Part 2— The phenomenon of Free Will and Consciousness and their propagation to religion, and values
The question: is there a relation between the outcome type and consciousness?
In the first part of the essay, we defined ‘consciousness’ as a many-to-one phenomenon where a black box produces the same type of outcome from different kinds of input. That new insight reconciled determinism with consciousness, yet it brought along further questions about consciousness — is there a relation between the outcome type and the consciousness degree? And if there is, what is the relation between them, for example — if the outcome is mud, will it be as good as gold as an indicator of consciousness?
Since consciousness and free will are fundamental concepts, redefining them created low-hanging fruits of new insights about many different aspects. The path to finding the answer to the main “mud or gold” question brought along many more important questions and insights about social-level concepts like life, faith, individualism, community, and many other aspects essential to our lives. In this part, I would like to share those insights.
The derivation fashion in this part would be less rigorous than the first part since the nature of social-level phenomena is much more convoluted than the fundamental first part’s entity-level phenomena of ‘free will’ and ‘consciousness.’
The Motivation
The first question we need to ask before we ask the “mud or gold” question is why are we even motivated to ask this question, as if we value a higher degree of consciousness over a lower one. In the premises of this essay, where we address consciousness and free will as a phenomenon and not as an internal personal attribute, the notion that we have the capability to value one thing over another is problematic by itself and will need to be addressed. In the following part, I will resolve the term ‘value’ as a phenomenon, and I will present the case of why consciousness is better than unconsciousness.
Values as a phenomenon
To understand ‘values’ as a phenomenon, let’s first have a reminder of the ‘nature’ concept. Nature defines conscious behavior and carries its integrity so the behavior can be consistent and recognized over other conscious behaviors. In the case where different instances of the same type will have the same consciousness behavior, then that behavior will be attributed to their nature.
The ‘value’ phenomenon is the phenomenon that emerges when different instances (or different groups of instances) of the same type have different consciousness behaviors from each other. Since conscious behavior is consistent and predictable, it has to have some “integrity carrier.” Also, since the instances have different behaviors from each other, then the behavior cannot be attributed to their nature, and there is a need for a new “integrity carrier” to explain the different consistent behaviors. This new “integrity carrier” is aligned with what we refer to as ‘values,’ and each particular behavior or group’s behavior would be attributed to a particular set of values such as culture, religion, lifestyle, et cetera.
To understand why this “new” notion of values is aligned with the common notion of values, let’s use two groups from different religions as an example. Each group has a consistent behavior, but each group has a consistent behavior that is different from each other. This means we cannot attribute it to human nature, but we can attribute it to each group’s consistent set of values, identified as their specific religion.
It follows, from this new definition of values, that ‘nature’ driven behavior is the special case of the general case of values-driven behavior where only one group exists; for example, if all the religions will disappear except one and aliens will observe that group, then the aliens will attribute the behavior to their nature and not to their religion. It follows that values-driven behavior, as consciousness, is the phenomenon of producing one type of outcome from different types of inputs.
We can also see the connection between values and consciousness from the values point of view. We can abstract all the states into two types of states — states that we would like to change or states that we would like to keep. In this case, we consume an infinite number of states that we would like to change, and through the lens of finite values, we will produce finite types of outcomes, which are aligned with the consciousness phenomena.
Another interesting and important way to understand the term ‘values’ and to illustrate the strong connection between behavior generated by values and behavior generated by nature is, ironically, by understanding the dissonance between them. Even though today, the term ‘values’ (in a social context) is a common concept, it is relatively new, and it is used as a third-party anthropologic tool to explore social phenomena. On the other hand, we, as group members, act as if we believe that our own set of values is the natural one, and we attribute other groups’ behavior, not to their values but to their unmodified nature generated by their race, as if they are from different species.
Why consciousness is better than unconsciousness
Equipped with a new notion of values, we can present the case of why consciousness is better than unconsciousness.
It is agreed that one acts according to his values; it follows that acting according to values is a value in itself. Since acting according to values is a prerequisite to any value, I will refer to this value as the ‘value of all values.’ We can also agree that if the ‘value of all values’ is to act according to values, then one will strive to increase his ability to apply his values. For example, if one values roofs, he also values the ability to build them, and he will act to increase his ability to build roofs. Since the ‘value of all values’ is to increase the ability to act according to values, and since consciousness is the manifestation of values, then we can determine that conscious beings value a higher degree of consciousness, which enables them to apply their consciousness better.
