different things; that is subjective. But the point is everyone should be able to recognize how all of us are just as valuable as each other, and use that realization when judging themselves and others. (If they don't, I really worry for them.)


Again, in the sense of compassion and empathy I agree with you, but I don't necessarily equate this to my idea of meaning, significance and value, which in my eyes, is a choice; something you create. 



> There is an "objective" within the context of value that is different from the "objective" that decides whether a quality is a property of the object itself or not, which is the far-reaching meaning of the word. Language is fluid, and each word has different connotations in different contexts. Currently, we are speaking _within _the context of value.


Yeah.. you did a great job of breaking down different aspects of this, though. I loved the top part of this post especially. Language is fluid. It's why these abstract concepts are so provocative, I guess.


----------



## Rafiki (Mar 11, 2012)

@Illusive
Therein lies your value.


----------



## Recede (Nov 23, 2011)

The idea that people and reality lack intrinsic value and that worth is something which must be created is actually contrary to the principles upon which enneagram is based. 

From _Facets of Unity_ by Almaas:

* *






> Essence and Existence are the Same Thing
> 
> So what differentiates essential substance from the other categories of experience? In Chapter One we discussed essence from the perspective of presence and from the deeper perspective of existence. *Essence and existence are the same thing. The essential substance is experienced in its deepest nature as existence. This level of experience is so deep and profound, so full and packed with a live significance, so moving and so powerful that it is not possible to communicate it through words. Words can describe some aspects of experience, but they fail actually to deliver the whole impact. Words can communicate the experience to somebody who already has had it or is right on the verge of it, but not to somebody who does not know.* The usual contention in spiritual literature, that being cannot be talked about or described, is not quite accurate. Essence can be described, just like anything else, with words and images. This does not mean that someone who hasn't had the experience will understand the description. However, one who has had the experience will easily understand what the description is referring to. But this is true for anything, not just essence.





> Knowing Oneself
> 
> When I talk about “knowing oneself,” I don’t mean knowing that tag, that self-image. I don’t mean knowing how you feel about your body or how you look, or if you’re short or tall or angry or sad. Not these. I mean knowing your inner nature, your true nature. There is such a thing. It’s what we call essence. When you recognize your true nature, your being, your essence, you will see it is Being, because it is. It is in the sense that it is an existence. It is not a reaction; it is not an emotion. An emotion is not an is-ness. An emotion is an activity, a charge and discharge pattern. Essence is there regardless of the charge or discharge. *There is an existence, a beingness that can be experienced, and that is you. If you don’t know this beingness, you can’t know what love is because love has to do with your being, your essence. It has nothing to do with your personality, your emotions or your ideas, your self-concept, your self-image, your accomplishments, your preferences, your likes and dislikes, your relationships. These things have nothing to do with your beingness. Your beingness is pure; it is not contaminated by any of those things. Your beingness is always pure, always present, always perfect.* Its main quality is an is-ness, an existence, a beingness. The personality is an activity, a movement, always going one place or the other, always feeling something, thinking something, wanting something, desiring something. Essence is not like that Essence is just Being. You are. What you are has nothing to do with what you want, what you don’t want, what you do or don’t do. It is just there. You could be doing anything, and the Being is there, and that is you.





> Essence is Gradually Lost as the Personality Develops
> 
> *Essence is gradually lost or covered up (veiled from our perception) as the personality develops. We tend to identify more and more with the personality that develops in response to our environment. By the end we forget that we even had essence.* We end with the experience that there is only our personality, and that we are that personality, as if it always had been thus. *This gives us the hint that in order to allow our essence to emerge again, we need to learn to disidentify from the personality and the sense of ego identity. This, in fact, is the main method that most systems of inner development employ.* This disidentification, which can culminate in the experience technically termed ego death, is the main requirement necessary for the discovery of essence.





> Obscured Experience of Egoic Existence
> 
> *All nine delusions make up the obscured or conditioned experience of egoic existence, and all need to be recognized and seen through if one is going to transcend that existence. One’s work on oneself must lead to accessing the realm of Being, for it is the alienation from Being that is the fundamental cause underlying egoic experience.* While psychological processing is a necessary part of the work, no amount of psychological processing can release the soul from the ego fixation. *Ultimately, Essence must emerge and transform the consciousness. For this reason, work on the Enneagrams of the egoic dimensions, like those of the Fixations and Passions, cannot be fully completed except by penetrating to the delusions underlying them, and these delusions cannot be penetrated except by direct experience of the Holy Ideas.* Only this direct experience of the dimension of Being, and its integration in such a way as to illuminate the delusions as delusions instead of as incontrovertible truths, can fundamentally free the soul from its fixations.





> Point 1 – Holy Perfection
> 
> *The delusion of Point One, then, is the conviction that comparative judgments are ultimate and final. Things can, of course, be compared on the surface, but to believe that such comparisons reflect their fundamental nature is ego’s delusion.* Comparative judgment on the relative level is useful sometimes, but when we are talking about the Holy Ideas, we are talking about a way of experiencing things that is transcendent to the relative level. So we’re not saying that because everything is perfect, you should eat food even if it is rotten. We’re also not saying that if you are sick, you shouldn’t go to a doctor. Obviously, if you want to be healthy, you take care of yourself, and there is comparative judgment involved in that. *Holy Perfection does not negate this level of things, but when we talk about our beingness, our innate existence, we are discussing a level of reality beyond the particulars of whether our bodies are healthy or not, or even whether we are living or not. From this perspective, even the cancer that kills us is part of the perfection of all that is.* Ultimately, as we have seen, even our death is simply part of our fundamental nature and part of all that exists, simply changing from one form into another.......... See also p 149. *The conviction that there is something fundamentally wrong with you is not restricted to those whose ennea-type is Point One. All egos have it. Just as all children grow up with the conviction of Point Eight that they have done something wrong, so all children grow up feeling that something is inherently wrong with them. This is universal to the nature of ego, and we are all usually busy trying to find out what is wrong with us so that we can correct it.* As with any other point on the Enneagram, this conviction cannot be remedied by the experience of an essential state, because it is not due to the loss of an essential aspect or quality of Being, like love or joy. It is not a hole. *When the Holy Idea of Perfection is not present, it does not matter which differentiated aspect of Being you are experiencing; the delusion that some things are perfect and others are not, and the feeling or conviction that you are inherently flawed, remains. It is a conviction in the soul determined by the delusion of comparison. It is a crystallized belief or idea about oneself that twists the soul in a particular way. Only understanding and embodying the Holy Idea will change this.*





> Point 9 – Holy Love
> 
> Holy Love is not the feeling of love, nor the essential aspect of love. Holy Love is a quality of existence that makes that existence lovable. Its loveliness and lovableness is what generates in our hearts sentiments of love, appreciation, value, enjoyment, pleasure, and so on. So we are talking about the quality of lovableness of reality when it is seen without distortion, rather than through the filter of the ego. In other words, *Holy Love is the fact that objective reality has an intrinsic quality of being wonderful and pleasing—it is intrinsically lovable.* This is Holy Love— whatever it is that makes it lovely, enjoyable, lovable, whatever it is about it that we can’t help but appreciate. When reality is fully perceived, one cannot help but enjoy and appreciate it. One cannot but respond with awe when the Holy Truth is fully apprehended, and one cannot but be full of wonder when Holy Perfection is realized. One cannot but melt in appreciative sweetness when beholding Holy Love. Holy Love brings you the experience of love, but it is not the love itself; it is something much more comprehensive. It is a quality of reality as a whole and is very difficult to fully define. *We could say that Holy Love is the intrinsic quality of the reality of Being that is nonconceptual positivity.* It is pure and unalloyed blissfulness. It is the value-saturated quality of truth. It is pure goodness, the Good of Plato.





> Point 9 – Holy Love
> 
> If we don’t perceive this nonconceptual positivity, or if we do, but don’t believe it or take it seriously—which is to say that when Holy Love is lost to our perception or not understood—the result is the specific delusion of Point Nine. *This delusion is not the belief that there is no such lovingness in existence—human beings can’t survive without some sense of love—but rather, that this lovingness is a local phenomenon, occurring at particular points of time and space. This delusion results in the belief that love is conditional, which explains to us why we perceive it at one place and time and not at another. On the surface, we sense these wonderful, beautiful feelings sometimes and not others; some people have it, others don’t; it is present in some parts of the universe and not others.* But the actual core of the delusion is that love is conditional.......... See also p223. At advanced stages of the Work, after you have extensive understanding of Being, this reaction of being asleep manifests in not acknowledging oneself as Being itself. You continue to think and believe that you are not realized; you already know who you really are, yet you continue behaving as if you don’t know. It is as if you are not the one who is having all these experiences of realization and understanding. Identifying with the delusion of Point Nine manifests in not seeing, realizing, or believing that you are really who you are; that you are not really Essence and Being, or even a soul. You continue to believe that reality is what the social consensus says it is: the life, world, and personality of ego.......... See also p229. Many of us have feelings of inferiority about one thing or another. “My parents were poor and I didn’t get as many toys as the other kids, so I always feel inferior. I didn’t go to the right schools, so there is something inferior about me. I was never popular, so there must be something wrong with me.” There are so many causes that people pin their sense of inferiority on, causes which, from the outside, don’t make much sense. This indicates that there is a predisposition toward feeling inferior. *To really see the delusion of ennea-type Nine, we have to see through all of these causes that our minds have locked onto, and see the naked sense of inferiority itself—the sense that we lack intrinsic goodness.*





To summarize:

-Enneagram types are based on specific delusions resulting from the loss of contact with Essence and the Holy Ideas which describe qualities of it.
-The purpose of enneagram is to help us realize our ego delusions so we can disidentify with them and allow Essence to emerge.
-Essence is existence, or simply Being. It is not the ego, personality, or identity.
-Essence has the properties of perfection and nonconceptual positivity. That is, existence is intrinsically good, lovable, and perfect, and we are these things as well simply for being. We are Essence.
-Essence and the Holy Ideas must be _directly experienced_ in order to transcend ego delusions. (Merely discussing topics such as intrinsic value will not get someone there unless they are already on the verge of it.)

