Banno, you're not misunderstanding - you're misrepresenting.

I never said we ought to value life. I said that value only exists because of life and that if it doesnt value itself it dies. That’s a structural observation, not a moral instruction - others here see that clearly and I've reiterated it numerous times

“Life builds” > “growth is what is valued” means: life favours what sustains it. That’s not a command, it’s a description of how living systems function. You can pretend that’s trivial, but if it really were, you wouldn’t be working this hard to dodge it.

This isn’t about “ought.” It’s about where value comes from at all. You’re conflating basic ontology with moral philosophy- and honestly, I think you know you’re doing it.

You can't say that you are only using "is" and yet insist that the message is about what we ought do. — Banno

As if I insisted anything like that. I'm saying if life doesn't value itself - it doesn't survive - you know full well thats not a prescription.

There is no ought here - you can try to force it as much as you like. This was clear in the initial post and the second comment - you're flogging a dead horse.

You're also avoiding my question re the first axiom.

At this point, it’s starting to feel like you’re not really playing the game.

I never said we ought to value life. I said that value only exists because of life and that if it doesnt value itself it dies. — James Dean Conroy

SO you are not in any way attempting to make an ethical argument?

My paper describes a framework that is 100% DESCRIPTIVE and 100% DEDUCTIVE. — James Dean Conroy

Not morally prescriptive in any way. — James Dean Conroy

This is a descriptive structural claim, not a moral or normative one. There is no "ought" in the axiom, only the observation that value only arises within living systems. — James Dean Conroy

Hasn't that been clarified many times already?

The axiom is ontological: without life, there is no value. No “ought” implied, no hidden ethics.

That’s been clear from the start. If you're still pretending otherwise, it's no longer a misunderstanding - it’s bad faith.

You’ve also avoided engaging with the first axiom. Why is that?

Hasn't that been clarified many times already? — James Dean Conroy

Well, no. You appear to be making an ethical point while maintaining that all you are doing is presenting the facts.

There's a contradiction there that needs addressing.

So, are you making an ethical point? Are you giving us an "ought"?

A quick yes or no, just so we understand were you stand.

Whats the ethical point I appear to be making?

What part of "Not morally prescriptive in any way" don't you understand?

Did you not see the quotes? I think that's pretty clear to anyone acting in good faith - anyone reading will see that.

You're making yourself look silly at this point.

The axiom is ontological: without life, there is no value. No “ought” implied, no hidden ethics. — James Dean Conroy

Isn't this what I summed up as

There cannot be values without life; therefore life is valuable. — Banno

...and pointed out was invalid?

That is, granted your first premise, what is it you would have us conclude?

You're misrepresenting the point again. The axiom is about where value comes from - it’s about the necessary condition for value, not a conclusion about what we should do. Value arises only because life exists. There’s no hidden moral claim here. If you think that’s invalid, I’m happy to hear your reasoning. Otherwise, this is a misunderstanding you’ve been driving deliberately.

I think I know why...

As it stands, what you are arguing remains quite unclear.

So I'll ask again, are you just making a point about biology, or are you attempting to tell us what we ought to do?

Because doing both is fraught with contradiction.

I've just told you, repeatedly...

The axiom is about where value comes from - it’s about the necessary condition for value, not a conclusion about what we should do. Value arises only because life exists. There’s no hidden moral claim here. — James Dean Conroy

hope that clears it up for you - this time

So I'll ask again, are you just making a point about biology, or are you attempting to tell us what we ought to do? — Banno

It's neither - I just told you what i mean - again

This is just pure bad faith. And you're losing credibility

Value arises only because life exists. — James Dean Conroy

Do you go the step further to saying that this tells us something about what we ought do?

↪Banno I've just told you, repeatedly... — James Dean Conroy

SO just say "yes" or "No", so I can understand: are you making an ethical point?

The axiom is about where value comes from - it’s about the necessary condition for value, not a conclusion about what we should do. Value arises only because life exists. There’s no hidden moral claim here. — James Dean Conroy

So do you think that this in some way gives us our ethical values? Not where our values are from, but what they might be?

Are you attempting to tell us something about what we ought do? yes or no? If you are not, then you are doing biology, and we'll leave it at that. If yes, then you are doing ethics, and there are philosophical issues of consistency that need addressing.

But our posts are crossing over now, so I'll leave you to it for a bit, and give you the opportunity to to make a substantive account.

You're not adding anything.

