You're about to become very very rich...

Read on , because I am about to state a categorical imperative , which if you follow - all wealth is yours , and if you do not follow it - poverty might come to you.
Store up good things for yourselves in the future ..

In the past philosophers religious and non- religious alike have developed theories of ethics and used the approaches of axiology , to determine the differences between what we value as being 'goods' and 'evils' .

Today , value theorists , define in a scientifically empirical way what values there are in the world in terms of psychology , sociology and economics . There is a demarkation between 'moral goods' and 'natural goods' , those being moral - what we determine as goods to be valued in our own modes of thinking , including perhaps categorical imperatives , and natural - what we value as being resources available to us within our natural environment.

Economists are traditionally the main users of the term 'wealth' , and value theorists from environmentalist stances also use this term but meaning received or issued wealth .
My discussion and proposal within value theory's remits , makes a full use of the term 'wealth'. Wealth is in itself a value , and a good , both morally and naturally desirable , and , obtainable. Wealth , the realisation of wealth , is the primary goal mankind has both economically and psychologically and also socially . Wealth then , is where ultimate goods are found and categorical imperatives will hold their place .
An invitation is extended to limit or delimit the folllowing observation :

*Realised wealth exists in the absence of the negation of that wealth *.

Simply explained , this is a categorical truth . In terms of moral understanding, the intrinsic value of this imperative proposition/observation is in the person's instrumental use of this observation. It is categorically necessary to observe this fact. For simple example , the wealth which is a person's peace and enjoyment of any activity in life (such as relaxing by the pool) can easily be negated by an ugly fishwife nagging the person enjoying his wealth to hurry up and mow the lawn) . Without the fishwife or the nagging , a person's wealth is his to enjoy. So enjoy any wealth , the instrumental use of a double negative is required. Gaining a definte positive .
So from this categorical imperative (the use of the truth) many many more examples can be given , in infinite variables . Therefore value theory becomes of psychological value to any person immediately , and indefinitely.
Once richer.

The imperative of business and economics in todays world has been profit. Profit exists after costs . In theory , pure profit comes without cost (twice richer) . The problem of business and a very real issue amongst those keeping the economy alive and the very rich is again , addressed by the imperative of wealth retention , and categorical imperatives are being sought in the actual realisation of wealth . Gold , which represents , 'near-realised' profit or wealth , (money being exchanged for gold) , has natural and minor value in that it may please someone's wife , is undegradable and is held by others as a moral and intrinsic good . However , just because others currently value or desire gold , does not mean it is a source or exists as realised wealth . Gold which is not under protection for example can easily be negated.
So economically speaking those who wish to realise wealth are on the train going to the right place with the right ticket , while all those others who have no idea how to realise wealth , are not .Realising wealth only in retirement , or in partiality as is 'issued' by local controllers (including the environment) is not acceptable to for example, an investment banker. The question is - why does he make money ? And the answer is so that he can realise his wealth - he can literally sit back and enjoy what he has , without a care towards any minor negation of his 'funds'.
And this is where economically anyone anywhere has this categorical imperative at the root of his action , at the base of his results . However value theory going further than individual or corporate or state economic gain , society may produce of itself an objection or serious or perhaps overlooked major negation of a person's wealth , or his ability to realise it properly . Because any negation (including moral negation (crime and guilt) does count , in this , categorical imperative regarding realised wealth.

Sociologically speaking , realised wealth is of major importance. The very realisation of the categorical imperative to observe the fundamental truths proves this. No individual, can have a different view of this truth , he is categorically , and we are categorically , locked into this situation .
In presentation of this problem - the negation and the necessity of its abscence , to acheive true realisation of wealth - we are presenting a moral dilemma for those who actually wish to realise their economic or psychological wealths , individually. The categorical imperative highlights the issues of crime, dishonesty , and abuse of power - because you're not going to your excessive 'wealth' in peace. In fact when the attempt to realise wealth is negated at all, you have failed. You cannot realise your wealth while guilt remains upon you , while liabilty for fraud remains a part of your consciousness , you cant relax by the pool . While you are thinking of ways to negate the possibility of negation of your wealth , you are negating yourself - you gave yourself more work and hence less realised wealth. Thrice.
What society needs then , as well as the individual and the economic players is radical review of value theory in terms of wealth realisation . In fact what society needs is an imperative re-consideration of the truth that realised wealth exists in the absence of the negation of that wealth.

