Definitions of «Value» demystified through Material and Relational Coherence

What is, and of what «value» lies at the core of any meaningful understanding of all things disputed. Despite the notions of most people, that markets determine what value truly is, that lack of perspective often conflates passing popularity or price with deeper, more and actual fundamental qualities of nature and human perceptions. True «value», in its most superior sense, is not a construct that can be artificially manufactured through markets or by social consensus, but rather, value is a quality that grows evident when efficiency aligns with predominant material reality and long besides flimsy definitions and contradictory conditions.

In the universal pursuit of what constitutes «value» and how to disentangle its vast nebulous nature, we might conceptualize what could be physically predicated as ‘essential solidity.’ This axillary concept transcends mere functionality while embodying a deeper synthesis of reality, utility, and human rationality. «Value» emerges through the act of maximally aligning with reality, which then defines «essential solidity.» Far from being a static clause, «essential solidity» also embody all ‘potential value’, revealed through its potential transformation, finality, or possible fundamental fracture.

This dynamic underscores the bifocal nature «value», possibly manifesting both as stability imbued with the potential for transformation and order intrinsically balanced by its release into purposeful utility.

Value is the coherence between what is desired and what is physical

This is not merely a definition of «value», but the aims as the absolute and definitive standard of any such an attempt.

Any attempt to otherwise define «value» that fails to reconcile desire with material reality is either ignorantly incomplete or deliberately obfuscating by sentiment. In stead, here is the ultimate conceptual framework of value: A standard that reasonable rejects abstraction and refuses to accommodate ideological inertness, intellectual inanity and subjective incoherence.

To illustrate the conceptual take at large, we draw a parallel to how the conceptual nature of energy also provides an rather unassailable foundation for understanding «essential solidity.» Energy, which «neither can be created nor destroyed», but only transformed into other forms of energy, actually epitomizes the universal principle of so-called real intrinsic value. Likewise, something possessing «essential solidity» is not merely valuable in its comparative intact state, but its «value» persists and even perhaps amplifies through the transformation it facilitates and the coherence it retains upon severance or fragmentation. In that sense, consider nuclear fission—the partial destruction of a nucleus unleashes vast ‘utility’ and an irrefutable testament to the nucleus’ inherent worth—a worth also fundamentally defined by its capacity to redefine existence itself by way of say «chemistry».

«Essential solidity» serves as a dynamic conceptual constant within the frame work of our definition. In its initial and transformative form, it ought to reflect the alignment between purpose and reality, that is utility. Through fracture or transformation, it demonstrates adaptability, giving rise to new manifestations of said utility and structure. This co-action between stability and transformation totally mirrors the behaviour of energy, showcasing how definite «value» can endure while also evolving. «Value», in this sense, is not static but an active force navigating the balance between continuity and change.

When we tend to speak of «value», and in all its possible manifestations, contexts and traditions, it generally transcends subjective desires, reflecting a universal quality derived from the alignment of any creation, natural or artificial, together with the unequivocal realities of existence. Appropriated by (our) definition, «essential solidity» aptly facilitates this alignment, and asserts itself as an undeniable ‘good’ rooted in the fundamental ‘truth’ who’s possible possession is inherently preferable to absence. Yet, quite far from an actual abstraction, this «solidity» and definition thereof, forms the cornerstone of real «value creation», seamlessly intertwining practical function with the purest philosophical rigor possible.

Human creation and Artificial value

Human made objects and concepts cannot be dismissed as devoid of value simply because they are «artificial». On the contrary, many of the most enduring and transformative constructs in human history are the products of deliberate and purposeful creation.

But what sets successful innovations apart from those that fail is their capacity to integrate any «essential solidity»—that is addressing genuine needs or «desires» in the ways that enrich human ‘existence’ while adhering to the immutable principles of reality. In this context, «solidity» eclipse mere functionality and reflects an adaptation to reality that is both rational and enduring. When artificial creations achieve this type of concept alignment, they ascend beyond their origins as mere constructs, and become authentic carriers of genuine and lasting «value».

The false dichotomy between the «natural» and the «artificial» has long distorted discussions of «value». Value does not hinge on the origin of something—including perspective of frame—whether natural or human-made—but on its capacity to reflect a profound alignment with the one reality of use. A bridge, a tool, or a governing principle; all although human-made, can possess immense value because they address tangible needs and integrate a rational understanding of reality’s fundamental nature. Furthermore, they ought to enable systemic growth, ie. fostering new solutions and refining existing functional, natural or proven structures. When human creations are rooted in «essential solidity» or conceived with such care, they tend to stand as some of the most significant contributions to human progress.