This is boring. And you're losing credibility

You're continuing to frame this as if it’s either biology or ethics, but that’s a false dichotomy. What I’m presenting is an ontological claim: life is the necessary condition for value. It’s not about 'what we ought to do' or 'ethics', nor is it about biology - it's about understanding where value comes from.

The fact that life is the precondition for value doesn’t imply any moral prescription. It’s simply an observation about the structure of existence. So asking if I'm making an ethical claim is irrelevant because the axiom doesn’t make that leap - you're trying to force it to, and it’s not there.

So (again) no, I'm not giving an 'ought' - I’m describing the conditions that make value possible in the first place. I’ll say it again, since you’re clearly not engaging with it: Value arises because life exists. That’s a structural fact, not an ethical one. There’s no moral implication in that statement, no 'ought' to be found. Stop trying to manufacture one.

This is silliness. You're losing credibility

The fact that you're persistently pushing this "either/or" is just a game to avoid engaging with the real point: that life and value are inseparably tied in an ontological sense, with no moral prescription attached.

It’s intellectually dishonest, and anyone following along can see that. It’s a joke, frankly.

Ok, all that.

DO you think that your theory contributes to discussions of what we should do next? OF what we should value?

And if so, what.

I'm off to Bunnings to get some hardware. Cheers.

I've been clear, my framework is purely descriptive.

Your sophistry is obvious. You should give people reading more credit. You're losing credibility

Meh. You are assailing me rather than what I've said, which is what one would expect if my critique was biting and you could not see a reply.

What you have said is almost identical to an argument from Ayn Rand. There are a number of problems with that argument, as you will see from the article here linked.

If, as you may be claiming, your argument has no import as to what we should or should not do, then it's hard to see the point.

But it seems you think there is more going on here.

I actually had a look at your self-published manuscript, and found this:

Synthesis offers a universal lens for philosophy, ethics, and culture, reducing all inquiry to one
question: Does it enhance life’s continuity and vitality? This clarity transcends dogma, aligning
with life’s evolutionary imperative and offering a testable, adaptive framework for evaluating all
systems — Conway

I take it that the agenda is that what we ought do is "enhance life’s continuity and vitality", and that you think you have proved this on purely factual grounds, completely bypassing ethics.

How are we doing?

Are you not entertained? Do you have enough popcorn?

We could go on to apply the Open Question to "Life=Good", a pretty blatant naturalistic fallacy. Do you want to take the lead?

(Sorry - mucked up the auto-replies.)

Stick with here, I think he is onto something and I beleive he is sincerely trying to get to the nub of this matter.

DO you think that your theory contributes to discussions of what we should do next? OF what we should value? — Banno

Banno's quesion here seems apropos.

You say life is good. What exactly is good for? Where does it lead us? What is the role of your idea in how we determine what we ought to do?

As I understand it, the concept of the good is a perspecitive and only gains meaning within a framework where choice is possible. Without choice, there's no standpoint from which to evaluate alternatives, and thus no basis for calling anything ‘good.’

Even if life is predicated on a will for survival, this does not imply that survival itself is good, meaningful, or worth pursuing—it simply reflects a drive, not a reason.

You’re both conflating distinct categories and ignoring the descriptive nature of what I’ve presented. That isn't addressing what I've said on its own terms. That’s not critique - it’s deflection. You're not playing the game as defined, and to be frank, it’s outrageous.

Let me restate this clearly (again):
Synthesis does not derive an "ought" from an "is". It states that all value presupposes life - not morally, but structurally. This is not a moral claim; it's an ontological observation about the necessary condition for any value, perception, or evaluation to exist. Without life, there is no frame from which value-judgments can even arise. That’s not ethics - that’s epistemic grounding.

Your invocation of the naturalistic fallacy misses the mark because I’m not arguing that life ought to be pursued -I’m observing that only life can pursue anything at all. The phrase "Life = Good" is not prescriptive; it's shorthand for this descriptive axiom: that life necessarily regards itself as good or it ceases to be. If you object to that, show a system of valuation that can function without life.

As for Ayn Rand - this is just guilt by association (and again something I preempted). If an argument is valid, its truth isn’t refuted by pointing out that someone else made a bad version of it. Address the content, not the genealogy.

Finally, your tone. Rather than engaging in sincere critique, you’ve relied on smug asides and peer-backed posturing, then accuse me of "assailing" you when I call it out. Let’s keep this on ideas, not personas - and not cutesy misquotings of my name.