Values characterization
At this point, after we properly define what ‘value’ is and we succeed in articulating our motivation for answering the question of ‘which outcome is better: mud or gold’ as a consciousness indicator, we can try to find out the actual answer to that question. To do that, first, we need to find a manner to obstruct and parameterize “different types of outcomes” that will allow us to correlate them with consciousness.
Since the type of the outcomes is a direct outcome of its originating values, then we can replace the “mud or gold” with the question — what is the relationship between values and the degree of consciousness they generate?
In the most general case, the group that follows one set of values is smaller than the group of all the species. It follows that we cannot attribute values to the species’ biological attributes, and therefore, values are created in our imagination. Therefore, we can parametrize values In the following manner:
- The size of the group that follows the value (it follows that, by definition, values followed by large groups would be less abundant).
- The lifespan of the value from the moment it was generated until it disappeared.
- The rhythm that the value was adopted by a group or individual.
- The period of time that people tend to follow a specific value or set of values.
As a rule of thumb, there is a direct proportional relation between those four previously mentioned parameters — very prevalent values also have a long lifespan, and people tend to adopt them slowly and follow them over long periods of time and vice versa, small group’s values have a short lifespan, people tend to adopt fast and follow them over short periods of time. This rule of thumb, even though aligned with our experience, has intrinsic “upper-limit” logic independent of our experience. Values that are adopted slowly cannot be adopted for a short period of time, and values that are adopted for a long period of time cannot have a short lifespan, and values that have a short lifespan cannot be spread enough to the extent they will become common.
Due to the proportional relation between the values prevalence, lifespan, the period that one flows that value, and the rhythm that takes one to adopt it, we can refer to only one of those parameters as if we are referring to all four of them.
The Relation between Values and Consciousness
At this point, after we drew the relation between the type of outcome and the lifespan of the values that generate them, we can rearticulate the “mud or gold ”question to the question: what is the relation between values lifespan and degree of consciousness? With this new rephrased question, we are ready to start to answer it.
Consciousness is the many-to-one phenomenon where, by ignoring the differential “by-products”, different types of inputs turn into one type of outcome. In other words, the consciousness phenomena emerge when different outcomes are perceived as similar. Perceiving outcomes as similar is the conceptualization process of reducing infinite different noumenon into finite similar phenomenon concepts by filtering out, according to our values, the noumenon we wish to ignore and “keeping” the phenomena that we want to use. Hence, the consciousness phenomenon can emerge only among groups that share the same “conceptualization” values.
Since consciousness can emerge only among groups that have the same values, therefore there is a proportional relation between the degree of consciousness and the size of the group that shares those same values; in other words, the degree of consciousness as a phenomenon is directly proportional to the prevalence of the values that determine that same particular consciousness behavior.
I would also like to note that since consciousness is directly proportional to predictability, therefore it follows that predictability is also directly proportional to the prevalence of the values. We can also conclude that since unpredictable behavior is perceived as crazy behavior, then crazy behavior is inversely proportional to the prevalence of the values.
The realization of the motivation to find out the relation between values and consciousness
Since we are motivated, by definition, to strive for what we perceive is better, which is a higher degree of consciousness, combined with the fact that consciousness is proportional to the values’ prevalence, then we need to aspire to adopt prevalent, long-lasting values for a long period of time. How this new notion, that we need to aspire to adopt long-lasting values, should manifest itself in our daily life, is an issue by itself. I will try to answer this question in the following part.
Aspire to adopt long-lasting values
I will try to answer the question, “How the notion that we need to aspire to adopt long-lasting values should impact our lives?” by plotting the “consciousness vs. values’ lifespan” graph, placing on the “values’ lifespan” axis different behavioral phenomena and explore and “accept the verdict” of the degree of consciousness each phenomenon correlates to. By doing that, we will be able to know which behaviors we should inspire and which ones we should neglect.