It is the ego, which cannot see Essence, which thinks worth is a product to be cultivated and produced, as if there were otherwise nothing good in reality or oneself, as if all were worthless unless it meets their subjective standards. It's the ego which thinks reality is only good so long as it serves its own needs and supports its beliefs. 

The purpose of enneagram, no matter which authors you read, is to help us disidentify with our ego's subjectivity and delusions so that Essence can emerge. So that we stop identifying with the ego or personality and realize that we are, in fact, Essence. We have an existence which is intrinsically valuable. We are not separate beings within reality, we _are _reality because Essence has no divisions.

I'm not denying that there are different types of value, as I and others in this thread have already acknowledged, but I see a lot of people claiming that existence itself has no worth, that we have to experience something that feels personally meaningful, or meet subjective standards imposed by oneself or society, in order to have worth as a human being. And those views appear to be in disagreement with core principles of enneagram. If existence has no value, why would anyone want to stop identifying with ego and allow Essence to emerge? Because that is what Essence is, it's existence. I'm sure people can have their reasons, I don't know anyone's story and I'm not talking to anyone in particular. I'm just pointing out that the idea that existence, or Essence, is intrinsically valuable is an integral part of the system which can't really be omitted. And since this is in enneagram forum, I might as well point that out.


----------



## Eclipsed (Jun 3, 2012)

Living dead said:


> You also obviously have some personal problem with value, otherwise you would be playing video games or eating till you die or whatever else you like to think your life is about instead of being here displaying your superior understanding of life lol
> 
> You already operate on a value based system.
> 
> You can try to reject the outlook because you don't like it but that doesn't mean you aren't affected by it.


Wow, the condescension in the post is verging on hilarious. 

In no way did I view @crashbandicoot as imposing his "superior understanding of life" on anyone- in fact, you were more aggressive with your views and you're only not being attacked because you seem to share the opinion of the majority. The thread is on whether feeling like one has value makes people happy or not- _not_ about whether value exists. It does, though it's subjective, like all human things. The thread is also not about agreeing with each other and attacking those who possess a differing point of view.

You also seem to suggest that playing video games or "eating until you die" are not valid examples of purpose or value. You are completely undermining what's he's saying and being passive-aggressive. I don't think that's okay and that's not how a mature person responds to somebody simply stating their perspective. 



Distortions said:


> Your existence seems like a good argument for value not being intrinsic. Fortunate for you that you don't care about it, I guess.


This comment is highly unnecessary as well. :dry:

Honestly, the cultist, passive-aggressive thanking happening on this thread concerns me more than anything else. Jesus christ.


----------



## Daeva (Apr 18, 2011)

Night Huntress said:


> 2. Objective, intrinsic (OI) value. This is the innate value you possess because you are different from others and present a unique perspective and set of skills, in a way no one else can.



I like that definition.



> Now, on to @_Draconic_.
> 
> 
> All of us have the same degree of objective value. No one person is more or less important than the other, objectively. But what we bring to the world is different for each person.
> ...


It's hardly anything of importance really, it's value for merely existing. But you're right in that it can be important in the lives of others. But then again, so can many things people believe in, regardless of whether it's true or not.



> I disagree with these analogies, because this discussion is about living human beings, and we have several more factors which decide irreplaceability and uniqueness than a leaf or a turd does. We also have far greater mental capacity than other living beings, which is why we create all these abstract delineations in the first place. So it's not correct or helpful to compare us to inanimate things.


The sun has far less mental capacity than any insect roaming this planet. Yet I'd say it's far more valuable than any single (human) person here. If we're talking about intrinsic value, why can't I compare our existence to any other existence in this universe? How is that not fair?



> Firstly, I disagree with the notion that potential must be used and actualized effectively in order to create a meaningful life.
> 
> Secondly, this goes back to my point that despite objective value not mattering to you, it still exists. What you have mentioned here is that people have different potentials and cannot be judged on their differences (that would be an extrinsic way of thinking), but how far they go in terms of the potential they HAVE.
> 
> ...


SI value is still value. So when person A has as much value as person B, except they increase their SI value.. then objectively, the total sum of this person's value is higher. Regardless of the nature of this value.



> We can go on and on about how the entirety of reality and perception is subjective, but that won't get us anywhere. There is a reality we are living in now and we have to acknowledge it. Humans think in terms of what feels good and what doesn't. Yes, logically speaking, value isn't a property of the object. It's a concept we made up. But all of us assign value to things _regardless of who we are._ All of us think in terms of value, however much we may deny it. We may assign different values to different things; that is subjective. But the point is everyone should be able to recognize how all of us are just as valuable as each other, and use that realization when judging themselves and others. (If they don't, I really worry for them.)
> 
> There is an "objective" within the context of value that is different from the "objective" that decides whether a quality is a property of the object itself or not, which is the far-reaching meaning of the word. Language is fluid, and each word has different connotations in different contexts. Currently, we are speaking _within _the context of value.


". But the point is everyone should be able to recognize how all of us are just as valuable as each other, and use that realization when judging themselves and others. (If they don't, I really worry for them.) "
​Eh..should's.. I should've done my laundry today, but I didn't.


----------



## Daeva (Apr 18, 2011)

Illusive said:


> Honestly, the cultist, passive-aggressive thanking happening on this thread concerns me more than anything else. Jesus christ.


Thanks for noticing.


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

Illusive said:


> I didn't misunderstand you, actually. I used greatness as an example because it's a common thing to strive for, and it's common for the general population to admire those who suffer in order to get what they want, no matter how unhappy those people end up being. I've never been interested in success defined by societal standards or expectations, but I mentioned greatness because it still applies as a means of supposedly gaining personal value. One's pursuit is often very personal and I reject the idea that someone who suffers for some higher purpose is not invested in the act emotionally. There's no way anyone would go that far for recognition, unless maybe what they are after is actually recognition- arguably a purpose in itself. Feeling like you have a purpose does not make your life any more fulfilling. My example was not an example of someone doing what society wants, because they certainly don't admire starving artists (unless they "succeed"), but an example of someone doing what they want to the point that it consumes and _kills _them because they are searching for happiness in the wrong place. Because their purpose is to do X thing and they believe in it so strongly that it becomes more important than their own well-being. Which is fine of course since people are free to do what they want, but when you acknowledge this and then claim
> 
> 
> 
> then your entire argument essentially falls apart because it clearly does not make people happy. It _can_, but that doesn't mean it will.[/COLOR]


It's not suffering in and of itself that makes people happy. That would be a ridiculous claim. It's investing in themselves that can lead to a greater sense of Subjective Intrinsic value.



> So yes, I _do_ think it is dangerous and limiting to define yourself based on some arbitrary purpose because we were not put on the earth for any single reason. The use of the word "purpose" implies something great, something that encompasses one's life entirely and not just a collection of simple, basic desires- which is really what most humans are made up of. Few people have one driving force that dictates the direction their life will go, and that's completely okay.


I never said it had to be one. That might be sort of how it manifests for me, but actually, for me the specific purpose is somewhat replaceable (though the common denominator for me personally is I have to attribute meaning to it), but the idea is that I'm actively striving for something. Having a sense of purpose actually leads to longevity, according to studies.

'+windowtitle+'

Having a sense of purpose in life may increase lifespan - Medical News Today

People Who Feel They Have A Purpose In Life Live Longer : Shots - Health News : NPR

Etc. If you google "sense of purpose longevity" you will find endless renditions of this point. Living moment to moment detracts years from people's lives because, while it may lead to more "happiness" now (like, eating ice cream feels better than slaving away over a project) ... it doesn't lead to a sense that the fight to survive is worth the struggle. Once illness kicks in, and causes pain and trauma, people just give up, unless something is driving them.



> If this was poor wording on your part, then it's kind of silly to say people are misunderstanding your perspective because it does indeed imply that you have to do something great or at the very least _good_ to have value.
> 
> And since you seem convinced that people are misunderstanding you in terms of what you mean by personal value, how does the purpose of "enjoying nature" that you mentioned relate to creating something worthwhile or actualizing some sort of potential? What are you striving for when you choose to admire the singing of birds in the morning or the reds and yellows of autumn leaves? Does that individual have "potential" at this point, and will only obtain value when they choose to share their enjoyment with the world or benefit society in some way by using their love of nature? Do they have value to themselves because they enjoy nature? I should not be asking so many questions in order to understand precisely what you mean.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, your perspective is perfectly acceptable, but you are contradicting yourself all over the place and moderating your argument in order to appeal to opposing viewpoints. That hardly makes for a worthwhile discussion. I understand your point of view and where it comes from because I used to share it, but it would help if you did a better job defending it instead of modifying your perspective and using your personal experience to back it up. You like having a sense of purpose, okay, but using an isolated case to back up the idea that it makes _everyone_ happy is not very convincing. _Your personal experience does not make for an absolute truth. _You can filter any opposition you get through this lens and adapt your arguments but that just breaks entire discussion down into a matter of semantics.


Are you even serious? I have stuck to the same point over and over. Yes, I have tried to see others' points of view because that is the purpose of a discussion. I am not going to adhere to a view that no longer makes sense once a better point is presented. That is called stubbornness, and if it's my intent to prove that I'm right and nobody else can possibly have any merit.. why would I even post? But the general trend of my beliefs has been consistent. If you are choosing to look at it through a certain lens to frame me, suit yourself.



> Thing is, the way you see it doesn't really matter. I don't see it that way, so does that not refute what you're saying or will you insist that if I say I'm happy then I have a sense of personal value I'm not aware of even though that's not something that matters to me? Also, even if I did have some sort of value or potential based on my traits and not a clear idea of why I'm alive... would that not be inherent? Are my talents and good qualities not inherent? Did I just suddenly gain them through some sort of black magic? Absolutely everyone has strengths and weaknesses that give them value and the potential to obtain the value that you seem to be describing.
> 
> And do you honestly believe our existence can be defined based on one thing, or even many? Why is a sense of purpose viewed as something we should strive for? Humanity is not so simple- life is so incredibly complex and there are so many fucking reasons to live it's actually overwhelming. The misconception most people have is that they have to find some one purpose or talent, have to find some way to fit into the system. It's a waste of time because they are searching for something that's not there, and if instead of worrying about their value and self-worth they just did whatever they wanted to, perhaps they'd enjoy life quite a bit more.
> 
> ...


