The Buffet of Good & Evil

The Buffet

of

Good & Evil

Mankind has habitually weighed virtue and vice upon the scales of their intellect since Zoroaster, forever abstracting nature into the conceptual trappings of “good” and “evil”. The rest of nature, working unencumbered by that forlorn principle “man as the measure of all things”, is absent such primitive biases. Nature does not limit herself to the two-eyed, two-handed, two-hemisphered frenzy of human dualism, a species doomed to perpetually see in doubles. But, if nature was a dualist (or in other words dishonest with herself), and was prone to judge herself as we do according this or that principle, she would notice only one nauseating evil among the universe of indifference that she is, one juxtaposing blemish upon her soft and supple skin, namely, that mankind has habitually weighed virtue and vice upon the scales of their intellect since Zoroaster, forever abstracting nature into the conceptual trappings of “good” and “evil”.

Nonetheless, people still subscribe to various decrees of moral absolutism as if there was one menu from which to choose, often without taking into account the contrasting tastes and customs and moralities of other cultures. Who knows, perhaps they have not seen enough of culture to taste the variety of what they have to serve. The mothers of the Manchu children, for instance, used to fellate their young sons, while at the same time considered two adults kissing repulsive and too sexual. In Montaigne’s essay “Of Custom”, he relates of tribes who boil their dead and pulverize the flesh so that they may be made into a wine; and there apparently was a culture whose women were honoured in proportion to how many men other than her husband she could bed on her wedding night, as a testament to her strength. Cannibalism, infanticide, incest—while these cause nausea in those who cannot stomach the very thought, they were, at one point or another, considered good or even necessary.

Take a seat beside me at the buffet. Would you like some wine? My pleasure. In the meantime, allow me to do some metaphysical heavy lifting. Whether one’s behaviour is a virtue or a vice is determined after the fact by those who determine, coming not from some “good” or “evil” tendency one might believe is inherent within the structure of every human being (he is good, he is evil etc.), as if sin or benevolence were intrinsic to our physical constitution (indeed, to nature herself), but rather from the results of his physical constitution, or how the actions of his physical constitution affects the physical constitution of those around him. Good and evil as food.

Relax, dear reader, for you have worried too long whether you are good enough for this and other worlds. Your good and evil nature however, of which there is absolutely no reality, are discovered only within the visceral emotional responses of those who behold your actions, to those who taste them. That’s right, your “evil” is in direct proportion to how easily you or another are physically disgusted or delighted by your actions. Morality is more a product of digestion than intellect. Those who do evil are “scum”, “fishy”, “slimy”, “trash”, and any other unappetizing adjectives we can think of. Those who are good are “pure”, “wholesome”, “clean” as if certain actions equate to sanitation. You are good only insofar as you are edible, easy to digest and stomach. If you offend, it is not because you are offensive, but because the palate and tastes of those around you are unaccustomed, and what you serve them, perhaps a little too strange for their delicate tastes.

It is at this point that the good and evil become one, that is, they become the stomach of the observer, the ever-critical customer; and you, the chef, slaving away in that kitchen you call a mind, serving up your best dishes for the buffet. Let’s eat.

Thanks for the company,

LesMis

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Thanks for the company,

No no. Thank you for the thoughts so readily consumable.
Really.

That was morbidly amusing.

I made some of the same reference in my Thread Den of Darkness.

Likewise with morality, Context of the enviroment has heavy influence on our morality or rather what we feel is right and wrong.

A collective makes something Taboo, because the collective find it unessisary. Sometimes 2 collectives meet and conflict/assimilation occures.

Laws written on morality are fundamentally built to sustain society. Without it collective society would desolve into nomadic pockets of cannibles.

Speaking of which, Check out a movie called American Burger. 100% American.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope
I'm sure my reply will sour the stomach of some, and titilate the taste buds of others, but that sir, was a good read.

Oh hi!

I see you want something nobody is allowed to give you.

Pretend... and hope for the best.