I deliberately used the harsh phrase “accept the verdict” since we might have cases where the “verdict” result will be counterintuitive to our common experience, yet, we should trust the direct proportional correlation between values lifespan and consciousness notion and not our intuition.
Behavioral phenomena by their Values lifespan and their Consciousness
The behavioral phenomena we are going to place on the lifespan axis will be natural values, fashion values, lifestyle values, and religious and cultural values. Even though we should trust notions and not intuition, strategically, to gain confidence in the direct correlation between consciousness and the value’s lifespan, I would first start with the values that fit easily with our intuition. Then, after the confidence is established, I will move forward to the more controversial values. Hopefully, at this point, it would be easier to accept the consciousness degree per value “verdict.” It would be expected that the most straightforward and uncontroversial behavioral phenomena would be on the edge cases of the values’ lifespan axis where, in general, nothing is unambiguous.
Long lifespan edge case — Natural values
Let’s start with the longest lifespan possible, the natural values. By definition, they have the lifespan of the species itself, and they are shared among all humanity. Since the values’ lifespan is proportional to the degree of consciousness, then natural values will have the highest degree of consciousness. The notion that pursuing natural values like hunting, farming, building shelters, infrastructures, and walls to secure life itself, regardless of the surrounding initial state, if the prey or the predator is hiding in the water, underground, or up in the trees, is aligned with the idea that those values are a marker of high consciousness. Those values are predictable as it gets, they are valued by all, and by definition, since they are dealing with the process of securing life itself, then they have the maximum possible different inputs that can potentially become desired outcomes while ignoring any by-product produced in the process since any by-product becomes irrelevant compared to life itself.
Short lifespan -Mob and viral behavior
On the other edge of the lifespan axis with a low degree of consciousness, we will find mob and viral behavior with extremely short-lasting values, which are extremely dependent on environmental variables’ changes. They are adopted and neglected extremely fast and cannot be predictable. No one can predict what caused a specific mob or viral behavior, and in many cases, even in retrospect, no one can point to what sparked a specific mob behavior. It could be sparkly teeth in a YouTube thumbnail that will make a video go viral and dictate your values to prefer to spend your limited attention resources on the video over your duties, or it could be an individual throwing a plastic bottle and causing a demonstration to go off the rails into mob dynamics. Everyone perceives the byproduct of those behaviors as a complete waste of time or as scorched ground and as the opposite of conscious behavior. Mob and viral behavior are undoubtedly perceived as crazy and unconscious behavior.
The two nonpolemic edge cases, natural values, and mob behavior, help us to establish confidence in the trend that consciousness is proportional to values’ lifespan. The next step will be to place more values, which might be polemic, on the lifespan axis to conclude to which degree of consciousness they correlate to.
Fashion
Fashion behavior, as its name suits her, is generated by values that have a lifespan of a fashion, which is a few weeks or months. In a defined period, there are many different fashions that coexist, and they are adopted and neglected relatively quickly and often; therefore, fashion behavior will be placed relatively low on the lifespan scale and will be correlated to a relatively low degree of consciousness.
At first glance, it sounds counterintuitive that fashion is not aligned with consciousness since it is considered, by many, a positive self-expression and conscious behavior. But looking rigorously into the “fashion realm” reveals its true unconscious nature. Fashion is a deterministic behavior since it is highly dependent and determined by environmental variables. It can be predicted poorly with a low degree of success. The abundance of different fashion values results in relatively many different small groups of followers that can actually value the set of values that bind them.
We can illustrate fashion’s unconscious nature using the “blue shirt” example from the first part. Suppose a friend is happy to receive a blue shirt as a present. Two months later, environmental variables will manifest themselves as commercials for red shirts, and the same friend who was happy with a blue shirt just two months ago will be disappointed to receive a blue shirt because the fashion has changed. Unless we do not follow the same particular fashion values, we would, literally, say: “I don’t know what happened to my friend. He went crazy. He suddenly doesn’t like blue shirts.”
Religion and Culture
Religions and cultures have a lifespan of hundreds to thousands of years; as a result, there are few religions, and in most cases, they are adopted once in a lifetime and never neglected. Therefore, religions and cultures will be placed high on the values lifespan axis and will be correlated with a high degree of consciousness.
