Chaos Bound Theory: Understanding Evil

Chaos Bound Theory: Understanding Evil

Note- In this thread i:
a) hold no political views
b) hold no religious views
c) am examining this from a universal perspective

Introduction

We’ve always heard about there being two sides to everything, the good and the bad, the light and the dark, the slow and the fast and the higher and lower. For CB theory to make any sense at all it is necessary to understand this, as first priority. Therefore, it would seem, that one cannot exist without the other, that evil cannot exist with good and that good cannot exist with evil.

So, it would only make sense to assume, as a general statement, that opposites give rise to each other and hence allow each their own existence. Of course this is not a new theory, the philosophy of yin and yang has been around for centuries, but this is a more specific approach, hence it’s more post-modern label. For the sake of this thesis, the world and its political relations, its history and its general progression with the human race will be exemplified. But, let’s take a look at some other examples before we attempt to make sense of the main argument.

Examples of Chaos Bound Theory in action (Yin and Yang)

Darkness and Light: Night time and day time are separate, but are whole. We cannot have day all the time, as the Earth is spinning, and while half the world moves into darkness, the other appreciates the light. For half the world to appreciate light while the other appreciates darkness, we rely on the yin’s and yang’s of spacial gravity, this is a different topic altogether, but in general we rely on the interplay of the planets for us to experience one part of a whole, and hence seeing both co-exist.
Sleeping and being awake: What might sound like a silly example is the perfect representation to the coming theory. We as humans require sleep to live a mentally and physically stable life. Sleep deprivation can cause complete mental and physical breakdowns. One must sleep in order to have the strength to live, as one is living he needs to rest, hence sleep.

Maintaining Opposites

We as humans aim to maintain the yin’s and yang’s in our life, whether consciously or unconsciously, in attempt to live what we define as a ‘normal’ life. We try to balance our work and our family/friends. We try to balance our school lives with our social lives. We try to balance our diet and our exercise. One could then conclude that this mostly subconscious existence in regards to sustaining the opposites in our life is human nature; as we know abandoning one side would result in the complete collapse of the whole. If we focused only on work, we would devastate our family, if we focused only on our social lives; we would get no school work done and make no progress.
To relate this ‘maintenance’ to the coming theory I would like to pose a question. Could this maintenance be possible on a global scale by the powers that be?

Chaos Bound Theory

We have all here observed the chaos or ‘evil’ in our world, that is happening now, has happened before and will in all certainty continue to happen. The powers that be (those in charge of the world’s money, controlling politics, etc) seem to have a keen eye for ‘balance’. Would it be plausible that those in charge know that there must be a balance in the world, to the very largest scale?

This theory aims to understand the evils of the world; is it possible that everything, all the wars of our history, are simply the result of greedy men seeking their own agendas, or is there more to it? If we call one side of each opposite the ‘bad’ side, then we begin to understand how everything needs a ‘bad’ side in order to exist. If those in charge knew, somehow had attained knowledge (possibly religious?) that the world as we know it cannot exist in complete chaos, and cannot exist in complete harmony, then is it possible that whatever their beliefs are, are directly causing all the wars, all the chaos in history and in our present day, for the simple aim of ‘maintenance’? Or it could all be happening due to human nature, human nature on a global scale. Could it be so that our actions are our own and the balance of war and peace we see today is simply natures way of maintaining itself? Of course this would rely on the idea that we cannot have a perfect world, one which i know many people on here would strictly abstain from.

But let’s examine in it all in perspective. If the theory of balance and opposites, of yin and yang, applies to all of Nature and the Universe; then why not to the world and its societies? This does offer a sort of ‘dark’ hope; if this is indeed the motive behind the powers in charge then we can be assured that we won’t see a world ravaged by chaos and wars. There must always be a balance.


[edit on 9/6/2009 by serbsta]

I still see shades of gray in your thread here, friend.


I will not state them as I wish to see how far this thread goes but good thread.

Originally posted by Tentickles
I still see shades of gray in your thread here, friend.


I will not state them as I wish to see how far this thread goes but good thread.

I'm not surprised, this is the result of trying to cram something I've been thinking about for well over a month into a time slot of about 15 minutes. As long as the general idea is there though, I'm happy.

I wouldn't mind hearing your opinions on whats there so far.

Yang is heat and movement, Yin cool and stillness. Equating them with good and evil is a poor analogy.

You are trying to convince me that leaders who haven't been able to balance a BUDGET in like 30 years are going to be able to balance such ephemeral concepts such as good and evil?

Evil is purely selfishness taken to a point where damage is done to the structure which supports each individual. It has nothing to do with balance.

To balance acts of evil - there is justice - and true justice is the destruction of evil.

Interesting, i was having a convo similar to this with my Mum the other day.

She was telling me that evil will always prevail over good.
Obviously i disagree, and went into telling her that for the universe to exist, there must be balance, the ying AND yang, good AND bad.

She then gave me the example of Hitler.

He was certainly evil, and in that time, he prevailed over good.
But then i thought, okay so being "bad" is killing a whole load of people, so what is good?
For me, being good, is just not doing something bad.
Everyday good prevails over evil, as not everyone is killing eachother, but when evil prevails, it is something very obvious, that everyone takes note off.

"So and so killed so and so."

When something bad happens it is noted down, but when something good happens, it is barely considered. You dont have people on the News saying, "Bob Wilkins hasn't killed Kyle today" or anything like that.