I think my links above addressed these points.



> I'm not striving for anything right now, and I have worked incredibly hard to separate happiness from purpose because it was the thing making me unhappy. I'm only beginning to get over years and years of depression because of the simple fact that I've detached myself from the idea of self-worth, value and potential.
> 
> If a sense of purpose works in making you happy, then good for you, but you are wrongly trying to apply your experience to all of humanity. Striving for something more did the exact opposite for me. What makes me happiest at the moment is admiring the stars when I walk the streets late at night or watching the snowfall illuminated by streetlamps. What exactly am I striving for in this situation?
> 
> At this point I'm beginning to repeat myself, so I'll end it here. *TL;DR* I disagree completely and I'm having a strong reaction to the ideas you're presenting because a) I know them to be incorrect and b) this way of thinking nearly destroyed me, not made me happy. I'm rather enjoying being complacent, actually. I don't condemn having goals and I would not stay purposely complacent for the hell of it, but does my happiness depend on how much value I think I have? Not really. I could do with or without it.


You're speaking from your experience and I am speaking from mine. That is also the nature of a debate. Your way of thinking would have destroyed me, too, so I can't answer this "objectively."

And beyond that, you keep saying that you used to see it the way I do, you used to be like me. That is not true. My view has evolved tremendously over many years. Please do not presume that you understand my point of view on this. You understand slivers of this, I know - but not all of it. You did not used to be "like me."


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

Illusive said:


> Wow, the condescension in the post is verging on hilarious.
> 
> In no way did I view @_crashbandicoot_ as imposing his "superior understanding of life" on anyone- in fact, you were more aggressive with your views and you're only not being attacked because you seem to share the opinion of the majority. The thread is on whether feeling like one has value makes people happy or not- _not_ about whether value exists. It does, though it's subjective, like all human things. The thread is also not about agreeing with each other and attacking those who possess a differing point of view.
> 
> ...


Interesting. I was not under the impression that people were being "attacked" or that this was some sort of war. It seems to me a heated discussion in which people are passionately posting their own views, and some are trying to understand others' views. Why must it be about 'being attacked' or 'the majority?' Actually, I think just as many people are posting against the idea of creating value, and supporting intrinsic value. So I'm not sure where you get the idea that the "majority" thinks this. I am also not sure why it's cultist. It's apparently a heated topic, and just as many people are making a "cult" about the opposite view if you want to see it that way. Why the divisiveness? It's a discussion. Not a war.


----------



## Recede (Nov 23, 2011)

cir said:


> The ego structure is not separate or distinct from "my true self". To suggest otherwise is using the defense mechanism of denial on a subconscious part of myself. It is _a (one) *part*_ of who "I" am.


Well sure, you're free to agree or disagree with the passages I quoted. Personally, I don't see why it couldn't be both ways. One could consider Essence (as opposed to ego) the true self, or one could consider the ego a part of that Essence. I mean, of course ego _would _be a part of Essence, but the first way of wording it which separates ego from Essence can be helpful in the sense that people can start to distance themselves from ego and gain objectivity. Both ways of thinking have some truth to them. Sometimes disagreement simply comes from the fact that words can never fully convey all angles of truth. 



> Holy Truth alert: Don't you think this is being a bit too defensive? Just because _you_ have not come across any authors stating this does not mean _she_ hasn't *or* that she is lying.


Alright, I'll admit I got carried away and didn't know how I was coming across. I hope I didn't sound accusatory, which was not my intention at all. (Apologies to @Animal if it came across that way.)



> Now, what is the value behind "most well-known enneagram authors"? Newer authors on the subject have yet to establish such renown, but that does not mean that they lack credibility to prevent this from happening in time.
> 
> And excuse me, can people find legitimate concerns to disagree with most well-known authors? Most well-known authors are not in 100% agreement with each other about every single angle of existence, and this is allowable because subjective expression exists and needs to also be accepted as part of our reality. By the way, these discussions between well-known authors can be found within the archives of Enneagram Monthly, where "many Enneagram authors" contribute to. Whether _you_ think such a publication contributed by many unknown/lesser-known authors is valuable or valid is up to your own personal subjective considerations.


I agree there are a lot of things to consider and that the words of these authors don't necessarily make it the truth, nor do they all interpret these ideas in exactly the same way, of course there are subjective nuances. That's why my intention was simply to show information and leave it up to the readers to decide what they think of that information, whether they agree with the views expressed by the authors or not, and how to make sense of any disagreements.



> I find your previous statement to be in direct contradiction:


There is no contradiction. I wasn't using the enneagram to prove that people have intrinsic value, and I didn't suggest that Animal change her personal views about that, only her views about what enneagram says about it, _if_ they were contrary to what was shown in the passages. Which is not for me to determine, I'm not her and don't know the nuances of her views. So one statement was about personal beliefs about value, the other was about beliefs about enneagram. 



> Holy Truth alert: it's not about PROVING, it's about _supporting_ or "coming to a mutual understanding from differing viewpoints".


Fair enough. I know it's possible to come to a mutual understanding but I didn't have the interest to go into that type of discussion. 



> "Deciding" whether that makes sense? Sometimes, whether something *makes* (a verb) sense is a result of *making* that sense. I'm not as passive though, and I will try my best to make sense of things, communicate them to others, and hope that my visions can be accepted as valid or possible.


Well yeah, of course. But must I be so precise in my wording? I mean, I wish I could be more precise, but I have a hard time finding the right words I guess. 

But anyways, you've got me thinking about Holy Truth now. I was just yesterday trying to figure out how the disconnect from Holy Truth affects 9w8s, and I think I'm starting to see it now. You've helped me understand Holy Truth better, so thanks.


----------



## castigat (Aug 26, 2012)

I'd say both, except that people have intrinsic value with _potential to grow,_ the direction and intensity of which is individually decided. 

I do, however, accept the idea that people have no intrinsic value. It makes sense.


----------



## Ziwosa (Sep 25, 2010)

Recede said:


> You don't reason that 1+1=2.


Actually, you do. Russell and Whitehead - 20th Century Mathematics - The Story of Mathematics


> it takes over 360 pages to prove definitively that 1 + 1 = 2.






Recede said:


> You don't reason that compassion is valuable. Some things are simply inherited human knowledge.


Actually, you do. Compassion being valuable can be put into morals. And you can reason around what is moral and what isn't.



Immanuel Kant said:


> Morality applies to all rational beings, and a moral action is defined as one that is determined by reason, not by our sensual impulses. Because an action is moral on account of its being reasoned, the moral worth of an action is determined by its motive, or the reason behind the action, not by its consequences. We can determine the worth of the motive behind any given moral action by asking whether we could turn that motive into a universally applicable maxim. Reason is the same at all times and for all people, so morality too should be universal. Therefore, an action is moral only if it embodies a maxim that we could will to be a universal law.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

cir said:


> Am I going to be _that_ person to revive a thread after one whole day of no discussion. Yes, other barry, I am.
> 
> Total value = (objective value) + (subjective value). The point of having objective (OI) values is to ensure a *minimum* for *everyone*. Like, "basic human rights" level. If you want to exceed that, then that is your freedom and right (and you are not wrong for expressing this either).
> 
> ...


I was discussing this with @_fawning_ a while ago...



mimesis said:


> I think we can roughly distinct a _dispositional_ value-orientation of the heart type perspectives as
> 
> 2: relational value/power [importance, favorable, privilege, reciprocal altruism]
> 3: extrinsical, instrumental (social) value [use/performance, efficiency, adaptive, status, social identity]
> 4: intrinsical significance [emotional, aesthetic, meaningful, personal identity]


And @_fawning_ 's answer:



fawning said:


> Then the 4 is drawn to art to seek the intrinsic significance.
> 
> But deconstructionism would imply there is no objective significance.



Then my computer hd went to hd heaven and I lost my text file, but we can continue that part of the discussion here 

Intrinsic vs Instrumental (Extrinsic)





How values work | Common Cause

With regard to point two, relational value:



Relational Value said:


> What are the domains in which we seek relational value? Recall that the definition of relational value includes feeling valued by “important others”. Important others make up what is called the sphere of influence. The sphere of influence refers to the real and imagined relationships we have with important others, which exist in several separate (but of course related) relational domains, such as one’s family, one’s lover, one’s friends, one’s community, and one’s socially constructed role identity (e.g., ethic status, sexual orientation). And, of course, we can think of the extent to which we value our selves
> https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/theory-knowledge/201206/relational-value


Also related I think, and more extrinsic in terms of power/influence (through reciprocal altruism/favoritism/privilege etc.) compared to intrinsic relational value of 'love', is the construct known as Guanxi, which perhaps @_hal0hal0_ can shed his light on (having in mind his remark that Chinese society/culture is very 2-ish).



Relational Power said:


> Guanxi describes the basic dynamic in personalized networks of influence, and is a central idea in Chinese society. In Western media, the pinyin romanization of this Chinese word is becoming more widely used instead of the two common translations—"connections" and "relationships"—as neither of those terms sufficiently reflects the wide cultural implications that guanxi describes.


----------



## Ziwosa (Sep 25, 2010)

Animal said:


> My argument is, in essence, that nobody can determine a person's value except for themselves. And, a sense of self-worth and personal value comes from striving toward something meaningful.


There is no such thing as intrinsic value. Value is assigned by humans. It's entirely subjective. I don't think one can assign value to their own life without comparing it to another human. One can sacrifice themselves to save another, but that's pretty much it. If you were the only human alive, how would you go about determining the value of your own life?

Like motion, speed and time, value too is entirely relative. You need something to compare it to.

Value only becomes meaningful as soon as there are other people involved. As they can and will value (or lack of thereof) you in their own unique way.

