It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

good and evil

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 14 2010 @ 09:12 PM
link   
At the dawn of time when time ceased to exist was there such a thing to be known as good or evil. Is this just an identity that sweeps and flows with the age and generation. Indeed it is because it in all its masterful and slavish indications is a merit despised or upheld by the masses.

To describe an observed thing as being good or bad it is necessary to exist as something that is good because goodness implies it is part of our own conscious observation. That is it is free in our conscious to be good if we wish to identify it as good. We have the freedom to make our own conscious good because it is real it exist as something that can exist freely.
Anything that exist freely is good because it can come to know itself.
If this is the case all observation which come to know itself must be good because in it we consciousness is able to become and self is becoming in so far that our own freedom to define good is becoming.

This is when the definition begins to stretch itself. Suppose we see a pear on the outside it looks good it appeals to our identify of what appears good. Our own perception though is deceiving especially if we wish define good as purely one thing. If we are to say the pear is good because it looks good or because we observe it to be good is there really anything good about it. Perhaps if we engage in all of our sense perception is the idea of good able to become a conscious observation.

To engage in more than just a conscious observation or the appearance or the aesthetics of the object being perceived is the pursuit to authentic good as long as it does not exclude these factors. For it is necessary to come to an end that is good if only we are able to identify through these faculties to their fullest potential which the individual is able to engage in a good. Perhaps we taste the apple and it is bad does it not appear that our concept of it being good was nothing more than a lie as it appeared to us that our own observations which being a part of our perception which is good is a lie. It is bad because it does not satisfy our own appetite and this alone cannot exactly freely be able to define it as bad.

For if someone is not a person who wishes to be able to define its good on taste but necessity it is then possible to say the pear is good to one person and to the other bad and so likewise with the appearance of the apple. Good as a standard for humanity has to do with the potentiality of goodness possesses within the individual thing being observed.

The thing is good because it is free to be observed and the observation is good because it is free to be because of the existence of the thing being observed. Evil only is a distinction that is made when the nature of a thing or observation fails to be free to which it has the potential that its being insist it must have. Humans being able to reason defines in a way the goodness of the human or the evil and disorder of the human conscious is evil because it is not free to be what it is perceived or what we consciously observe it to be. Good then has to be unmovable idea that moves all our own ideas of the good in the object but in only so free to be able to consciously break it down.

It is the idea upon which evil is made in an object because it is known of good within evil as a part of it becoming good. That is to say evil has the potential to become good because the nature of itself is to be free to be evil. Evil can only manifest itself through the individual object it takes a certain knowledge of self of what is good and a free passiveness to object freely to what is good. That is to say there must be something that attracts either via reason or sense perceptions which causes us to wish to eat the pear is it that appears good or is it because it taste good or is it neither.

Is it the fact that we know it as an object which is being freely objected towards itself to become the potentiality of choice which makes it satisfying to our own observation and senses. Must there first be something that defines our conscious observations of something that wishes us at the same time to be repulsed as well as to be attracted towards something. No human in his right mind wishes to eat a pear full of dirt because we immediately upon perceiving the dirtiness of its appearance come to the conclusion that it must not be good. This is definitely a false hood and we must then be careful to identify that the freedom we have to observe this apple as it appears to us makes the apple a good because it is always becoming of our own objectivity towards the nature of its goodness.

This means the bad or evil contained within or outside the pear has the potential to be free to exist as it is makes it good but that being evil it can become good not in so far in appearance or taste as it is that it is interchangeable from its own material that is substance. Regardless of its distinction as being evil it cannot maintain its evil without having the freedom to become evil this is good. There are as we can see certain distinctions not only in our conscious observation of good and evil nor just only in the object we perceive but as a semiotic movement through which we have the freedom to govern our consciousness and the object we perceive as something that is good because it is free to be observed as either or.
This movement which is indeed an idea of good allowing to exist before it even existed though good maintained it qualities purely as good. Though it is impossible for good to freely exist without allowing to evil to be to be part of that semiotic movement of appearance, taste, perception, observation, happiness, and pleasure. Good is constantly becoming through evil and because of this evil can only definitely be known as a distinction something that is enslaved to being good not being able to master itself or govern its own being to become the good its potentiality makes an actuality of its being.

