‘agon’, sure. before all else anything existing must first perservere and hold its mass together. this is anthropomorphic language but it must be used to get this point. these not-yet-biological physical entities are not ‘valuing’ when holding together their mass. this is simply an expression of the natural forces at work. they are not what they are because of ‘valuing’, because being all encompassing, there is nothing that is not valuable, nothing that ‘could have been better than it was’, nothing that is ‘more important’ than something else, and therefore the term ‘value’, here, is meaningless.
once these entities arrange into biological and organic sentient beings, the physical and chemical forces are formed into more complex orders which require lower orders of arrangement (atomic, sub-atomic) to maintain their relative statis, in order to function. but here it is still ‘war’, still struggle; being more complex, there is an increase is vulnerability… more can go wrong… but there is still no valuing going on despite the increased possibility of system failure.
‘value’ simply does not exist outside of its use as a concept to describe the behavior of a language-sharing animal. without all these components in place, value won’t exist. what it means won’t exist.
but being that ‘agon’ is that fundamental beginning state of any unity in system… especially the biological… think of the effort a cell must make to maintain its cellular wall barrier from external bodies… it must ultimately give way to a contract between individual warring entities that find themselves working together to compose some greater whole. this, at a meta-biological level is the meaning of ‘objective’. there is no ‘neutralization’ of the ‘objective’, as you put it. in fact, these higher orders or organization give structure to the objective, which is nothing more than information exchange… information about physical processes that change at a slow enough rate to still be predicted, or rather, anticipated. again, anthropomorphic language here, but necessary. it’s the only way to describe these processes as if they were valuing… but still they are not. not yet. antibodies are not produced by the cell because it senses danger and values its life… but because a chemical trigger automatically begins the production of such. strange that it works this way, and mysterious, but this isn’t a discussion about intelligent design or irreducible complexity.
at the level of complexity that brings about intelligent creatures such as ourselves, there is a tremendous degree of ‘objectivity’ because the amount of information and exchange is much greater than that at the lower levels of complexity and order. the fact that a organism this advanced can hold itself together (at a cellular level), and be consciously aware of its environment which is relatively ‘stable’ enough to be repetitious and predicted, means the change of information frequency is incredibly slow. when this is slow enough, you get what might as well be called objective conditions. these are the circumstances that are what they are regardless of how the organism interprets its environment. this information/feedback is present and is being processed without the slightest recourse to ‘subjective’ experience.
and what we highly complex creatures call ‘value’ is a feature that’s existence comes so later on in this hierarchy of innumerable processes that it might as well be called epiphenomenal… and yet here you are declaring it’s the genesis of all being. you couldn’t be more wrong, but i understand why making this error in reasoning is so easily done.
if the final verdict is, you think you’re on to something, or think you’ve come up with a unique philosophy (VO) never before conceived (or thoroughly dealt with already)… i say go for it. all that matters is that you believe you understand something meaningful and profound, and i’m not being sarcastic when i say this.
nietzsche’s question ‘why truth… why not lies’ is answered, and has been answered clearly in practice for thousands of years. you don’t need the truth. philosophy, in its business for ‘truth’, puts nothing in danger when its work is nonsense. it is both the hyper-activity of mind/language and a useless vestigial organ at the same time. what it can ‘know’ is already claimed by science, and what it can not belongs in poetry. the rest is language games and a few truisms in the structure of the logic of our grammar.