On the reverse side of the coin - (realised) poverty exists in the absence of the negation of that poverty . Not only proving the imperative statement , which is devoid of 'ifs and thens' , this truth can be seen as applicable again across the board , psychologically , socially and economically. Without negation of anything which is lacking , in terms of understanding , mutual understanding , (moral goods) , and natural goods , (work , working systems , resources , other material needs/inputs) then poverty follows along , becoming realised poverty , a worse 'evil' or negative value , than the poverty itself. The potential of everything being wrecked comes from not negating problems. So the reverse is also a categorical imperative.

What has been presented offers gains - immediate gains , and long term ones , effectual for everyone , anywhere at any time. Re - appraising exactly what we value as wealth (issued or received) , then allows us to bring to life a very different but much more enlightened perspective of how we actually live life .
Value theory has already altered many people's perspectives - too many to list (including economists) . One example might be the investment banker (ref tv - Portland Row) , who has sold up everything , including his house , finished being an investor , and is now concentrating on realising his wealth . For example he took time to go to scotland , clear a patch of woodland , live in a shipping container , wash himself with hot water kneeled on a tarp etc . His realisation of his wealth- is simply being alive, _ any losses cut .

ummmm...what?

Ummm..... what?

Say what?

reply to post by lonewolf10

Ummm..... what?

Alright now that's three of us. Make it four. OP you will have to define this a little better. We do have interest in your subject.

The thinking of Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) greatly influenced moral philosophy. He thought of moral value as a unique and universally identifiable property, as an absolute value rather than a relative value. He showed that many practical goods are good only in states-of-affairs described by a sentence containing an "if" clause. For example, in the sentence, "Sunshine is only good if you do not live in the desert". Further, the "if" clause often described the category in which the judgment was made (art, science, etc.). Kant described these as "hypothetical goods", and tried to find a "categorical" good that would operate across all categories of judgment without depending on an "if-then" clause.

An influential result of Kant's search was the idea of a good will as being the only intrinsic good. Moreover, Kant saw a good will as acting in accordance with a moral command, the "Categorical Imperative": "Act according to those maxims that you could will to be universal law." but should not be confused with the Ethic of Reciprocity or Golden Rule, e.g. Mt. 7:12. Whereas the golden rule states that "One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself", Kant asks us analyze whether an act can be performed simultaneously by everyone without exception. For example, murder cannot be performed simultaneously by everyone, one set of people would have to live and the other die. That disparity is an exception. The act cannot be performed without exception therefor it fails the categorical imperative. Contrast this with the golden rule which is subjective to the individual. Following the logic of the golden rule, if I wanted someone to kill me, it would be ok for me to kill others because I am doing to others what I want done to me. This is very important to keep in mind, because Kant's categorical imperative avoids this flaw. From this, and a few other axioms, Kant developed a moral system that would apply to any "praiseworthy person." (See Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, third section, 446-[447].)
Kantian philosophers believe that any general definition of goodness must define goods that are categorical in the sense that Kant intended.

Originally posted by ZIPMATT
The wealth which is a person's peace and enjoyment of any activity in life (such as relaxing by the pool) can easily be negated by an ugly fishwife nagging the person enjoying his wealth to hurry up and mow the lawn) .

Ok, I want some of what you are smoking.

haha, fishwife.

reply to post by ZIPMATT


No I mean this in particular.

Realised wealth exists in the absence of the negation of that wealth *.

WTF?

*Realised wealth exists in the absence of any negation of that wealth *.

It is a massive chunk been ripped off there, not surprised at the responses, lol,
please think about it though , even if large to chew/swallow . Sorry about that .