/hug

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Among my favorite authors on here. I would say that given your picture above, with proper separation, I could still make a reasonable cobbler with some of that fruit. ;p

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Within the governing laws of nature, invariance rules by an unbreakable symmetry. While I find the freedom of said words appealing, failing to match actions to these thoughts would render deeds weak. Removed from your words are notions of winning the prize; of lasting rewards like excellence, goodness, fairness, justice, charity, patience and the bounty of unlimited virtue, of which, ascent from chaos and disunity would deny afflicted Job his salvation won. Is it not more likely that we experience this consuming and bountiful feast of knowledge through volution, tasting of a proportional ascent beyond the whirlwind of this mortal coil? Once tasted, as Maslow would recount, the satisfied soul, despite a wilderness of want, would never thirst or hunger again. Can an infinitude of bliss be weighed against the scales of eternal misery if symmetry remained unbroken? Can a hungry soul find satisfaction apart from the invariance from which it came?

originally posted by: AlephBet
Within the governing laws of nature, invariance rules by an unbreakable symmetry. While I find the freedom of said words appealing, failing to match actions to these thoughts would render deeds weak.

I will say that in my invisibility... I have quite enjoyed your thought exploration. That said... I'm curious what "action" in this federally reserved environment you anti-proscribe?

originally posted by: AlephBet
Removed from your words are notions of winning the prize; of lasting rewards like excellence, goodness, fairness, justice, charity, patience and the bounty of unlimited virtue, of which, ascent from chaos and disunity would deny afflicted Job his salvation won.

What... exactly... did he win?

originally posted by: AlephBet
Is it not more likely that we experience this consuming and bountiful feast of knowledge through volution, tasting of a proportional ascent beyond the whirlwind of this mortal coil? Once tasted, as Maslow would recount, the satisfied soul, despite a wilderness of want, would never thirst or hunger again. Can an infinitude of bliss be weighed against the scales of eternal misery if symmetry remained unbroken? Can a hungry soul find satisfaction apart from the invariance from which it came?

So you are still waiting for someone else to fill you?

Oh wait... I'm the incapable...

a reply to: ErgoTheAbsurd

To quote the OP:

Relax, dear reader, for you have worried too long whether you are good enough for this and other worlds. Your good and evil nature however, of which there is absolutely no reality, are discovered only within the visceral emotional responses of those who behold your actions, to those who taste them.

Volution revolves around a center. Apart from this anchor, invariance cannot be translated. If we fail to transcribe the symmetry back to unity, we have accomplished nothing along the meandering path of life. The Prize of Job was to know his Redeemer. At the end of the book of Job, everyone around him required a sacrifice. Job required no sacrifice. Why? His beast had been burned to ashes. The sacrifice of an animal is the removal of the beast we have to offer into the fires of the altar. In place of this beast, we receive salvation from the mortal coil and return to invariance. Apart from learning Pathos (empathy and sympathy) for others, we are left with continued involution into the coil.

In other words, lacking pathos, we measure the man we are by the visceral emotional responses of those who behold our actions. Instead, we must learn to put the other person inside ourselves. Until the hero can see his own fatal flaw, there can be no catharsis. Are we good enough for said worlds to come if we fail to glean the most basic virtues from this world? The infinitude of bliss we will experience in eternity can only be measured by the wilderness of want below. As I pointed out, it is a proportional ascent beyond the man today toward the man we are tomorrow. It's the center anchor of the whirlwind that pulls us back up the ladder.

Research the physics of invariant symmetry and its relation to translational symmetry. Nothing changes, but can only be translated. The OP seems to suggest no such translational symmetry is possible. I see this according to the physics we can observe, and it appears that we must learn to transcribe the world around us to ascend to the next level. Salvation is free, but is marked by the fruit of what it represents. Accepting the gift requires winning the prize. Winning requires doing by invariance. If not, the gift remains offered, but not taken. Virtue is the gift.

originally posted by: AlephBet
In other words, lacking pathos, we measure the man we are...

We measure the man we feel... or more importantly... the man we allow ourselves to feel.

originally posted by: AlephBet
...by the visceral emotional responses of those who behold our actions. Instead, we must learn to put the other person inside ourselves. Until the hero can see his own fatal flaw, there can be no catharsis.