Though I do agree that having something meaningful to strive forward to will likely lead to a happy and life.

If it isn't obvious yet from my reply, I'm a type 5.


----------



## cir (Oct 4, 2013)

Recede said:


> Well sure, you're free to agree or disagree with the passages I quoted. Personally, I don't see why it couldn't be both ways.


 For starters, you think it's about agreeing or disagreeing, when I'm saying that it's not the case. You can disagree with something (subjectively) and still find it valid (objectively). It's about people seeing and experiencing different aspects of reality and then attempting to communicate their own points of view. It's about _understanding_.



> One could consider *Essence (as opposed to ego)* the true self, or *one could consider the ego a part of that Essence*. I mean, of course ego _would _be a part of Essence, but the first way of wording it which separates ego from Essence can be helpful in the sense that people can start to distance themselves from ego and gain objectivity. Both ways of thinking have some truth to them. Sometimes disagreement simply comes from the fact that words can never fully convey all angles of truth.


 In order for people to distance themselves from the ego, one must be able to identify that ego. If people do not recognize that they have all nine types within themselves (which is emphasized by many authors of various renown, and also because *Holy Law states that the totality of reality is the highest law*), then they will probably not attempt to identify where and how the defensive mechanisms of all nine types manifest within themselves. As a result, while they can dis-identify from their base type, they will not dis-identify from the other eight types.

Now, let's talk about the word "opposed".



Almaas said:


> The Holy Idea for ennea-type Eight is Holy Truth. It refers to the unity of existence, and *includes and goes beyond Essence and the Absolute*. To understand what the Holy Truth is, we need to first investigate what truth is.
> ...
> However, none of the levels of truth that we have been describing is what the Holy Idea of Holy Truth refers to. *Holy Truth is the perception that all these levels are actually one thing*, that all the dimensions constitute a complete state of unity. *In other words, all the dimensions of reality are completely inseparable from one another, and all are the same thing.* This is the perception that there is absolutely no duality—either horizontally (between objects) or vertically (between dimensions). So although we experience ourselves moving progressively into deeper and deeper dimensions of reality as our inquiry becomes increasingly subtle, Holy Truth is the perception that *all these dimensions exist simultaneously**. They are all facets of the same reality*, so the sense of a hierarchy is ultimately illusory.


[HR][/HR]


> I agree there are a lot of things to consider and that the words of these authors *don't necessarily make it the truth*, nor do they all interpret these ideas in exactly the same way, of course there are subjective nuances.


 Holy Truth alert. Sometimes, the path of least resistance is an act of faith, in giving people the benefit of the doubt. No one claims to know everything, so while they may not necessarily be stating the absolute truth, they may be trying their best to communicate everything they know.



Almaas said:


> Truth The first type or level of truth that we encounter is what we call relative truth. *Relative truth is the fact of what is happening, and we call it "relative" because it is specific to the person, the situation, and the time in which the experience is taking place; this means it is constantly changing.* For example, the relative truth right now is that you are sitting reading this book, and a while ago the truth was that you were doing something else. The relative truth depends on the situation, and tells us the facts of what is happening now. These truths are the most obvious ones, and are the points of departure for contacting a deeper level of truth.


[HR][/HR]


> That's why *my intention* was simply to show information and leave it up to the readers to decide what they think of that information, whether they agree with the views expressed by the authors or not, and how to make sense of any disagreements.
> 
> There is no contradiction. I wasn't using the enneagram to prove that people have intrinsic value, and I didn't suggest that Animal change her personal views about that, only her views about what enneagram says about it, _if_ they were contrary to what was shown in the passages. Which is not for me to determine, I'm not her and don't know the nuances of her views. So one statement was about personal beliefs about value, the other was about beliefs about enneagram.
> 
> Fair enough. I know it's possible to come to a mutual understanding but I didn't have the interest to go into that type of discussion.


 The "contradiction" was that you were trying to prove that you were "right" (the *most* basic example of fixation to the Holy Truth), with the support of various "well-known enneagram authors", and if @_Animal_ disagrees, then perhaps "she might want to rethink her views about enneagram". If you weren't trying to come to a mutual understanding (which requires receptivity on your part), which was the point of this thread, then you were simply trying to present your own views, as disjointed and disconnected as they are, as "the truth".

When you present your citations in order to "leave it up to the readers to decide what they think of that information", but then suggest "if you don't agree with me, and I am in agreement with these well-known authors, then perhaps you are wrong and should rethink your views about the enneagram"... that's the contradiction. It's about your intent, not about the facts of reality.



> Well yeah, of course. But must I be so precise in my wording? I mean, I wish I could be more precise, but I have a hard time finding the right words I guess.


 Well, everyone is lazy somewhere ("all nine types are manifestations of type nine"). Personally, I value doing things that can elevate humanity as a whole, and the subjective reality is that some people will find it easier to communicate to certain groups of people than (1) other people communicating to those same groups of people and (2) communicating to other different groups of people.

Precision will help people cut through the fog of ambiguity with minimal effort. I don't see the point of needless confusion, suffering, and "learning the hard way" when (comparatively) minor efforts of my end can benefit those who can't or don't want to. The result of something I do for my own selfish desire for understanding can then be distributed for the greater good. For free.

Funny discussion on value. Some things can have ranges of values. Others are simply priceless. :^)



> But anyways, you've got me thinking about Holy Truth now. I was just yesterday trying to figure out how the disconnect from Holy Truth affects 9w8s, and I think I'm starting to see it now. You've helped me understand Holy Truth better, so thanks.


 Any time!

[HR][/HR] @_mimesis_

I don't necessarily disagree with your fundamental assumptions. However, I would argue that "relational" is inherently *ex*trinsic (vs intrinsic for 4) because it necessarily involves a second, *ex*ternal party to oneself. The definition of the word "*ex*trinsic" includes "*ex*ternal, separable from the thing itself, inessential". So as long as *ex*ternal eyes to oneself is involved in the evaluation of value, then value starts to become *ex*trinsic.

Since threes sit in the middle between intrinsic (4) and extrinsic (2) values, it would make sense that they would be motivated by elements of both types of values. But since they're internally connected to points nine and six, their main problem involves trying to separate their extrinsically-motivated behavior (based on their environment/society) from intrinsically-motivated behavior (which is based on their own beliefs, their "authentic" selves). Threes try very hard to equate extrinsically-motivated behaviors to their own intrinsically-motivated behaviors, and that's a huge source of their life problems.

Yeah, hard drives crash occasionally. Hopefully now you'll be proactive in making backups.

And thank you! I'm actually of Chinese descent, so I completely understand where @_hal0hal0_ is coming from. However, I *also* see a lot of three-ish influences as well. Think of all of the fake, cheap Chinese knockoffs out there in the world; because Chinese people highly value a form of privacy, like "being honest/respectful about disgraceful things and keeping it within the family"; and lots of utilization of deception in order to advance oneself or one's family. In this and other surrounding Asian cultures (Korea and Japan), "saving face" is considered very important since your (or your family's) face is a part of who you are. (Though, I would say South Korea is more purely three, since you don't get any more "ego-vanity" than becoming the plastic surgery capital of the world.)


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

@cir

I agree that it's mostly extrinsic relational value, concerning 2's more typical behavior as we know it (and most of what I listed is extrinsic), but the virtue of humility -not as inferior or self depreciation or denigration- is intrinsic. Then again, I guess the same could be said of the virtue Authenticity/Transparancy. 
I also agree that there is overlap, with adjacent points, or integration/disintegration, so it shouldn't be taken as something strictly separate or discrete.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

cir said:


> @mimesis
> 
> I don't necessarily disagree with your fundamental assumptions. However, I would argue that "relational" is inherently *ex*trinsic (vs intrinsic for 4) because it necessarily involves a second, *ex*ternal party to oneself. The definition of the word "*ex*trinsic" includes "*ex*ternal, separable from the thing itself, inessential". So as long as *ex*ternal eyes to oneself is involved in the evaluation of value, then value starts to become *ex*trinsic.
> 
> Since threes sit in the middle between intrinsic (4) and extrinsic (2) values, it would make sense that they would be motivated by elements of both types of values. But since they're internally connected to points nine and six, their main problem involves trying to separate their extrinsically-motivated behavior (based on their environment/society) from intrinsically-motivated behavior (which is based on their own beliefs, their "authentic" selves). Threes try very hard to equate extrinsically-motivated behaviors to their own intrinsically-motivated behaviors, and that's a huge source of their life problems.



Okay, I can respond a bit more focused now. 

I don't see how a debate whether relational value is inherently extrinsic or not, or a separate (or sub- if you will, distinct from other instrumental or extrinsic value) is of any use within the context of enneagram. This is a philosophical discours in itself, and we could quote different viewpoints, with colored text and all, on whether they are or are not a separate category. Even the divide between intrinsic and extrinsic is arbitrary or at least ambiguous, as the clip I posted also suggested at the end. (which in itself isn't necessarily a bad thing, because it's hard to keep them strictly separate and discrete anyway) People may be primarily focused on extrinsic values (money, status) as a strategy to accomplish intrinsic value (happiness).

So let's skip the semantics and take some real life examples. I know you work hard, with your 3 fix to achieve and perform. But wouldn't you say it would be incredibly frustrating to see someone else, who performs or has accomplished less than you, to get an assignment, just because 'they know people'? That is what I meant with "relational", as in "relationships", or "power relation" (line to 8). 'Privilege' or 'entitlement', or 'charity' would be an understatement. Favoritism. Nepotism. Cronyism. Or think about the 'relational influence' of the sx2 'Femme Fatale', or the soc2 'Ambition', by operating as a social hub (whether or not manipulating behind the curtain). There have been debates here wether or not Napoleon is type 2, but I don't believe anyone so far had focused on how our little guy seized power.


* *







Napoleon Relations said:


> But what matters in 1800 is that Napoléon and Joséphine are political allies. He knows he owes his rise in the army and national politics to her and her connections. Without those, it is unlikely that his coup would have succeeded. Napoléon and Joséphine planned it together, they would have shared the consequences of any failures, and now they bask together in the glow of success.