At first glance, it sounds counterintuitive that religions are aligned with consciousness since they are perceived by many as linked to unconscious choices imposed at birth by an arbitrary environment that we live in, and which we continue to follow mindlessly. But looking rigorously into what religions and cultures are, reveals their true conscious nature.
Religions and cultures are indeed dependent on the environment but profusely less than fashion values. Once one knows the environment’s customs, all the remaining variables are practically unimportant, and since the religious values are practically not changing, the behavior of a person following a particular religion or culture will be highly predictable. The scarcity of religions results in a few large groups of followers that can value the same set of values that bind them, and ignore the by-products produced by manifesting them.
The notion that religious behavior is more conscious than fashion behavior is counterintuitive. This is because, in our experience, it appears to be that in fashion behaviors, the element of free choice is very much present; yet, we must remember that fashion-driven behavior outside our own experience will be perceived as crazy and unpredictable. Furthermore, this notion of the non-deterministic ‘free choice’ can be dismissed by the deterministic premise of this essay, where there is no such thing as ‘free choice’ outside the phenomena realm.
Lifestyle
Lifestyle values will be placed on the lifespan axis right after fashion and much before religion. They have a lifespan of a few years or decades over the few months of the fashion values but much less than a religious life lifespan of thousands of years. Also, in their abundance, they are much closer to the abundance fashion than to the scarcity of religions. The same goes for their adoption rate: one may change a few lifestyles in their lifetime, and each time, it will take a few months or years. This rate, again, is much closer to fashion than to religion, and therefore, lifestyle behaviors will correlate with more consciousness than fashion behavior, but much less than religious behavior.
Lifestyle behaviors are not unpredictable and unreasonable as the fashion’s fast tempo changing behaviors, therefore, changing lifestyle would be much more legitimate than changing fashions. However, if someone changes lifestyles too often, he would be criticized as if he lost himself and doesn’t know what he “really wants.” There might be some circumstances clues like age, economic status, and social circle that will help us to predict when one is about to adopt or neglect a specific lifestyle, like the type of diet, workout, or vacation style, but those clues are just clues; they appear relatively short before the adoption takes place, and they are often misleading, but most of all, they are pointing out the dependency of lifestyle values on external variables.
We can illustrate lifestyle’s unconscious vs. conscious nature by using the middle-life crisis example, as the moment when someone tries to cast meaningful values into his life. In this moment, it will be hard to predict when somebody will start cycling and then move to CrossFit, or maybe he will change it to yoga and begin to eat low carbs and then vegetarian or intermediate fasting. Then suddenly, he will go back to his old lifestyle as an alcohol drinker just until an unpredictable heart attack will force him to quit alcohol and red meat, or in contrast, he will start a keto diet while waking up at 5:00 and taking cold showers or going to a sauna with his new friends from the SUV club. This example doesn’t try to doubt the effectiveness of each one of the lifestyles; Crossfit might be good for gaining muscle, yoga might be good for posture, and alcohol might be good for hedonism, but it tries to illustrate the degree of the unproductiveness of when and why one will prefer posture over the muscle or hedonism over sobriety et cetera.
The specific location of lifestyle between the short-lasting and long-lasting values creates a lot of intrinsic contradictions that cannot be reconciled. People might bump into a YouTube video advocating for a particular lifestyle and adopt it; then, they will preach it, exactly like a religion, as if it is the “real thing” while dismissing criticism that they follow their lifestyle as a religion. Instead, they will claim that they made an educated and conscious choice to follow this particular lifestyle. Still, at the same time, they will dismiss other people’s conscious decisions under the claim that they were badly informed with incorrect data and act blindly as if they follow a religion. When “lifestyle followers” are pushed back and asked to reconcile this type of contradictions, they tend to work around this problem and become highly tolerant of other kinds of lifestyles by saying that each one of us is different and should do what is suitable for himself as if their own lifestyle is not the “real thing” anymore.
The answer
After we finished analyzing different social behaviors by their values’ lifespan and correlating them to the degree of consciousness they relate to, we surprisingly concluded that the way to manifest long-lasting values to achieve a high degree of consciousness is by adopting cultural and religious values.