What if his fatal flaw is existing among the flawed? What choices then present themselves?

originally posted by: AlephBet
As I pointed out, it is a proportional ascent beyond the man today toward the man we are tomorrow.

Always perfect tomorrow.

a reply to: ErgoTheAbsurd

Confucius: "I hear and I forget. I see and I learn. I do and I understand."

Relax. There's no truth in what Confucius said. It's only a visceral emotional response to something that only applied to his culture. Or, it is invariant truth? Which do you subscribe? Error is dense and sinks. Truth is subtle and rises. The words of Confucius can be matched to those of James 1.

James 1

21 So get rid of all immoral behavior and all the wicked things you do. Humbly accept the word that God has placed in you. This word can save you.

22 Do what God’s word says. Don’t merely listen to it, or you will fool yourselves. 23 If someone listens to God’s word but doesn’t do what it says, he is like a person who looks at his face in a mirror, 24 studies his features, goes away, and immediately forgets what he looks like. 25 However, the person who continues to study God’s perfect laws that make people free and who remains committed to them will be blessed. People like that don’t merely listen and forget; they actually do what God’s laws say.

Here is my problem. I fail to do. I fail to reach the center.

As a musician, I sometimes rush. While the conductor is the center and sets the pace, I must reach that same center to find unity with the other musicians. I sometimes play out of tune. Sharp is simply rising above center. Flat is the sinking below. I sometimes play too loud or too soft. Again, center is where the dynamics indicate I should play, but balance with the other musicians can sometimes move this marker one way or the other. A good musician keeps all points in the middle. Again, invariance demands this symmetry. Music is founded on laws that come from the nodal points in the wave. The structure we use in theory is the structure present in the wave. Apart from the center that is already there, we would lack good harmonies. When I follow the symmetry already present, I am merely matching my actions to the center / mean.

Often, I reach center. I understand when I do. No other way.

Is the Doctrine of the Mean true because we say it is, or is it true because it adheres to physics that are governed by an outside symmetry?

SOCRATES: That any kind of mixture that does not in some way or other possess measure of the nature of proportion will necessarily corrupt its ingredients and most of all itself. For there would be no blending in such a case at all but really an unconnected medley, the ruin of whatever happens to be contained in it.

There is an invariant symmetry that can be measured and used to improve our world. No question this has nothing to do with us, but with the revolution around the center of our reality. The anchor is hidden, but can be understood by what it produces.

a reply to: AnuTyr

Laws written on morality are fundamentally built to sustain society. Without it collective society would desolve into nomadic pockets of cannibles.

Laws of morality are nothing but confessional collections of one’s fears, disgusts and tastes. Nomadic cannibals too carry these confessions. Besides, if a culture follows its laws, its because it never wanted to break them in the first place. We aren’t prone to refrain from murdering because there is a law against it, it is rather that there is a law against murder because we are prone to refrain from murdering.

a reply to: AlephBet
Nice words. Thank you.

The good thing about tastes are that they are personal. As such, so is satisfaction. I personally enjoy flavour and spice and variety. Perhaps I am insatiable in this way, but it has led me to want very little else besides good memories. It is what Da Vinci called “learning how to die”. When my memories finally pass before my eyes, I will do so satisfied. Infinite anything, whatever that may be, would deny me that satisfaction. Besides, what I have yet to taste here I will not find beyond it.

Satisfaction to me is a good friend and a good story. Interaction with others and being vulnerable is how “pathos” is achieved. No geometric equations or theories of physics are necessary to discover this. The only way to “put the other person inside ourselves” is to invite them in and be the best host possible. Vulnerability, and uncovering the vulnerability of others, is found here.

Friendship is needed. Sympathy is rarely wanted. Sympathy is only wanted when one does not want to suffer alone, when he wants others to suffer with him. It is the multiplication of suffering. And it is given when one is too weak to help otherwise, when that is all he has to offer.

I would bore of the infinitude of bliss the moment I tasted it. A paradox?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: AnuTyr

Laws written on morality are fundamentally built to sustain society. Without it collective society would desolve into nomadic pockets of cannibles.