So yeah, thats just my opinion

Love&light

Jacob

Originally posted by Amagnon
Yang is heat and movement, Yin cool and stillness. Equating them with good and evil is a poor analogy.

You are trying to convince me that leaders who haven't been able to balance a BUDGET in like 30 years are going to be able to balance such ephemeral concepts such as good and evil?

Evil is purely selfishness taken to a point where damage is done to the structure which supports each individual. It has nothing to do with balance.

To balance acts of evil - there is justice - and true justice is the destruction of evil.

Edit: Please, i would really like to hear your analogy, as it was the best example of opposites i could think of.

Thats fine and all, but that's just your opinion, so please dont approach with such a hostile tone as im not trying to convince anyone of anything. Good and bad are perceptions, no matter how much you drag morals into it and this is the Philosophy board, if i said a cat was really a fish even with limited reasoning i should not expect to be flamed.

Cheers.

[edit on 9/6/2009 by serbsta]

reply to post by JacobNH


Good analogy.

What I ponder though is... Is it bad for me to think about killing my neighbor or is it good that I decided not too?

[edit on 6/9/2009 by Tentickles]

reply to post by Tentickles


Thanks, and thats a very good question.

It is so simple and yet very deep.

Hmm, im gonna think about that, and ill be back with an answer soon.

Love&light

Jacob

Originally posted by Tentickles
reply to post by JacobNH

 

Good analogy.

What I ponder though is... Is it bad for me to think about killing my neighbor or is it good that I decided not too?

[edit on 6/9/2009 by Tentickles]

I don't think its bad that you thought about your killing your neighbor, but not just saying that, of course simply thinking something does not imply any emotional influences. You could be thinking about all the bad things that would happen if you killed your neighbor. After seeing all the negatives you would then conclude not to. Hence, depending on the person, it can be 'good' or 'bad'. Those two words are too ambiguous to work a theory around though, very difficult.

Back on topic, anyone have any other 'philosophy' to add to the OP?

Great opening post, good reading and well thought out.

I read a sentence once that effected me, "Even Hitler went to Heaven." As you'd expect it tripped my mind into bringing up all sorts of emotive and logical scenarios to play out.

The feeling I had then stayed and gelled into something which made me requote this sentence in conversations over a few years. It has the same effect on most people as it did on me about 12 years ago.

Let's look at it. We have to use different perspectives, or rather, different grounds to perceive this from. Purely emotively, we can react with, "That's B........!!! Hitler was Evil." But that reaction doesn't get us anywhere near understanding the sentence properly.

Logically, we could suggest it telling us that if an omnipotent thing rules the universe, it just happens to not be the one religion tells us it is. You know, the petty, hateful, angry, bloodthirsty one called YHWH. The proof would be that this omnipotence gives mercy to an evil person, whereas the other omnipotence does not.

So let's ask, "What makes a thing evil?" Most would say actions which show a negative pattern of behaviour, including hatred and violence. But, what if we were standing on low ground to perceive this as truth? Being human we are perceiving from a human perspective which in the grand sheme of things we are told is quite insignificant, and I would agree.

To get a clearer perception we then would have to move to higher ground for a better look. So, what if all the actions made in this "low" physical reality are simply seen as all valid for this realm of experience, when viewed from a higher ground? What if the being that was Hitler in the physical, was only honouring a contract made in higher ground reality to create that experience in this fluid thing we call Reality?

From that perspective Hitler could not be evil. Imagine that?

Personally I think Evil is a Concept that's indoctrinated into us since we first breathed. So we see it as a negative within our human experience and are not able to see the choices made in different levels of awareness that creates our experience of it.

We do not need to wipe it out. We (all) only need to understand it better and make more effective choices in each day of our life; that will filter on and set about a change in experience.

Humanity in it's infancy has needed the Concept of Evil so it can have the experience of it as a reality. Not just in our physical, but even on the next few higher grounds above us. For it to work, many billions of Souls are "employed" within the parameters and mechanical systems to create Duality as an Experience.

Beyond such realms Duality cannot exist. Therefore Evil cannot. So, from this perspective evil is what we call the choices and co-creations of some beings/souls involved in the physical reality we have around us and it's supporting levels.

I think Duality is a dying reality here.

I think evil is the absence of good, not a counter balance to it, and that the good is not good because it's not evil since evil cannot be the standard by which the good is good. Therefore good is good for goodness sake and is it's own reward. All evil is relative, to the victim of evil, but is has no intrinsic value in it's own right. Evil is a house divided which brings about it's own collapse.

Chaos is a type of order, which gives rise to a continual process of re-creation and can't be likened to evil either imo.

Originally posted by OmegaPoint
I think evil is the absence of good, not a counter balance to it, and that the good is not good because it's not evil since evil cannot be the standard by which the good is good. Therefore good is good for goodness sake and is it's own reward. All evil is relative, to the victim of evil, but is has no intrinsic value in it's own right. Evil is a house divided which brings about it's own collapse.

Chaos is a type of order, which gives rise to a continual process of re-creation and can't be likened to evil either imo.

I suppose you could be right, but as the poster above you said, its all about perception.

I also don't think it's entirely effective to fight against evil without, but that instead, to bring about the end of evil, within, by distinguishing it within and causing it to disintegrate within ourselves via an increase in conscious awareness. In this way we can become a force to be reckoned with, relative to the evil without. We can become a powerful and unstoppable force of love, transformation, and righteousness, by the light of increasing conscious awareness. Evil flees in the face of that.


[edit on 9-6-2009 by OmegaPoint]