I think, in retrospect, those “surprising” insights shouldn’t have been surprising since they fit our logic. by definition, one-to-one deterministic behavior is a behavior that is highly dependent on external variables, and since we cannot distinguish between short- lifespan values behavior from behavior that is highly dependent on external variables then short- lifespan values behaviors should be perceived as deterministic behavior and not with consciousness*. For example, we would not be able to tell if a floating twig is changing its direction because the water cascades are changing or because it is changing its values about where it would like to go. On the other hand, it would be much more impressive to see a group of different twigs floating in one direction, ignoring any cascades whatsoever as if it’s in their nature or their religion. Of course, in their religious case, those twigs will expose themselves to criticism that they are blindly following an arbitrary religion; even though it might be true, yet, this religion at least gives the twigs an opportunity to overcome their deterministic physical structure and demonstrate the conscious phenomenon.
I think, in retrospect, those “surprising” insights shouldn’t have been surprising since they fit our logic. By definition, one-to-one deterministic behavior is a behavior that is highly dependent on external variables, and each little change in the input will cause a change in the outcome; and since we cannot distinguish between short- lifespan values behavior from behavior that is highly dependent on external variables, then short- lifespan values behaviors should be taking for granted as correlated with deterministic behavior and not with consciousness. For example, we would not be able to tell if a floating twig is changing its direction because of the water cascades or because it is changing its values about where it would like to go. On the other hand, it would be much more impressive to see a group of different twigs floating in one direction, ignoring any cascades whatsoever as if it’s in their nature or their religion. Of course, in their religious case, those twigs will expose themselves to criticism that they are blindly following an arbitrary religion; even though it might be true, yet, this religion at least gives the twigs an opportunity to overcome their deterministic physical structure and demonstrate the conscious phenomenon.
Personal note
I find it ironic that the deterministic atheist people who, by definition, don’t believe in the free will “spark”, will criticize the “choice” to follow an arbitrary cultural construct or religious fate. On the other hand, I find it poetic that religious people who do believe in the “spark” of free will also believe that the path to manifest their beliefs is by overcoming their own free will; as being said, “The True Hero is One Who Vanquishes His Desires.”
I would also like to add another poetic phrase by paraphrasing Albert Camus’s famous quote: “One must imagine Sisyphus happy” to “One must imagine Sisyphus happy; otherwise, gravity will roll him down the hill while he’s chanting that his own “free will” tells him to do so”
Summary
Let’s go back to the original question — what is better as an indicator of consciousness: mud or gold? This raw question was formulated into a rigorous question by defining what values are and by finding that the correlation between values’ lifespan ‘ and consciousness is proportional. By placing behavioral phenomena on the values’ lifespan axis, we found which kind of behavior we should aspire to as a way to aspire to a higher degree of consciousness. We confirmed by testing mob short-lasting values that, indeed, short-lasting values are correlated with a low degree of consciousness, and by testing the natural, long-lasting values, we confirm that long-lasting values are aligned with a high degree of consciousness. Surprisingly, we found out that values commonly perceived as related to “free choice,” like fashion, are actually correlated with a low degree of consciousness, unpredictableness, and craziness. On the other hand, values that are commonly perceived as not originated from “free choice,” like religion, are actually aligned with a high degree of consciousness.
— — — — — — — — — — — — Appendix — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Appendix -1
Self-expression values and Progressivism- appealing, yet misleading short lifespan values phenomena
Even though in the we establish the correlation between the values’ lifespan and consciousness, which is the tool to correlate any social phenomena to its degree of consciousness, yet, in this appendix, I would like to especially focus and to shed light on self-expression values and Progressivism. Those two concepts, even though they are clearly correlated with short-lasting values and therefore should be correlated to a low degree of consciousness, are commonly perceived almost as the “Holy Grail” of a high degree of consciousness. And as such, I feel those two concepts need to be addressed with extra elaboration.
I will start first by Elaborating on self-expression values, and from there, I will continue to Progressivism.
self-expression value and Maslow’s “hierarchy of needs”
In a nutshell, the idea behind “self-expression values” (which goes hand in hand with postmaterialism and Maslow’s “hierarchy of needs”) is that once humans’ common basic values are met, we enter the post-basic values “zone” where evolutionary stress is removed, and we have enough resources to allocate and invest in our self-expression needs (also known as individualism).