Opposed to it, the obvious creations devoid of «essential solidity», which underscore the necessity of this discriminatory principle and definition. E.g certain speculative assets reliant on synthetic scarcity exemplify the many pitfalls of attempting to construct and construe grandeurs of «value» without actually grounding such in reality or relatively reasonable utility. All such dumb-founded or devoid constructs thusly depend on manipulated demand and transient hype, immediately rendering their value illusory and usually fleeting. They fail to contribute meaningfully to systemic growth or human utility while exposing an inherent intellectual void. «Intrinsic solidity» serves as the measure of practical utility, but arguably and possibly also as a philosophical standard for what might make something «good» or «bad». When a synthetic creation achieves or truly mimics essential solidity, it aligns rationally with reality—a state that is universally preferable to any of its alternatives.

This very alignment establishes both the yearned bond between human innovation and the principles of reality while anchoring lasting value and intrinsically affirming the very essence of what it means to be possibly valuable or anything of value.

Axiology and critique of contrasting philosophical contextualizations

Our definition of value—«Value is the coherence between what is desired and what is physical»—represents a conceptual disentanglement that also seeks to transcend traditional philosophical efforts to define value across varying frameworks of thoughts and schools. Its actual universality; grounded in true materiality and pure relational dynamics, establishes a robust and conceivable paradigm that resolves and exposes the inconsistencies embedded in earlier works. By deriving value in the tangible alignment between human aspiration and physical reality, this approach redefines value as a dynamic relation rather than an inert, abstract ideal.

At the dawn of «Western» thought, Aristotle is said to have made a distinction between intrinsic and «instrumental» value as outlined in the works of Nicomachean Ethics. This laid the groundwork for millennia of philosophical inquiry into the nature of «value(s)». This dichotomy, while monumental in its historical influence, does reveal a critical limitation of «intrinsic value», often rendered as more abstract ideals akin to «happiness». It is both more or less detached from material grounding, while also readily dismissed by mere materialist critiques as fundamentally null. Meanwhile, «instrumental value» restricts itself to a quite basic utilitarian means-to-an-end logic; failing to capture «value’s» broader relational scope on the matter. Our definition—«Value is the coherence between what is desired and what is physical»—surpasses these simple shortcomings by integrating these elements into a cohesive framework, ensuring «value» indeed remains strictly materially relevant while securing necessary definitive expediency.

The inadequacies of past dichotomies and prevailing thoughts on «value» are particularly strong concerning economical theories that elevate individual toil and utility as sole determinants of «value». Karl Marx’s insipid theory of value some what articulated in Das(s) Kaputtall, pretty much posits that the worth of a commodity is objectively merely measured by the average number of labor hours required to produce it. While certainly consciously politically provocative within its historical and ideological context, Marx’s narrow minded focus on labour disregards the broader reciprocity between relational and material dynamics necessary for a truly universal understanding of value. His fanatical fixation on collectivized utility, underpinned by utopian abstractions, isolates relevance but fails to address value’s tangible coherence with physical reality and human aspiration.

Adam Smith, writing earlier in The Wealth of Nations, similarly confines value to a reductive framework by asserting that effort alone convert and confers worth. This labor theory of value neglects the essential alignment between material reality and the relational desires that drive human progress. While Smith’s work reflects the intellectual milieu of his time, its limitations become apparent when evaluated against a broader, more dynamic understanding. Our definition—«Value is the coherence between what is desired and what is physical»—similarly surpasses these restricted frameworks by embedding utility within a comprehensive relational and material paradigm, ensuring both practical relevance and actual universal applicability.

Further philosophical explorations, ranging from David Hume’s emotionally grounded relativism down the line to Jean-Paul Sartre’s consensus-based frameworks in «Being and Nothingness», self-reveal the instability inherent in definitions lacking material and relational grounding. Hume’s rather ill-conceived, reductionist vying of «value» into subjective emotional responses, renders it an arbit construct, ephemeral and inconsistent in application, while Sartre’s sheer focus and reliance on collective agreement neglects the indispensable alignment with pervasive physical reality. Similarly, Hegel’s dialectical synthesis, while insightful in emphasizing equatable «relational dynamics», abstracts «value» into a narrow metaphysical realm, too often detached from pure material coherence. Kant’s «Categorical imperative» is a frame work basically grounded in moral autonomy, which overemphasize any sort of real intrinsic value to the exclusion of relational and systemic applicability, ironically rendering it totally impractical in addressing real-world conditions.

In contrast, our definition—«Value is the coherence between what is desired and what is physical»— also resolves these limitations by uniting relational and material dimensions into a robust and universally applicable paradigm for «value» besides everything else that might be philosophically adjacent as bare auxiliaries to the argument in and of itself.