Originally posted by lonewolf10
ummmm...what?

a lot of academic gobbley-de-gook and intellectual mindscape fractals...


but what counts are fundamental...time accepted 'values'...
truth honor honesty forthrightness are just 4 of the 'real' things that the majority of any society cherish and aspire to...





conversely... real wealth (outside the physical/ mundane realm) are traits-gifts-karmic offerings such as
insights without the delusions, actual telepathy or real unfettered communications between 'minds'...

Altruism and Eglaltarism are personal traits that are corrupted by the current system of darkness which dominates the social fabric...
but will actually gain 'horsepower' as the current system deteoriates/ entropys'


the LIE is that the Liberals are the Vanguard... the first & foremost in the new Paradigm

They are not of advanced thoughts, nor are the Liberals or Progressives the trailblazers of a new paradigm...
they are re-packaged socialists/fascits/communists/globalists/ supremists




in a way to NOT add more replies...

you cite : en.wikipedia.org...

yeah... that reduces to a 'value judgement' by U- Me-Others- et al...
what does that mean - or change the OP concept ?

reply to post by PrimitiveWorld


You've got it - if he'd applied the axiom before marrying her- he wouldnt need to have wrecked his own future .

You could substitute the fishwife for the police , or other unhappy customers , or any variable , as indicated

reply to post by ZIPMATT


OP are you sure this isn.t the result of a wild " Eyes wide shut " friday night orgy in some mansion and running naked thru the woods in the oui morning hours ?

en.wikipedia.org...reply to post by St Udio

reply to post by randyvs


LOL no , I have solved life's worst problems ! Ask Max Keiser perhaps , a complete alteration in perspectives is on the cards . No value in gold - only truth . And moral honesty .
Hogging any land holdings doesnt bring happiness or non-liability either . Money - its simply paper .

reply to post by ZIPMATT

LOL no , I have solved life's worst problems ! Ask Max Keiser perhaps , a complete alteration in perspectives is on the cards . No value in gold - only truth . And moral honesty .

Alright I'll take your word for it and in that case ?> Hell, I like it .

This is a result of getting a degree in philosophy.

Takes a while to "categorically realize the value", or lack thereof, of your philosophizing.

You'll figure it out someday. Hopefully soon enough to enjoy some of your life.

You can "negate your poverty". Just accept that you are broke, and then you will be happy.

Good luck with that, Mr. Deep Thought Philosopher.

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by lonewolf10

 

Ummm..... what?

Alright now that's three of us. Make it four. OP you will have define this a little better. We do have interest in your subject.

edit on 18-8-2012 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

Ok , to clear it up the issue is one of realised wealth , which is different in essence from a contemporary definition of 'wealth' .
Realised wealth is the point where wealth is effectively 'cashed in' or 'realised'. It is a commonly understood concept which receives less attention than it should.
In the future is when wealth may be realised - you cant realise weath while you attempt to accumulate 'wealth' seen as a resource . You're not kicking back while you're at work.
When seen as a used resource , via the axiom here, wealth has many more derived meanings than we traditionally have allowed it . We cannot substitute wealth for 'good' because the fundamental assumption calling wealth 'good' has is that it is not actually 'goood' unless it is realised .
Thus wealth , can derive from future , present and past interaction , when seen in terms of it being realised.
Even down as per example , to a persons peace of mind .
By ownership and identification of not only wealth , but a person's ways of realising what they own , as well as the means in which it may be degraded , various imperatives may be derived from the original axiom.
For example , by interconnectedness of psychological, social , and economic well-being - or realised wealth - we as described by Kant , are categorically obligated to moral behaviour , no matter what level of existing wealth we may control. Therefore those richest , by striving so hard to be the richest , to realise _or further their economic wealth in unhealthy or immoral ways , and the common theif , are among the poorest of people .
They do not get to appreciate their wealth , therfore they are not wealthy. If we aplly the axiom though , as morally honest and obligated to truth alone, truth to ourselves and others , truth to natural resources also, then we become free of all loss we may incur , to our consciousness, (the realiser of wealth) .

reply to post by ZIPMATT


Flag for the message. No star becasuse you left me confused to he bone.

I think he is saying that wealth is much more than money and material things.