Laws of morality are nothing but confessional collections of one’s fears, disgusts and tastes. Nomadic cannibals too carry these confessions. Besides, if a culture follows its laws, its because it never wanted to break them in the first place. We aren’t prone to refrain from murdering because there is a law against it, it is rather that there is a law against murder because we are prone to refrain from murdering.

We are prone to refrain from murder when we learn pathos, or what it feels like to have a loved one murdered.

POE

P. But to what good end is pain thus rendered possible?

V. All things are either good or bad by comparison. A sufficient analysis will show that pleasure, in all cases, is but the contrast of pain. Positive pleasure is a mere idea. To be happy at any one point we must have suffered at the same. Never to suffer would have been never to have been blessed. But it has been shown that, in the inorganic life, pain cannot be thus the necessity for the organic. The pain of the primitive life of Earth, is the sole basis of the bliss of the ultimate life in Heaven.

While Poe might agree with the comparison you make to duality, he would never miss the meaning behind the symmetry. Purpose cannot arise from purposelessness. Nature will tell you there is an unchanging symmetry we translate toward. If not, pathos would not be universally understood as a desirable goal. Is happiness misery? Not if you know misery first. There is a difference. The difference is universal for all life as a necessity and means to an end.

a reply to: AlephBet

"Pathos" is not a goal. It never has been. Pain and pleasure are the same body felt in different ways. They are indicators of the world, not goals.

Purpose arises from human beings. It is out of the chaotic frenzy of our creation where purpose arises. Human creation.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Now your speaking virtue. The point of life is the suffering we do for others. We often suffer as a byproduct of our own actions, but the suffering I am pointing to requires what you have referenced here. inviting another person in means offering them something we have earned along the way. We feed our families by suffering work. The fruit is then given to them as something received. If I spend the reward from work on myself, I deny the opportunity it would have gained for the family. Smoking takes a reward ending in suffering. Working out in a gym requires suffering first, ending in reward. This is a universal truth that has no exemptions. The law of returns is mathematically true. There are many absolutes that are invariant and set into nature as law.

Why do all laws in nature abide in invariance to ensure that life can exist? Why is symmetry breaking necessary? If you answer both of these questions, you will rewrite your thesis in the OP. Multiplicity cannot arise from chaos apart from an original unity. Reaching back to the unity is the only way to ensure multiplicity survives. It's impossible to get there apart form suffering to earn what you then give.

a reply to: AlephBet

I appreciate your outlook, but I cannot maintain interest in it. I suffer with it.

The idea of suffering has taken many forms. I rather prefer its connection to endurance, indurire, to harden. Carbon begets diamond.

Laws can be broken. Laws that cannot be broken are not laws. Thus, the laws of nature are not laws. Anything that is set into nature is nature itself. It is simply a confusion in terms, I would wager a result of modern science’s theological upbringing. Teleological principles hold no rational weight or use. We observe nature’s regularity, not its necessity. There are no laws of nature.

Neither is nature mathematically true. Mathematics isn’t even mathematically true. Hence, our absolutes are found only in our language. I mean try it. What outside of our language can we point to, or hold in our hand, or love, that is absolute?

Unity, invariance, are synonyms for nothingness and death. Such goals can only be attained by the the cessation of movement by way of the cessation of matter. A world with no movement is dead. Reaching for unity or nothingness is no different. I’d rather reach for something.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Sometimes I put myself on a "high horse" and feel a sense of "judgement" - however, I am often reminded that, in a strange sort of collective sense, that I should just join the ranks with the rest of them, not being perfect and all. When I search myself, I don't really find much of the evils in this world that surprising - although there are parts of me that want to "fight the power" I realise that it would be contradictory given my past actions and experiences.

In terms of the evolutionary sense, I feel as if beneath the "veneer" I have been through and experienced the complete maturation from being an animal, to evolving as a man. In that sense, I must have been primitive, experienced many unsavoury things, and done such. I feel that I need a reminder from others such as myself, whom have run the gamut so to speak.

I have an abstract theory of human development, I feel that we are mixed with a species that was given an evolutionary "upgrade" and sadly did not get to experience the "complete story" of their evolution into intelligent beings, and as such, have a "missing piece" - trying to reconcile their gift of higher-awareness with their primitive selves that are still developing - in other words, there is a "gap" in their incarnational memories.