Friedrich Nietzsche tends to equate «value» with actual power, however so brunt or bluntly, power unmoored from material coherence often devolves into transient displays of dominance, burdened by certain unsustainable consequences, that is the logical certainty or actual-oriented likelihood of consequences that may manifest as irreverent instability within systems that prioritize «Will» and domination over alignment with material reality, ultimately effectively eroding the very structures such power seeks to hold. Besides, without the stabilizing influence of coherence, this value power risks becoming a corrosive force, perpetuating cycles of disruption, conflict, and collapse.

While Nietzsche’s assertion recognizes relational tension as integral to what may be of «value», it does invariably ignore the anchoring role of material alignment which simply leaves it’s sought «power» severely vulnerable to destructive rather than constructive physical endemics and further philosophical endeavours.

In contrast, our framework reconciles relational and material dimensions. It does offer a robust and non-fleeting foundation for understanding «value» as neither arbitrary, subjective, nor entirely abstract. By grounding «value» in the very concept of actual, proportional, and conscious coherences, our definition, more than likely in comparison than others, ensures it remains applicable across contexts; ‘transcending’ the transient and unstable nature of any prior attempts or misaligned, political pseudo-virtues.

The so-called modern turning toward «Pragmatism,» as observed in the work of William James and others; many of his contemporaries, does attempt to address «value’s» fluidity and adaptability, but arguably still lacks sufficient anchoring in the immutable truths of physical coherence. Speaking of insufficient, Ayn Rand’s objectivism, articulated in The Virtue of Selfishness, immodestly elevates vapid and bland self-interest to the apex of «value(s)», dismissing the relational dynamics that are foundational to any coherent and universally applicable definition. While the flexibility of «Pragmatism» and «Individualism» each capture partial truths, both ultimately blunder in terms of each of their own afflicted universality. Above this commonplace abstracts and puerile affirmations, our definition captures and synthesizes these perspectives, accommodating adaptability while remaining firmly rooted in material and relational coherence.

Relevant: Values ​​over standards and the collapse of society

Another set of contemporary critiques, such as Baudrillard’s analysis of Simulacra (Simulacra and Simulation);; representations or imitations of reality that lose their connection to the original, and Luhmann’s systems theory in his Social Systems, more aptly and actually further underscore the very importance of grounding value in reality. Baudrillard’s critique of ‘modern’ value systems exposes vacuity inherent in constructs severely severed from material authenticity. As already stated and additionally so, systemic theories courtesy of Luhmann—both while insightful in emphasizing relational structures—comes short of recognizing that material coherence is not merely necessary, but indispensable in order to sustain such «meaningful» value. By contrast, our framework ensures that relational constructs are intertwined with the immutable truths of physical existence, avoiding the predictable pitfalls of abstraction and overt manipulation. Here, to simply clarify, «overt manipulation» refers to deliberate engagements in bad faith—whether ideologically driven or philosophically sophistic—designed to obscure or distort coherence for opportunistic means to an-end(s). A well-founded, actual-oriented definition of «value», such as ours, arguably is able to demonstrably withstand most if not all subjective distortions by maintaining clarity and resilience against such obtuse abuse.

Through active interpretation and exhaustive definitive interpolation of our definition, the prevailing conceptual framework of «essential solidity» emerges as the unifying standard, reconciling the ambitions of disparate philosophical traditions and thoughts. By situating «value» as the alignment between what is desired and what is physically coherent; consistent, consequential, quantitative, qualitatively etc, it resolves theoretical conflicts, integrates relational and recreational dynamics, and establishes a universally applicable paradigm for understanding any «value» across both theoretical and more practical domains.

Totality—From thought to tangibility

The infinite implications of our definition—«Value is the coherence between what is desired and what is physical»— obviously extends far beyond theoretical discussions by design, grounding «value» in practical, tangible realities. The definition thus provides a truly «universal» approach in order to evaluate constructs, ideas, and artifacts, separating those with enduring worth from those built on illusion or manipulation.