We tend to accept the “lack of stress” of the post-basic values’ as an explanation for the self-expression values since it is compelling and aligns with our daily experience. The second we are hungry or cold, we stop prioritizing personal activities and, first, we take care of our basic needs. Once those basic values are met, we are free to go back to our so-called “self-expression” values.
Even though it’s appealing, I think that Maslow’s “hierarchy of needs” and postmaterialism’s self-expression values are just interpretations, and wrong ones, of the observation where individuals act by different values once the basic values are met. Instead, I claim that this so-called “self-expression” phenomenon is originated from the “value of all values” that pushes us to create random values and to act according to them. I will elaborate on why this is the case in the following paragraphs.
Post-basic values are not self-expression values
First and foremost, the idea that self-expression needs are inherently human attributes just waiting for the evolutionary stress to reduce so they can express themselves has an inherent contradiction. This inherent contradiction arose from the fact that human attributes are “naturally selected” and passed to the next generations only under stress; therefore, “no-stressed needs” couldn’t, by definition, be developed.
Moreover, regardless of the evolutionary perspective, there’s also self-contradiction in the concept of self-expression values. For the self-expression values phenomena to be observed, it is a prerequisite that those values are shared among a group of people. Otherwise, The “many-to-one” consciousness phenomena would be observed as the “one-to-one” deterministic phenomena. Again, the idea that self-expression values are aligned with determinism shouldn’t be surprising if being analyzed rigorously since “self-expression values” is a secular concept; therefore, by definition, each self behavior must be analyzed at the physical deterministic level.
Even though, as I stated, I oppose The notion of self-expression values; still, I would like to address the observation of multiple values that originate the so-called “self-expression values” notion and add my own “value of all values” interpretation to the root cause for this observation.
The “value of all values” interpretation for values abundance
As we stated before, the ‘value of all values’ is the value of acting according to values and, therefore, is a prerequisite to any value. Since carrying out values is the act of transforming different types of input into the same type of outcome, then we can say that the ‘values of all values’ is to turn the heterogeneous environment into a homogeneous environment.
It is emerging from the definition of “ fulfilling values” that the post-basic values state is more homogeneous than the basic value state, and moreover, this emergent phenomenon is also aligned with our daily experience. I would like to use the ‘wall’ concept to demonstrate why this is the case. Outside the wall dominates the heterogeneity of the jungle where the water comes from rivers, rain, and stones; food comes from hunting and gathering; and safety results from guards, roofs, walls, et cetera. On the other hand, inside the wall, dominates the homogeneity of civilization, where water flows from faucets, food comes out of fridges, and safety is being taken for granted. In other words, basic values convert the heterogeneous state of the jungle into the civilized, more homogeneous, inside-the-wall, post-basic value state.
Since the ‘value of all values,’ to increase homogeneously, is a prerequisite to any value, it continues to dictate its agenda even when the basic values are met and force us to “mine” different types of inputs from, already, a homogeneous environment in an attempt to produce an even more homogenous environment. This ”mining” compulsiveness will drive us to invent and adopt new post-basic values. Since those post-basic values are figments of our imagination, they could appear at the individual level and be confused with self-expression values or at the group level and perceived as fashion, lifestyle, or religion.
An example of the difference between the two sides of the wall would be that outside the wall, different types of animals would be conceptualized as food. On the other hand, inside the wall, we would start to look for higher resolution in each animal, for example, the breed of the cow, its age, her food, for how long the steak was aged, and if it was seasoned with salt from Himalaya or from the ocean. All these different metrics of options to consume calories would be considered today as personal taste or as a way to express one’s self. I think that this interpretation is false, and it is just a manner to find differences in a homogenous environment.
One might be wrong and assume that since the values at the group level and the values at the personal level are figments of our imagination, then they are equally “good.” This assumption is wrong for two reasons. First, because, as we stated before, self-expression values are equivalent to deterministic behavior, and only group-level values can allow conscious behavior. And Second, self-expression values are entirely dependent on the “inside the wall ”safe environment, created by the group’s shared values; in other words, the so-called self-expression values can appear only in the casing of group values.