Napoleon Ingratiation said:


> But with the promise of what reward did he stimulate them ? The promise was still Italy. ' Friends,' he said, ' I promise it to you, this conquest !' And by the strangest of contradictions, he styled them 'the liberators of the people.'





Napoleon Quid Pro Quo said:


> Napoleon's soldiers proudly promoted "equality, fraternity, and liberty" at home during the Revolution and were given access to opportunities for promotion based on merit that would have been impossible under the Ancien Regime. (...) By contrast the Nazi party was a gang of vindictive, reactionary thugs preying on the weakest members of society: homosexuals, Jews, labor organizers, etc--these were mostly embittered, poorly-educated, and unemployed WW1 vets who wanted to set the clock back to a time when the German Army was a dominant force in society and non-Germans cowered in fear of them. Napoleon rallied intellectuals to him and ingratiated himself with the intelligentsia of his day--the ones that didn't flee Hitler ended up in concentration camps.








Relational Value said:


> Relational value is a variation of extrinsic value and focuses on the general patterns or environmental systems which integrate and structure the togetherness of things.


So basically, I make the distinction in order to put the type into perspective. Three may be in the 'middle' of 2 and 4, but 2 is in the 'middle' of 3 and 1, and 4 is in the middle of 3 and 5. So? There's arguably an overlap between 2 and 4 and it doesn't need to 'pass' 3 territory 'in the middle' to get there. So, much as you hope to solve this with logic, I just don't think it it's applicable.


----------



## cir (Oct 4, 2013)

mimesis said:


> Okay, I can respond a bit more focused now.


 *smokes a bowl and takes two shots of vodka*



> I don't see how a debate whether relational value is inherently extrinsic or not, or a separate (or sub- if you will, distinct from other instrumental or extrinsic value) is of any use within the context of enneagram. This is a philosophical discours in itself, and we could quote different viewpoints, with colored text and all, on whether they are or are not a separate category. Even the divide between intrinsic and extrinsic is arbitrary or at least ambiguous, as the clip I posted also suggested at the end. (which in itself isn't necessarily a bad thing, because it's hard to keep them strictly separate and discrete anyway) People may be primarily focused on extrinsic values (money, status) as a strategy to accomplish intrinsic value (happiness).


 Usefulness is situational and subjective. If you experience life in the form of 3D photoshop layers (why? because it's awesome!), it's about the underlying logic of how you organize those photoshop layers. It's about the underlying structure, the definitions of those layers. The subjective reasons you want to analyze the layers is less important than if you were consistent in applying them, though if you keep your models straight, you can convert between models.



> So let's skip the semantics and take some real life examples. *I know you work hard, with your 3 fix to achieve and perform. But wouldn't you say it would be incredibly frustrating to see someone else, who performs or has accomplished less than you, to get an assignment, just because 'they know people'?* That is what I meant with "relational", as in "relationships", or "power relation" (line to 8). 'Privilege' or 'entitlement', or 'charity' would be an understatement. Favoritism. Nepotism. Cronyism. Or think about the 'relational influence' of the sx2 'Femme Fatale', or the soc2 'Ambition', by operating as a social hub (whether or not manipulating behind the curtain). There have been debates here wether or not Napoleon is type 2, but I don't believe anyone so far had focused on how our little guy seized power.


 Nope. My father (8w9) had taught me my entire life to exploit those relationships, and it's only relatively recently (I'm in my mid 20s) did I _really_ understood that advice. If the first 20 years of my life weren't as rough as it was, I probably could have been psychologically healthy enough to make use of that advice earlier.

The two'ishness is _very_ pervasive in my family, and every single enneatype has reasons to be aversive to the type in their line of integration.

Actually, now that you're asking questions more personally (Holy?) origin-related... Before trying to answer this question, I can't say I had a strong feeling on the matter. Sure, my instinctive answer is always "no" (that defense mechanism: denial), but really, now that I've thought about it, I would definitely say "no".

In those East Asian cultures, the family name ("last name") comes first, _and then_ your individual name. My family, no matter how distant, emphasize the importance of blood ties. I do see the benefits in it, even if I don't personally agree as strongly on the subject as they do.

Both of my parents are war-refugees from the Vietnam War. Things they don't teach you in US history class: the Vietnam War affected a lot more areas than _just_ Vietnam. Both the Korean and Vietnam wars of that era lead to a split in the nation, though only Vietnam was able to "become whole again". There are many Asian members of PerC who got dislocated from their native, blood-root countries because of those wars. Plenty of my could've-been-family members died, many of them well educated and could've provided a good service no matter where they lived. Apparently, through my father's blood line, his (my ancestor's) family was among the wealthiest in his town, and our family's wealth were destroyed in the war, among other lives and things. 

Today, he's still friends with the same people in his escape boat. Through these struggles, they're basically blood-ties now. Somehow, he managed to come into contact with other survivors who were educated. My dad's "adoptive mother"-figure in the USA is _very_ type two. That shock you feel when the oldest people in your family, blood or not, are more literate than your parent's generation. Because their lives got disrupted by the war that they didn't even complete education beyond the third grade, if they had enough money to be educated at all. That shock you feel when you and your siblings, combined with our grandparents's generation, are more literate than our parent's generation (though in different languages). In wealthier nations, literacy is one of those things that gets taken for granted.

On my mother's side of the family (she's a six)... they weren't wealthy, but they were lucky enough to know people. Though not everyone made it to the same place at the same time. My maternal grandfather's side of the family got located to the east coast of the USA. My grandfather's younger brother's family eventually made it to the USA too, but they're on the west coast. And they're doing pretty well, like middle-class-in-California, many-going-to-UCs-(UC Berkeley!)-well.

On my local side though, we're even blood-progressive. One of my "blood" relations (through marriage) is mixed race! An aunt on my mother's side (a two) can generate as much income to rival my father (both own their own businesses), _but_ she _also_ single-handedly financially supports the rest of my mother's side of the family. Obviously, she hires family members for her business.

It's hard to care and follow the law when in their formative years, the laws weren't there to protect them, if there were laws at all. Being forced to watch everything generations of your family have collectively worked for get destroyed overnight. Witnessing family members getting conscripted to the war. There was no longer fear that you would never see them again. People just knew. All of that "favoritism, nepotism, cronyism"... it is only through those channels that my family survived. I really can't blame them. I'm actually impressed.

That those people got to where they are purely because of connections... It would be hypocritical of me to find problems with that. Some more unspoken or unrealized shame around here: If you are a woman, it's expected that you sleep with the person you're trying to form that connection with. "Prostituting" yourself sucks, it's among the most humiliating thing a woman has to endure, but sometimes you have to dirty/corrupt yourself so that others in your family don't have to. Now, imagine how much it sucks that a blood-relative is so poor that she was on the verge of selling her daughter off to a brothel. Without my dad stepping in, selling her daughter to a brothel was the best chance to ensure her and her daughter's survival.

Yes, family-based corruption (part of the "shame" at two) is the kind my family and extended families partake in. Within the context of an open and fair society, this wouldn't be ideal. But the only reason I'm alive today is because within my family's guan xi, that we can generate enough traction to move members across the world. It's not exactly like those family members we're moving around are living in countries with safe, reliable, or stable governments or anything. And when they get relocated to a brand new country with a language barrier and culture shock, it's not like they can "earn" their living through their own foreign "merit". Fortunately, none of our family members are forced to become "shadow (unregistered) citizens", and I'm sad for the families that have difficulty establishing stability because of that.

My father and every single one of my father's surviving siblings are independently wealthy (relative to the average global wealth) in their own right. Members of my father's extended family have (possibly multiple) citizenships throughout the world, which are ties we hope to be able to use in order to move around in case things get rough. Every single one of my parent's social network contacts, the guan xi, are survivors of those wars or are a single generation removed.

Those things you listed aren't important enough to get worked over. They're literally not life-or-death situations. So no, I really don't give a shit if people get assignments over me despite showing no skill or having less achievements. Achievements come cheap to me, and I've been the target of envy throughout my life (though I don't know why, I've had very obvious emotional and psychological problems for most of my life) that I rather not mention them and be able to "use them in secret" (3w4). And I'm fortunate that I didn't have to sleep my way to my "success". For most people, if you show them any effort *at all*, they would be impressed. If those are the kinds of people in power, and I must be subordinate to them, I would rather do the minimum I can get away with. Then the rest of my attention, time, and energy can be spent on things that would make me personally happy. Just herp derping and enjoying life.

Fun fact: you can add some words to the phrase "guan xi" to say "it's none of your business". It's how families keep their shame within their families. In our East Asian names, the family name comes first. Tarnishing that name tarnishes the reputation of everyone who shares that name.



> Three may be in the 'middle' of 2 and 4, but 2 is in the 'middle' of 3 and 1, and 4 is in the middle of 3 and 5. So? *There's arguably an overlap between 2 and 4 and it doesn't need to 'pass' 3 territory 'in the middle' to get there.* So, much as you hope to solve this with logic, I just don't think it it's applicable.


 Whether it's applicable depends on what you're looking for. I like puzzles; I try to solve them for my own enjoyment. Unless I'm directly asked for personal examples, those are just not the first things that come to my mind. Sevens are "fear forgotten" and threes are "shame forgotten".

Anyway I'm going to argue the thing in red. There's an internal line connecting 2<->4 that spatially passes across three, and that line is completely within the image center.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

cir said:


> *smokes a bowl and takes two shots of vodka*
> 
> Usefulness is situational and subjective. If you experience life in the form of 3D photoshop layers (why? because it's awesome!), it's about the underlying logic of how you organize those photoshop layers. It's about the underlying structure, the definitions of those layers. The subjective reasons you want to analyze the layers is less important than if you were consistent in applying them, though if you keep your models straight, you can convert between models.
> 
> ...



Thanks for sharing that history. I have Asian descent too, but more Eurasian, mixed blood, which is in itself a pretty complex history with regard to family relations, as with the African Americans, (breaking families apart, and rotation system amongst plantation owners, to break relational power was part of the repression), but I won't get into that right now. 