For example, and a contentious topic at that, let us briefly definitively deduce Bitcoin: While its plebeian proponents and neo-libertarian enthusiasts routinely engage in a rhetorical tap dancing; arbitrarily switching between claiming that «Nothing has intrinsic value beyond the market, dude», to insisting that «Bitcoin has intrinsic value» because of .whatever they might come up with to cope/hype—they simultaneously and mistakenly herald its dubious «decentralization» and artificial scarcity as revolutionary attributes. Yet its «value» remains precariously and parasitically—quite literally tethered—to the FIAT system and speculative demand, rather than being grounded in material coherence or systemic human necessity. Its lack of system-wide scalability and constrained liquidity further highlight its misalignment with broader systemic relationships and tangible material realities. Additionally, Bitcoin’s reliance on proof-of-work consensus mechanisms demands vast energy consumption, epitomizes the concept of blatant inefficiency and wastefulness while offering no commensurate systemic benefit to justify its ecological and resource toll in total. Though Bitcoin offers some, albeit comparatively little niche applications to other chains, such as enabling very personal—that is, non-anonymous—P2P-[t]ransactions, its failure to function as a universally adaptable or stable «medium of exchange» ‘coincidentally’ also undermines its claim to enduring such as «a store value». Instead, its perceived worth is transient, primarily fueled by systemic distrust and speculative perceptions tied to its fluctuating sell-price, rather than by tangible coherence with reality—or even adequate systemic comparison with the FIAT system it claims to transcend but cannot possibly upend besides pumping and dumping. Ironically, certain advantages of FIAT, including conventional scalability and liquidity, remain both overlooked, fundamentally warped and actively denied by Bitcoin’s staunchest advocates, underscoring their lack of understanding its actual value, which is negligible, and essentially another abstracted asset class—already «centralized» by the new hoarding elite

Relevant: Breaking Bitcoin: Liquidity Traps, Speculative Frenzy, FIAT Entanglements

By sheer contrast, consider The Wheel—a deceptively simple yet profoundly impactful invention. The wheel’s enduring utility and unmatched material coherence almost exemplify the physicality-utility of «essential solidity». It addresses fundamental human needs and catalyzing systemic growth across countless applications, securing its place as a construct of genuine and lasting value with unlimited scale to boot. This stark juxtaposition against the fundamentals of say Bitcoin, underscores the necessity of grounding innovation in material coherence and systemic adaptability, transcending fleeting trends to achieve value that is both enduring and universally relevant.

In so far as engineering goes.. a well-designed bridge that withstands the test of time, adapts to environmental challenges, and serves essential human needs exemplifies «essential solidity». Contrast this with a monument constructed solely for vanity—while it may hold symbolic or flaunted cultural significance, it lacks the relational and material «coherence» necessary to endure as genuinely valuable, arguably so. But now, consider a bridge designed not only with functional excellence but also infused with monumental symbolic significance, such as a tribute to collective human ingenuity or historical resilience. Such a creation transcends the dichotomy of utility versus symbolism, merging both into a unified construct of enduring and multidimensional value

These examples underscore the breadth and transformative depth of our framework’s applicability. By unifying the evaluation of constructs—whether digital, mechanical, or cultural—under a single standard prioritizing coherence, utility, and material alignment, it highlights value not as a static property but as a dynamic interplay of stability and transformation. Whether intact or fragmented, value persists and evolves through its capacity to generate coherence across multiple dimensions, reflecting its bifocal nature. This clarity empowers us to distinguish between constructs that merely appear valuable and those that genuinely are, equipping us to navigate a world increasingly dominated by superficiality and abstraction.

And now, let us for good measurements sake deduce the pretensions of supposedly societal «values», e.g of «diversity», lauded and propagandized as an abstract principle of societal «good». While ostensibly celebrated for advancing a harmonious and «inclusive», tolerant societies, Diversity’s «value» violently collapses when reduced to ideological tokenism, severed from the foundational principles of civility and universal rights that in reality substantiate it’s unsound possibility. In the absence of these grounding elements, diversity devolves into a chaotic manifestation of tribalism and erodes all «valuable» social cohesion rather than whichever way enhancing it.

These varying examples elucidate the necessity of aligning abstract principles with material and relational coherence to conceptually capture and gradually assert the essence of «value». Such alignment must not only be contextually precise but also rational in its very application endearing it’s common weakness, but meanwhile effectively balancing utilitarian quantitative considerations with qualitative depth. By incorporating these «essentially solid» dimensions, including proportionality grounded in rational coherence and practical applicability, abstract principles can transcend ideological posturing and evolve into further actionable frameworks that manifestly address systemic and practical needs. Without this comprehensive alignment, abstract notions inevitably devolve into rhetorical superficiality, detached from the foundational realities required to sustain their relevance and utility. In contemporary discourse, the concept of «value» has grown dangerously vague, decoupled from both reason and coherence. This intellectual drift invites contradictions and collapse-inducing errors, where the absence of a robust, grounded framework champions confusion rather than clarity.

This framework cuts through the conceptual fog, reveals and restores «coherence» where most modern flimsy narratives falter. By aptly reasserting the vital link between «desire and reality», it achieves more than a redefinition of «value»—it offers a stabilizing force, capable of guiding both thought and action toward meaningful, systemic progress by consistent criteria, even in the hands of what itself would value as remotely competent operators.