Progressivism
In a nutshell, progressivism is a philosophical idea that claims that social reform can improve human societies in contrast to conservatism, which is perceived by the Progressive movement as a philosophical idea that wants to preserve traditional values.
Progressivism as ‘self-expression values’ is a very appealing idea, but, also, as ‘self-expression values,’ it is also false. In the following paragraphs, I will explain why progressivism is such an appealing but false idea.
Progressivism vs. conservatism
The reason that progressivism is such an appealing idea is because it succeeded, in a sleight of hands, in positioning itself as the opposite of conservatism. It is “sleight of hands” because they are not the opposite of each other since they are not in the same domain. According to the progressive view, the progressive idea wants to change bad values into good values, but the conservatives want to conserve traditional values regardless of whether they are good or bad. The way to overcome this “sleight of hands” is by positioning them in the same domain; and this could be done in two different ways.
If Progressives are the ones that want to change only the bad values and keep the good values, then Conservatives will be the ones that like to keep the good values but change the bad ones. Clearly, in this case, the Conservatives and Progressives have the same approach to values.
The second way to place Conservatives and Progressives in the same domain will be — if Conservatives are the ones that like to conserve values no matter if they are good or bad, then the Progressives should be the ones that want to change values, also, regardless if they are good or bad. In this case, we should analyze Conservatives vs. Progressives in the “How often one changes values” domain (regardless of whether they are good or bad). In this case, it would be much soberer to replace the complimenting “Progressivism” label with a much more representative label that aligns with changing values at a high rhythm, such as “Fashionism.”
Now, After we change ‘Progressiveness’ with ‘Fashionism,’ It is clear that conservativism, which is aligned with long-lasting values, is aligned with a high degree of consciousness and, therefore, should be valued over the deterministic ‘Fashionism’ values.
Appendix -2
“Good” vs. “Bad” traditions
In the second part of the essay, we conclude that long-lasting values are a higher mark for consciousness than short-lasting values, and therefore we should pursue “good” long-lasting values like culture or traditional values. Even though this notion was initially counterintuitive,we succeeded in addressing it with the use of logic. Yet I predict that this notion will still be controversial since, in our historical experience, there were cases where “bad” traditional values caused a lot of harm to humanity. In this part of the appendix I would like to resolve the contradiction: how can traditional values be good and bad simultaneously?
The contradiction appears because, in the essay, we analyzed consciousness only as a function of values’ lifespan. Yet, there are other values’ characteristics that also influences the degree of consciousness. In other words, consciousness is not the only function of the values’ lifespan but also of other values’ characteristics. Therefore traditional values can be “bad” even though they have a long life span control. This notion goes hand in hand with the fact that short-lasting values can also be “bad”. Nazism and Communism are Examples for short-lasting values that cause an enormous amount of damage.
The “Nazism and Communism” observation as an example for “bad short lasting values” is enough to falsify the argument that long lasting values are bad by definition. Moreover, it also indicates that consciousness is, by definition, a function of more variables other than values’ lifespan. I would like to briefly demonstrate two examples of other values characterization that influence consciousness degree.
The first example will be how inclusive are the values. As we demonstrated previously, consciousness is dependent on the size of the group that follow the same values. The larger the group, the larger is the opportunity to demonstrate consciousness. In case of values that exclude a group by it’s race and not by its values, then, by definition, the potential size of the group that can participate and share the same values is reduced, and therefore the consciousness is reduced. Hence it’s bad.
The second will be — how strict or how difficult is to follow some specific set of values. If the values are too hard, then only a small group of people will be able to pursue them. A group of people that value climbing on the Everest mountain will be a good example of values that are too hard to follow. In the other hand the easiest values are the ones that fit personally; also in this case the size of the group would be very small. In other words, there is some sweet point for values’ strictness to maximize the group’s size that follow it and therefore maximize the consciousness.
To conclude this part of the appendix: The fact that there is some “bad” traditional values doesn’t mean that all traditional values are “bad”, and if one wants to pursue consciousness, one should pursue long-lasting “good” traditional or cultural values.