And sure, you can see ennea-types to some extent embedded in culture. That's not strange is it? Or certain types more represented in a culture than others (for instance, US being said to be typically 3 ish). When I was in the Middle East, I spoke a guy from Canada who had worked there (I believe in Oman or Qatar) for 2 years , and decided to go back home, because he couldn't cope with the blatant nepotism, and in his view people didn't care about merit as much as the tribe/clan/family, which was the prevalent factor in decision making. Btw when a culture is more 2 ish or 3ish, or whatever doesn't mean the type is also more represented necessarily. Knowing how things work (e.g. winner takes all or everything you wrote about how you were nurtured) doesn't mean an individual knows how to make it work for himself, and adapt to this environment. (e.g. it doesn't create or nurture more 'winners'). That's what the Napoleon quotes were meant for. 

In that respect I'd say (and this is to some extent in agreement with with your view) that point 3 (as 6 and 9) is more community, almost 'herd' or collectivist type of 'inter-subjectivity' and a view of Self, from 'without', and it's basically the different between meritocracy (competitive dominance hierarchy, strategic alliances, social contract, reconciliation of opposites ) and nepotism (favoritism, reciprocal altruism, etc).

Gotta go now.


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

*Narcissism and Intrinsic Value: "The world owes me something because I exist."*

I was writing a post somewhere else about narcissism and I wanted to share it here, because it is pertinent.

Any type can be clinically narcissistic and if we are talking about enneagram narcissism, it could pertain to anyone who is an id type, and a lot of Sx 4s. 

(Keep in mind that in this post I am referring to stereotypes and the underlying outlook of each type, rather than accusing the individuals of this type, of possessing each trait or outlook as such.)

3s are narcissistic in the "vanity" sense - but they are not narcissistic in the "World owes me something" sense. They have a very strong earning mentality. Yes they can be very full of themselves, at surface, but they are also aware of the difference between the image they project and the "worthless" person they really are. Deep down they are scrambling to accomplish something so they can be deserving of attention. Narcissism is misused here - from a psychiatric perspective, it would line up more neatly with type 7, someone who feels they are "owed" pleasurable experience simply for existing. This is gluttony. Type 3 vanity is more about colloquial (but not psychiatric) narcissism, as in, someone who looks in the mirror too much to perfect their image so they can be lovable. 

If we are to use a metaphor, 7s would look in the mirror and think "I'm so beautiful" whereas 3s would look in the mirror and think "How can I make myself more beautiful so I will be worthy of love?" The former is more in line with the story of Narcissus, who was enamored by his own reflection.

In that sense, 9s are more narcissistic than 3s. People see the surface of a stereotypical 3: a person boasting about all his accomplishments and the traits which he feels are valuable, which will make him lovable, admirable, give him value. In his eyes these are accomplishments and traits that he worked hard for. But he still doesn't feel "worth" being admired for anything intrinsic, aside from maybe his work ethic. Contrarily, a stereotypical 9 will be more pleasant, not bragging, not showing off, and feeling that he deserves to be loved because he exists. He doesn't need to do anything in order to be loved - because "Holy Love" means that everyone equally is worthy of love. So why should he have to work, to prove himself, to acquire some form of concrete value (which he sees as being fake and forced)? Why should he comply to these standards to be valuable when he is already valuable anyway? Working and sweating and effort shouldn't be necessary. Thus, sloth.

And in that sense 3s are the ones with LESS inherent confidence, as they have lost sight of any inherent sense of worth. 3s are the ones who will sweat for you, change themselves to be loved, work hard to support you and themselves, fix their traits to be more attractive to you, etc. This hardly earns the title of "narcissist."

And likewise, the idea that it's more important to acknowledge one's intrinsic value, than to emphasize earning and patience and hard work to acquire value, is actually a more narcissistic viewpoint in a way. That they were born deserving of something, just because they exist. Whereas those who believe value has to be earned, are willing to work not only for their own value, but also to please and accommodate others. I am not saying they are better people, because this still comes from a selfish place of wanting to be loved and accepted. But it's hard for me not to view the idea of "I don't have to do anything in order to be loved/valuable" as being a bit.. _entitled_... when I work so hard to express myself honestly, to listen, to connect, to create, to communicate beauty... because I don't feel that people should love me simply because I exist. I don't believe in unconditional love, really, except in the parent-child context, and even then if your kid is a sociopathic criminal, there is a cut-off point when supporting them is just enabling this behavior to continue. To me it's more loving to challenge someone, to encourage them to be true to themselves, to inspire, and to have enough self-respect to have a line that nobody can cross. This forces people to look at themselves and grow. 

This is why I've been so uncomfortable with various people saying that "If you don't agree with the fact that people are intrinsically valuable, I feel sorry for you/ there's something wrong with you/ you're evil." From my perspective, my way of loving is actually kind and caring and pushing someone. It entails putting in the work to be a better lover or friend, putting in the work to understand what inspires someone, putting in the work to self-improve. I cannot abide by the notion that my way of viewing this is more narcissistic, selfish, entitled, elitist or any other negative adjective. It's not better than the other way, as both have merits, but it's not worse or more selfish either.


----------



## Daeva (Apr 18, 2011)

Animal said:


> (...)


----------



## cir (Oct 4, 2013)

Animal said:


> In that sense, *9s are more narcissistic than 3s*. People see the surface of a stereotypical 3: a person boasting about all his accomplishments and the traits which he feels are valuable, which will make him lovable, admirable, give him value. In his eyes these are accomplishments and traits that he worked hard for. But he still doesn't feel "worth" being admired for anything intrinsic, aside from maybe his work ethic. *Contrarily, a stereotypical 9* will be more pleasant, not bragging, not showing off, *and feeling that he deserves to be loved because he exists. He doesn't need to do anything in order to be loved - because "Holy Love" means that everyone equally is worthy of love. So why should he have to work, to prove himself, to acquire some form of concrete value (which he sees as being fake and forced)? Why should he comply to these standards to be valuable when he is already valuable anyway? Working and sweating and effort shouldn't be necessary.* Thus, sloth.


 Actually, that's backwards. Most "unawakened" nines do *not* feel like they deserve to be loved because of their existence. In fact, most nines do *not* feel like they are entitled to acknowledgment of their existence! In order for narcissism to work for nines, they'd actually have to be able to see or find themselves, rather than acting like another mirror of the external world.

That theoretical nine should have to work to find his own *subjective* meaning in life. But if he doesn't care about those values, and if he isn't doing anything to hurt others, then why do *you* care? They aren't hurting you, so why are you trying to hurt them?

What is the value behind "working, proving himself, acquiring some form of concrete value"? Value is perceived. You don't perceive objective values. Many people don't perceive subjective values. Many people don't care about personal evaluation of worthiness or concrete forms of value. I'd haphazard a guess and say that most people aren't from the image center. *You* care, but many people don't. Most people just want to live their lives in peace in the company of their loved ones. The privilege of being able to do that is already inherently valuable. Why is that wrong? Why does competition have to be assumed? Why be greedy and demand more from life?



> And likewise, the idea that it's *more* important to acknowledge one's intrinsic value, than to emphasize earning and patience and hard work to acquire value, is actually a more *narcissistic* viewpoint in a way. *That they were born deserving of something, just because they exist.*


 What about "realistic"? Is it too much to consider that people *should be* entitled to the bare necessities to stay alive? You have _completely_ missed the point of objective values. Do you live in a safe, first world country? Because what you are proposing is very privileged, in such a way that it ignores the realities, the pain and struggles, of the rest of the world. 

It's not about those lofty goals of "being loved" or "acquiring value". It's about being alive. With a heart beat, brain activity, and capable of moving the rest of their body. You act like "acquiring value" is the most important thing in life. It's not. *The most important thing in life is life itself*.










Where do you think "intrinsic value" matters the most? You think people should skip the foundations of physiological and safety needs, and instead skip to focusing on the love, esteem, and self-actualizing needs?

Because that's the logical implication of your thoughts. That people need to "earn" their love. Love isn't a zero-sum game. Unconditional love does not take anything away from you, so I don't understand what your problem is. In a non-competitive society, other people's value do not detract from your own value. Just because *you* went through *your* life struggling to receive validation does not mean that should be the way for everyone else. You wouldn't like it if people with your mindset applied it back to you, especially since there's no guarantee that what you have to offer matches what they're looking for. Image center, so "looking for" is assumed.

How would you feel if other people compared their values to yours, and decided that yours are negligible in comparison. What if, from your envy, that people in power agree with your own assessment about what you are lacking? *And then* followed through with deciding that you aren't worthy of being alive. *You wouldn't feel.* Those "earned values" aren't going to help you when you're dead.



> Whereas those who believe value has to be earned, are willing to work not only for their own value, but also to please and accommodate others.


 Don't you think it's cruel to say to children (when the mechanics of their enneatypes are forming) that if they don't do something, then they don't deserve to live? Because I grew up under that shit, with parents who had difficulties adjusting to the new world. As young as I could remember, I was told, "ordered", to "perform" or "achieve" or else I'd be thrown out to the streets to die. My parents threatened to put me up for adoption if I did not do my part, "performed" or "achieved", at the ripe old age of "the earliest I could remember". Thankfully, they've gotten better, but that still doesn't make that mindset any less cruel, dehumanizing, and incredibly unloving.

What if, due to the lack of intrinsic value, value *couldn't* be earned? Because in the society you grew up in, *everyone* is competitive? Japan and South Korea regularly top the charts in number of suicides. Is that an achievement to be proud of? In Japan, there's even a word for "killing yourself to maintain your (and/or your family's) honor": seppuku.

Some people believe value is intrinsic, and they're working for their own value *and* the value of others. OE values. Perhaps the only reason you are alive today is because enough people in this world recognize the value of life, rather than finding reasons to extinguish it.

Your struggles gave your life meaning. Great. However, I think pain and struggle to earn love is unnecessary.



> I am not saying they are better people, because this still comes from a selfish place of wanting to be loved and accepted. But it's hard for me not to view the idea of "I don't have to do anything in order to be loved/valuable" as being a bit.. _entitled_... *when I work so hard to express myself honestly, to listen, to connect, to create, to communicate beauty*... because I don't feel that people should love me simply because I exist.