Do you want to critique the axiom on its actual terms - as a descriptive precondition of all value - or keep shadowboxing against a moral argument I haven’t made and misreading clearly defined terms just as an attempt to maintain a rhetorical high ground?

This is how the semantic sophistry game works. The pattern is classic:

I define terms precisely.

You ignore the definitions.

I restate calmly.

You gaslight my clarity with subjectivism (“I don’t read it that way”).

I clarify further.

You accuse me of rigidity or dogmatism.

This isn't real discourse. It's sophistry.

Stick with ↪Banno here, I think he is onto something and I beleive he is sincerely trying to get to the nub of this matter. — Tom Storm

Thanks. That's appreciated. I'm glad that you found some of what I wrote helpful.. It feels like analysis of any sort if way out of fashion on the forums at present, that folk think philosophy consists in making stuff up and that's enough. The leave out the hard part.

I wrote a considered response, then saw , and you know, I really couldn't be bothered. Come back when you have an original idea and are looking for substantive replies.

You’re both conflating distinct categories and ignoring the descriptive nature of what I’ve presented. That isn't addressing what I've said on its own terms. That’s not critique - it’s deflection. You're not playing the game as defined, and to be frank, it’s outrageous. — James Dean Conroy

You need to stop making the mistake (and this is a common one) of assuming that people (who hold different views) are wilfully misunderstanding or manipulating your ideas in the wrong direction. I am doing the best with what I have in front of me here.

Your more appropriate response is to try explaining it again or to admit one of three things: (1) that you are not explaining yourself clearly, (2) that people's perspectives can be so different that talking past each other becomes inevitable, (3) that you may be wrong.

So please jettison the "outrage." My tone and my reflections are completely sincere and simply reflect where your words have led me.

Synthesis does not derive an "ought" from an "is". It states that all value presupposes life - not morally, but structurally. This is not a moral claim; it's an ontological observation about the necessary condition for any value, perception, or evaluation to exist. Without life, there is no frame from which value-judgments can even arise. — James Dean Conroy

I guess most people are already aware of this, but I don't see its utility. Isn't life the fundamental precondition for having any perspective - good or ill?

I'll drop this here from our conversation of a few weeks back, since this seem to me to be a case in point:

It seems to me that (redacted) is not accustomed to having folk disagree with him. He doesn't quite know what to do, so he attacks their reputation.

It' the absence of training in critical thinking, to my mind, that leads to this - the idea I usually express by saying some folk think philosophy consists in making shit up, leaving out the bit where you also look to see what is wrong with the shit you make up. — Banno

Call me a soothsayer if you want, but I've literally just described the play book both of your responses adhere to:

This is how the semantic sophistry game works. The pattern is classic:

I define terms precisely.

You ignore the definitions.

I restate calmly.

You gaslight my clarity with subjectivism (“I don’t read it that way”).

I clarify further.

You accuse me of rigidity or dogmatism.

This isn't real discourse. It's sophistry. — James Dean Conroy

You're still not engaging in real discourse.

You're still not engaging in real discourse. — James Dean Conroy

I think we're talking past each other; this aligns with option 2 from my earlier comment. I'm genuinely sorry you feel like I'm playing a game. I'm not, and I'm sincerely trying to understand your argument. But when your ideas are questioned, when people struggle to follow the gist, you seem provoked and frustrated, as if you believe the questioning is done insincerely, with the intent to manipulate. All the best.

That's what I'd understood by your

2. Life builds, therefore growth is what is valued. — James Dean Conroy

"Growth is what is valued". That we ought value life. — Banno

Why do you replace "is valued" in the quote with "ought to be valued"? There's obviously no "ought" in that quote. Do you do this because you think the "ought" case is the only alternative to ending up in a trivial tautology? In fact, to me, this tautology is actually the whole point. Perhaps that's why it looks axiomatic too. Is it trivial? I'm not sure. It took almost 100 posts in this thread to recognize this tautology, hehe. I think a tautology is not necessarily trivial.

I think we're talking past each other. — Tom Storm

Because you're refusing to engage with the ideas - instead choosing to misrepresent.

Read above play book. This is textbook. It's not genuine engagement

I welcome critique - and have asked for it repeatedly. But it should be genuine. This isn't.

Hi Quk

He's playing a sophist game - intentionally misrepresenting what I've said. I've shown the playbook they keep working within. It's tedious.

He's just a bad faith actor.

Thanks for picking up on that.