Replying to Avatar endolexi

Of course it can, if we accept that said quantification is an assigned abstraction and not 'objective' value.

And whether that valuation practical (and valuable) is of course dependant on the specific case.

For instance, when people get frustrated with me because I can't seem to simply say whether I want or don't want to do something, I try to tell them that it's rare that I either want something 100% or not at all (0%), and often find myself at 30% or 70% or whatever.

That sometimes helps me help them to understand that intent is not 0 or 1, at least not for me.
Avatar
set:// 𓁣 🏴 probably 2mo ago

We can, accept conditions. We can enforce it too. And for each case we have to redefine it. I want to compare that with entering a cube (value) into a box through a circle (quantity): it might work, with more or less giggle room and/or bruteforce. But a cube and a circle still have very little in common.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Avatar
endolexi 2mo ago

Not sure I follow. Value and quantification don't need to connected at some fundamental reality. They are both already constructs to serve as viable models of reality, and in turn can be combined in viable ways.

I mean, any kind of trade is based on quantifiable value. That quantified value is 'real' in so far as it is the basis of any purposeful transaction.

Avatar
set:// 𓁣 🏴 probably 2mo ago

Well, my point is that the basis of any purposeful transaction is skewed. That doesn't mean it isn't real, but it certainly tells us we could find a better basis.

Avatar
endolexi 2mo ago

I see. Hm, even when I imagine a world without any currency, a certain comparative (and therefore already quantitative) approach to valuation still seems inescapable Any individual likes something more than another thing, or needs something more than something else. Such quantification can maybe do without numbers, but that won't eliminate the different....size? extent? if not amount? of value ascribed to different things by different people.

Avatar
set:// 𓁣 🏴 probably 2mo ago

I had a very interesting conversation with nostr:nprofile1qqsd7agwkg72wt8kjusz0cuw7pqy5sgz3q65qxnv59tq6qdqarre4tgprfmhxue69uhhyetvv9ujumn0wd68ytnzv9hxgtmpd3kqf4rmh3 about this last weekend. They identified our problematic relationship to quantification as a potential reason to our obsession with eternal growth. It was all pretty mind-blowing and thus also a little mind-numbing, so I write this with reserves. While the thought process isn't foreign to me, I'm wrestling with the path that the idea is taking in my mind. I don't have any good answers, yet anyways. Thus I figured I'd extend the reflection here, see what comes around. You did not disappoint.

Avatar
endolexi 2mo ago

Thanks for the context! I guess I can say that I can easily imagine a readily quantifiable economic system that is absolutely not about growth as some goal in itself, but about meaningful + responsible development in consideration of *all* it's participants, sentient or not. Call it 'green subsistence commons' or whatever, I'm sure some smarter people than I have already come up with something like that. ^^