 *From your own logic, many people won't love or value you even if you had done those things.* Simply because outsiders don't value those things. Many people think those actions are selfish, entitled, and narcissistic. For example, beauty is subjective, so why bother trying to communicate it. Everyone has their interpretations on it; it's assumed. What value can you offer? Something different and unique? Many people value conformity. "A nail that sticks out gets hammered down".



> I don't believe in unconditional love, really, except in the parent-child context, and even then if your kid is a sociopathic criminal, there is a cut-off point when supporting them is just enabling this behavior to continue.


 If you have a sociopathic child, then "cutting him off" just means he's going to wreak havoc onto others. Do you have what it takes to kill your own child, your own flesh and blood, for the betterment of society?



> *To me it's more loving* to challenge someone, to encourage them to be true to themselves, to inspire, and to have enough self-respect to have a line that nobody can cross. This *forces* people to look at themselves and grow.


 People should be entitled with the bare minimum necessities in order to survive, be alive. Is that really too entitled for you? "Being true to themselves and have enough self-respect to have a line that nobody can cross" is not going to stop a bullet from piercing your heart.

If I had to haphazard a guess, I'd say eights don't think "forcing" people is "loving".



> This is why I've been so uncomfortable with various people saying that "If you don't agree with the fact that people are intrinsically valuable, I feel sorry for you/ there's something wrong with you/ you're evil." From my perspective, *my way of loving is actually kind and caring and pushing someone*. It entails putting in the work to be a better lover or friend, putting in the work to understand what inspires someone, putting in the work to self-improve. I cannot abide by the notion that my way of viewing this is more narcissistic, selfish, entitled, elitist or any other negative adjective. *It's not better than the other way*, as both have merits, but it's not worse or more selfish either.


 And there are people, like nines, who think "pushing someone" *isn't* love. From your subjective perspective, you think it's "actually kind and caring", and many people don't care about subjective perspectives but think what you propose is actually life threatening. Because now you are sending the message that if you don't do something, then you are unlovable. If you do not change who you are, then you are unlovable. What's the point of people "finding their own value in life" if *you* aren't going to recognize it, because you don't understand it?

On one hand, you say "it's more loving to challenge someone, to encourage them to be true to themselves", etc. And then you continue with "my way of loving is actually kind and caring and pushing someone". All the while, you are doing everything you can to invalidate the significance, meaning, and importance of Holy Love while proposing why your way is better or should be "the one true way" (while self-moderating so that you don't blatantly say that outright).

It would be dishonest for you to say those things (with all of the emotional implications behind those statements) *and then* follow up with "it's not better than the other way". Which is it?


----------



## Daeva (Apr 18, 2011)

cir said:


> Actually, that's backwards. Most "unawakened" nines do *not* feel like they deserve to be loved because of their existence. In fact, most nines do *not* feel like they are entitled to acknowledgment of their existence! In order for narcissism to work for nines, they'd actually have to be able to see or find themselves, rather than acting like another mirror of the external world.


That's true, but there is still a lot of entitlement in equalizing all existence to the same level as your own (aka it's all worthless) and pulling it all down, because there is no value to be seen, like unhealthy 9's experience it. They undermine other people's struggles and sense of achievement, effectively putting them on an equal level because they can't find the value in their own lives. So they expect to be treated and to be given the same as everyone else (even if they don't aggressively demand this), regardless of their own behavior. It's entitlement growing from a lack of taking responsibility for oneself.

9's do grow out of this by finding their own subjective meaning in life, like you said. But in the meantime, they can experience a lot of entitlement in the form of thinking "All those other people get to live great lives and have great personalities and they get all the attention,... I deserve all that too!", while not doing the work themselves. Work as in, working on oneself. The 'right' work.



> And there are people, like nines, who think "pushing someone" *isn't love.*


*
*Not all 9's think that way though


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

cir said:


> Actually, that's backwards. Most "unawakened" nines do *not* feel like they deserve to be loved because of their existence. In fact, most nines do *not* feel like they are entitled to acknowledgment of their existence! In order for narcissism to work for nines, they'd actually have to be able to see or find themselves, rather than acting like another mirror of the external world.
> 
> That theoretical nine should have to work to find his own *subjective* meaning in life.


Perhaps "entitlement" is a better word to use than "narcissism." But the belief that one is entitled to be loved and cared for without having to work or earn it, is entitlement.



> But if he doesn't care about those values, and if he isn't doing anything to hurt others, then why do *you* care? They aren't hurting you, so why are you trying to hurt them?


Trying to hurt them - are you serious? The love of my life is a 9 and he was sitting beside me as I wrote these posts. He actually appreciated that I could understand there is something driving him very strongly, something selfish (even stubborn) about him. He appreciates that I recognize his inherent boundaries and viewpoints rather than interpreting him how some people might interpret him (or other 9s) as an accommodating, sweet person with no view of his own, a wallflower. He is nothing like a wallflower, not a pushover, not without his own needs, not utterly selfless. While he has the 9ish qualities of seeing various points of view and so forth, deep down he is an individual with his own mind. He actually loves being seen for his selfish side._ It is an acknowledgement of his humanity._

My post granted 9s with enough respect to see where their perspective is self-serving - just like every other type. No, 9s do not get to escape the "selfish underlying motives" just because their defense mechanism happens to include acting accommodating at surface. I see right under it. I don't say that as an intent to hurt or insult them. I say it out of respect, seeing them as equals to myself, with their own will, heart, fears, interests, and humanity. 9s deserve the respect, from the people who love them - of their own needs and viewpoints being acknowledged. That includes their selfishness. 

Would I be a hypocrite if I said everyone is entitled to have their own self-interest? :O

For the zillionth time - my intent is not to _hurt _anyone but to explain how I interpret things. Isn't it hurtful for people to continue telling me in this thread, over and over, "If you don't believe x, you're wrong/ evil/ morally inferior" - while I repeatedly attempt to explain myself without shaming anyone? Am I the only person here who is expected to be existentially empathetic and accommodating while everyone twists my words, slanders my character and accuses me of things I never said? Seriously??



> What is the value behind "working, proving himself, acquiring some form of concrete value"? Value is perceived. You don't perceive objective values. Many people don't perceive subjective values. Many people don't care about personal evaluation of worthiness or concrete forms of value. I'd haphazard a guess and say that most people aren't from the image center. *You* care, but many people don't. Most people just want to live their lives in peace in the company of their loved ones. The privilege of being able to do that is already inherently valuable. Why is that wrong? Why does competition have to be assumed? Why be greedy and demand more from life?
> 
> What about "realistic"? Is it too much to consider that people *should be* entitled to the bare necessities to stay alive? You have _completely_ missed the point of objective values. Do you live in a safe, first world country? Because what you are proposing is very privileged, in such a way that it ignores the realities, the pain and struggles, of the rest of the world.


Okay.. I never said that everyone isn't entitled to food, shelter , etc. And basic accommodations. That is not what I meant and you are smart enough to know it.

Everyone is entitled to a CHANCE. Everyone is entitled to a (basic) EDUCATION. Everyone is entitled to FOOD. Etc. I'm not debating government policies here. I'm talking about respect and love. I don't believe that everyone is entitled to my respect and my love, though I have repeated several times that I would treat anyone, even my worst enemy , with compassion. I have also said in a post that I took in a prostitute and took care of her because she was my friend. I have done similar things for other people who fucked up. I wonder how many people here , who are preaching "intrinsic value" to me, have welcomed desperate people into their home - WHILE THEY HAD A CHRONIC ILLNESS AND COULD NOT WORK THAT MUCH AND WERE BARELY AFFORDING FOOD AND RENT THEMSELVES - and tried to help them.

I'm frankly sick of people preaching about my morally inferior character. I know what kind of person I am. If other people can't see it then either I'm not expressing it right or they are refusing to listen. In my real life, I have reached out for all sorts of people, I have contributed labor and money (that I barely have and while I am very sick) to charities to feed the poor, etc. I have been the person my friends lean on and come to when they are desperate even when I myself am not exactly swimming in good health and money. 

It's insane to me that people can't see the difference between what I keep repeating - that genuine basic compassion is something I cannot help but afford any person I meet - vs. the idea that value is built through earning. I don't know how else to explain this, but these accusations of me being a bad person are not making me feel bad about myself. It's just making me angry and making me wonder if anyone here has actually practiced what they preach to the extent that I have. A compassionate person would try to understand my point even if they don't agree, rather than jumping to negative conclusions that are unrelated to my actual words. I'm reading the accusations as some kind of projection at this point. At the very least, it's hypocrisy - "Do as I say but not as I do." "Value everyone, even while I shit on you."



> It's not about those lofty goals of "being loved" or "acquiring value". It's about being alive. With a heart beat, brain activity, and capable of moving the rest of their body. You act like "acquiring value" is the most important thing in life. It's not. *The most important thing in life is life itself*.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I was not referring to skipping the basic needs, or taking them away from anyone. That is a far stretch from my original point.



> Because that's the logical implication of your thoughts. That people need to "earn" their love. Love isn't a zero-sum game. Unconditional love does not take anything away from you, so I don't understand what your problem is. In a non-competitive society, other people's value do not detract from your own value. Just because *you* went through *your* life struggling to receive validation does not mean that should be the way for everyone else. You wouldn't like it if people with your mindset applied it back to you, especially since there's no guarantee that what you have to offer matches what they're looking for. Image center, so "looking for" is assumed.
> 
> How would you feel if other people compared their values to yours, and decided that yours are negligible in comparison. What if, from your envy, that people in power agree with your own assessment about what you are lacking? *And then* followed through with deciding that you aren't worthy of being alive. *You wouldn't feel.* Those "earned values" aren't going to help you when you're dead.


I have emphasized that my thoughts are related to Subjective Intrinsic value and it is not up to me to determine someone else's Subjective Intrinsic value. I don't know how you made the leap from that point, to me thinking that it's up to me to determine someone else's value, or up to them to determine mine.