For example, I can remember a stage where we were mixed with "animals" - that is, some of us were evolved to speak and listen, and at the same time, many were still at the stage of being animals, still learning how to talk and think. I remember it as being a beautiful stage in our development, possibly a stage that has been "skipped" by those whom were given a "head start", a time where we learnt and taught.

What seems to distinguish them, is that they still seem unable to answer the question of "why".

I wish that I could escape to a world or civilisation that was only meant for adults in the true sense of the word.

Until then, we are burdened with those that are still lost, confused, and in need of "answers" yet unsatisfied with the answers that they are getting.

In a sense, I am escaping the reign of guilt, and entering the renaissance of depression. Soon enough, I will reside in the palace of acceptance.

It was through the experience of culture clash that this dawned on me.
Though it is easily savored by me now, I remember the day when I really swallowed it for the first time, and it seemed like a horrific discovery.
I also spit out the goat cheese I tried for the first time when I arrived in Paris- but now it is my favorite! The more aged, the better!

I sometimes make references when speaking that expose my view on this (that there is no static universal good and evil) and seeing the shock and disgust on peoples face reminds me that it is an aquired taste.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Unity, invariance, are synonyms for nothingness and death. Such goals can only be attained by the the cessation of movement by way of the cessation of matter. A world with no movement is dead. Reaching for unity or nothingness is no different. I’d rather reach for something.

And herein lies the mirror of truth in this conversation. Movement in which direction? All cardinal directions arise from one orthogonal direction. In the Bible, this was known as the right side, or at right angles to the last direction. A good way to think of this is by spatial dimensions rising to temporal.

A dot has no direction other than nothingness as you say. It could be nothing or it could be a vast something. It all depends on your examination by distance. If the dot were a universe, your distance to it precludes your examination of it. The law of inverse squares then determines your examination, but only if awareness (the screen you use to see) is focused. A simple example will show you how light is insight within, even thought we are darkness inside our mind. Light reveals what it hits, so it is important to gather the right items inside our souls.

Many dots form a 1D line. Each dot is at right angles to the one before.

........................................

Many 1D lines will make a plane, with each line orthogonal to the one before.

..........
..........
..........
..........

If you stack 2D planes at right angles (orthogonally), then you get a 3D object.

Once you reach this dimension, the next dimension then transcends from spatial to temporal. To move at right angles to itself, the 3D object has a multitude of choices. Much like the choices you are celebrating in your OP, you miss the point of the direction we must move. All cardinal directions arising from spatial dimension are limited only by the choice to move the object in time. Choice determines the changing states of matter. Choice, providence and the actions of others are our only choices.

At right angles to time, we have an indeterminate future. Determining the future then reveals the 5D probability space. Again, just as the spatial dimension has a multitude of possible timelines, probability has a multitude of potentialities. Collapsing wave function in physics is partially determined by our choice to collapse the indeterminate wave function, but our choice is also governed by the yet higher dimension of law. Laws are not like probability in that they are not unlimited. Probability is then governed from above to limit the choice we can make.

Choices are governed, but free will allows for symmetry breaking. Choices that abide accordingly are said to follow the symmetry back up the harmonies of dimension. Choices that further break symmetry are on the left hand, or descend down the dimensions.

I keep this as simple as possible with easy examples. Following the left hand path, time has two hidden dimensions we do not see. Future and past. descend down one level and 3D has a 2D shadow. Research flatland and you find that a 2D creature has 2 hidden dimensions (up and down). A 2D object has a 1D shadow. The 1D shadow is again the dot, or nothing/something.

The right side of truth ascends toward the symmetry from which it came. Choices can abide in this direction, or they can become dense and forced down by the laws that govern them.

All dimensions abide in an orthogonal linear matrix. Right angles lead up. The path is invariant if you wish to rise in the symmetry. Sinking is easy. Rising requires suffering. The easy path ends in suffering the choices we make. Suffering on purpose leads us to true reward as we rise back toward symmetry.

Choices do matter. Unity and purpose in a universe demands that a choice was made to move away from chaos. Involution has the purpose of evolution, or returning back to the symmetry that was broken.