> Don't you think it's cruel to say to children (when the mechanics of their enneatypes are forming) that if they don't do something, then they don't deserve to live? Because I grew up under that shit, with parents who had difficulties adjusting to the new world. As young as I could remember, I was told, "ordered", to "perform" or "achieve" or else I'd be thrown out to the streets to die. My parents threatened to put me up for adoption if I did not do my part, "performed" or "achieved", at the ripe old age of "the earliest I could remember". Thankfully, they've gotten better, but that still doesn't make that mindset any less cruel, dehumanizing, and incredibly unloving.


I'm sorry you went through that, truly. Nobody deserves that. But that was not my point. I have never once said that people don't deserve to live. I don't know where you got that from , but certainly not from anything I've said in my posts.



> What if, due to the lack of intrinsic value, value *couldn't* be earned? Because in the society you grew up in, *everyone* is competitive? Japan and South Korea regularly top the charts in number of suicides. Is that an achievement to be proud of? In Japan, there's even a word for "killing yourself to maintain your (and/or your family's) honor": seppuku.
> 
> Some people believe value is intrinsic, and they're working for their own value *and* the value of others. OE values. Perhaps the only reason you are alive today is because enough people in this world recognize the value of life, rather than finding reasons to extinguish it.
> 
> ...


Again, I agree that people should be entitled to the bare minimum necessities to survive. That is a separate point to being entitled to love and respect, and also, a separate topic from building their own sense of value. *I never once said that someone is not entitled to life and survival, so please stop accusing me of this. It is a major twisting of my point and has nothing to do with what I'm writing about. Value is a different topic from life and survival.*



> And there are people, like nines, who think "pushing someone" *isn't* love. From your subjective perspective, you think it's "actually kind and caring", and many people don't care about subjective perspectives but think what you propose is actually life threatening. Because now you are sending the message that if you don't do something, then you are unlovable. If you do not change who you are, then you are unlovable. What's the point of people "finding their own value in life" if *you* aren't going to recognize it, because you don't understand it?
> 
> On one hand, you say "it's more loving to challenge someone, to encourage them to be true to themselves", etc. And then you continue with "my way of loving is actually kind and caring and pushing someone". All the while, you are doing everything you can to invalidate the significance, meaning, and importance of Holy Love while proposing why your way is better or should be "the one true way" (while self-moderating so that you don't blatantly say that outright).
> 
> It would be dishonest for you to say those things (with all of the emotional implications behind those statements) *and then* follow up with "it's not better than the other way". Which is it?


I wrote that because I've been accused several times in this thread of things like you're writing here - that I lack basic compassion or I think that people don't deserve to live (or basic necessities) unless it is earned. I was explaining the merits of my personal style of loving and respecting. I see the merit in inspiring someone to recognize their potential, even if only by virtue of my own journey to do so.

I was explaining why this isn't any worse than the other way.

I am not here to judge how others love. I wrote that it's not better than the other way because I mean it. _(You are reading hidden motives into my words, asking me what I REALLY mean, when in fact, I said exactly what I meant.)_ But it's not worse either, and I will not succumb to the pressure here, in "if you don't agree with me then you're selfish and you're claiming that people don't deserve to live. " Seriously, to me, that lack of understanding is a lot more judgmental and uncompassionate than what I have afforded people in this thread who disagree with me.

I find it ironic that I'm being accused of a lack of compassion when I am hearing people out and the very people accusing me of this are not affording me any compassion or patience. Twisting my words, adding sentiments that weren't there, jumping to conclusions about things I feel which I never said - this is not compassion. Believe it or not, I have feelings too.


*To make my point very clear:

Some people might think it's narcissistic or entitled, to claim that there is merit in earning. I was pointing out that it can also be seen as narcissistic or entitled, to claim there is no merit in earning. I am not God so I cannot claim that one view is more right than another. All I can say is that both views exist, and that either view could be interpreted as entitled, narcissistic, or self-serving.*


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

cir said:


> And there are people, like nines, who think "pushing someone" *isn't* love.


Like @Draconic said, not all 9s are like this.

But in addition to that, if someone does not appreciate my loving style, then they don't have to date me, don't have to be friends with me, don't have to love me.

Love is about two people understanding, respecting and valuing each other. If someone can't appreciate me for who I am, they don't have to like me or love me. There are plenty of people who love me and plenty who hate me, and plenty who just don't care. You know what? I'm fine with that. In fact I'm much happier to have a strong filter: _my personal values_. This filters out the people who simply will not fit with me. I am not forcing anyone to love me, or to be loved by me. Love is a mutual pact.

But telling me that I ought to love differently because some people don't like it.... I find that quite surprising , coming from an 8. The mindset of 8s is usually closer to "I am going to be myself - take it or leave it." And telling people to toughen up and accept reality. Until now, I have never heard of an 8 telling me to stop being myself because some people don't like it or don't relate to it. It's basically counter to their way of life and point, which is pathologically autonomy-focused.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Basically, some people believe respect is something that needs to be earned, while for others it's something one can lose.

(Just limiting myself to basic respect here, though it appears to be used interchangeably with love).


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

mimesis said:


> Basically, some people believe respect is something that needs to be earned, while for others it's something one can lose.
> 
> (Just limiting myself to basic respect here).


Hm. I agree with both of those. It can be earned, it can be lost, and it can (very rarely) be earned back.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Animal said:


> Hm. I agree with both of those. It can be earned, it can be lost, and it can (very rarely) be earned back.


Lol, sure if you can earn it you can lose it as well. Or, if you lost it you'd need to "earn" it "back". What matters is the (pre) disposition. [and btw I was quoting a psychologist, but I support that one-liner, even though it's a simplification]

Not necessarily type related (probably more related to self-respect), and you can sometimes notice whether someone is trying to earn respect. Even narcissists, in which case it would probably be more by their cocquetry or bragging. (basically saying something like "I did this, aren't I great?", or "he dedicated a poem to me", [oops now I am using it interchangeably with (self-) love], etc.)


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

cir said:


> Because I grew up under that shit, with parents who had difficulties adjusting to the new world. As young as I could remember, I was told, "ordered", to "perform" or "achieve" or else I'd be thrown out to the streets to die. My parents threatened to put me up for adoption if I did not do my part, "performed" or "achieved", at the ripe old age of "the earliest I could remember". Thankfully, they've gotten better, but that still doesn't make that mindset any less cruel, dehumanizing, and incredibly unloving.


I wanted to add this, because it was bothering me. I was upset about the implications being read into my words, which weren't there. But I want to say... this is brutal and cruel and I don't condone it in any way. I've been subjected to major pressure in my own life, too. Family aside, I've been told that my illness is in my head and I don't deserve to be treated for it. It's a very complicated issue, what I face..







This sums it up well. Basically, it costs the government too much money to acknowledge that this illness exists. Socialized medicine countries deny it outright. In USA you can get private care, but it's costly and doctors can be sued and lose their lisence, for treating patients with the ongoing treatment they need. When I got sick, videos like this were not even available, and the "chronic Lyme community" and awareness was non-existant. My mother and I were both accused of being crazy for daring to suggest I had this illness - and I was given treatment for another illness which resulted in my Lyme getting much worse, to the point where I almost died at 16. After that, all my hard work and earning that I did early in my life (I already had a music career and excellent grades, preparing for a serious future on broadway and an IVY league education) ..... it all went to shit. So I understood how easily all of that can be taken away, and yet, I continued to live, so I had to find the value in myself, something I could rebuild. 

It would be hypocrisy for me to think that people don't deserve basic necessities, when I am dependent on lots of medicines in order to survive. It is so far outside of what I believe, that it hurts to be accused of it repeatedly.


But anyway, my point is, yes I am from a 'privileged' country but my life has not been a walk in the park, and I don't have the luxury of having the means to pull myself out, because my symptoms are as such that how much I can work is limited, and my medicines are more expensive than a sick person could ever afford to earn, when it's very hard to work. I also recognize that kids in poor countries, or kids in my own country whose family don't have the resources to take care of them, who end up with this illness, are in a much worse position. It's why I have contributed a lot of writing and music to Lyme causes and why, if I ever were to make real money, I'd spend it on my own - and my family's- basic needs, but beyond that, I'd donate much of it to Lyme research. Because everyone deserves a chance.


About being devalued by family - I have my own experiences and I will repeat my life has not been a walk in the park. The 'privilege' argument will not work on me. I recognize the advantages I have, but compared to most people in the world, my "chance" was stolen from me at a very young age. Of course I could not dare to compare my suffering to that of people in poor parts of Africa. It is incomparable. But what I'm saying is, I won't accept the rich/white privilege/privileged country argument because it does not make up for the losses I have suffered and the dependency on expensive medicines for an illness government does not recognize and which I did not ask for. Yes, compared to some people I'm very priveleged. Compared to others I have it worse. I think it's silly to compare. Every person's suffering is their own. 

Character is about what you do with the cards you are dealt. Luck is about the cards you are dealt, but this is not synonomous with character in any way. I would not dictate what someone else's values should be, but to speak for myself personally, I do not value people for how much they happen to have, but rather, I respect and value people for their character. I also will not respect someone less because they're rich, white, etc. My respect depends on what they did with it.



I don't like what you were subjected to. That is taking away your CHANCE and your POTENTIAL - by doing that to you at that age. As a parent I would hope to give my children as many chances as possible so they could decide how they want to handle their own potential. I do think there is a limit, when a kid chooses to do nothing, and they are 30 years old and healthy, and asking for money constantly when their parents are 60.. at a certain point it's sheer entitlement. But that's an adult, a capable,healthy adult. Of ocurse in situations with poverty, mental or physical illness, and young children - the way to handle this, would change in my own mind. It's about compassion, recognizing someone else's needs, seeing someone's humanity. A parent has a responsibility to their child... I hate 'moralizing' and deciding how someone should be a parent, but what you described, it's hard for me not to flat out say that it's WRONG for them to do that to you. You were a child. It's a lack of compassion and responsibility on their part. And you should not have had to go through it.


----------