We must go beyond good to find evil but not become evil to go beyond good.
It is a very difficult for our human consciousness to observe this and thus we can only make with certain precision of the good or evil based on our emotions which do not have any self reflective base only a base upon which our consciousness wishes to deconstruct the object as either a good or an evil. This in itself is a fallacy because to deconstruct the object there must be a fundamental good which has allowed the object to free itself to become goo

[edit on 14-5-2010 by EarthquakeNewMadrid2010]




posted on May, 15 2010 @ 12:21 AM
link   
[edit on 5/15/2010 by Dasher]



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 01:04 AM
link   
Isn't 'good' that which seems of [potential] benefit to us [our values]?

And 'evil' that which seems a threat to us [our values]?

Of course we probably take no note of ourselves as 'evil' when we are threats to others, although our egos likely note when someone appreciates our 'valuableness'.

That which we want to exist in opposition to that which we want not to exist?

My thought is to be circumspect where possible so as to more finely hone what is seeming benefit & seeming threat & the nature & manner of those benefits & threats.

Side thought: value is a measure of [potential, applicable] goodness?
might be interesting to see if that plugs into economic markets at all.



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 09:20 AM
link   
Try not to think of it as Good and Evil, but as Symbiosis and Competition.

This is what divides active expression in the contextual environment. This is the Feminine and Masculine of existential expression. Symbiosis is union, and Competition is division. One adds and the other subtracts.

What is Good is infinitely subjective, so Good is not even an adequate qualification. What is Evil is also infinitely subjective. Neither exist devoid of supporting context, and therefore neither actually exists as a dependably determinable anything. They are like pools of water with a dam between them. Context lifts the dam to drain one into the other, and then back again, depending on the nature of shift in the context. The water is the relative benefit either presents to the situation, and that is in constant flux.

Symbiosis is open access within that which is community. Competition is the closing off of one against all others. Competition can win the moment, but Symbiosis wins once Competition's brief reign has run its course. This is the real battle that exists within the human being.



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 09:47 AM
link   
I see good and evil as absolutes that contain degrees within them. They are not relative, as such, so let's look at some examples of what I'm talking about. A little boy swipes a candy bar, while an older youth sticks up a liquor store with a gun. Both are evil, but the young man with the gun is easily perceived as "more" evil, obviously. Both have done evil deeds, but the penalty is much worse for the one with the gun, as is the perception of Society. If Dad teaches his Son to ride a bike, it is good, and is perceived as such. If someone saves a swimmer who is drowning, it is also good, but a life has been saved, and we have a new hero.

You can make it as complex as you want, and philosophy is often complex, yet I think we are ahead by trying to reduce things to lowest common denominators. It isn't always easy.



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 10:54 AM
link   
sorry to say that you confuse evil with bad and truth with good so you reveal having no idea how evil is to hell

evil is simply the opposition to truth, now what is truth and how evil is then

truth is freedom absolute life, so truth is those moves in freedom space that never end because absolute positive since of free in free to free and while moving then being more and more and more

evil is the opposition formula, by meaning double hit for one result
first breaking freedom base rule, so powers pretenses and ways of moves, second breaking the positive sense, so the sense is to put down for less and less and less

evil is simple result of truth when as free self you dont find an interst in truth life, something absolutely be a reason to enjoy that idea
you can find being positive then by breaking it, and it sounds intelligent from you that is why you would think being positive as intelligent one there,
knowing how truth is absolutely first and freedom only base second, and always positive move third, so it could be fun by amusing yourself to break any of each as breaking all truth easy and believing that truth cannot be with those though conditions especially when you have no point reality with at all from your self freedom



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 11:29 AM
link   
So many jumbles of letters in the world, forgetting what is seen in the mirror.

[edit on 5/15/2010 by Dasher]



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster
What is Good is infinitely subjective, so Good is not even an adequate qualification. What is Evil is also infinitely subjective.


I agree with what you basically stated, yet I'm pretty sure there is one thing to change: "What is Bad is also infinitely subjective."

I don't agree that Evil is subjective, as Evil is more of a force and Good and Bad are not forces.

[edit on 15-5-2010 by dzonatas]



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by dzonatas

Originally posted by NorEaster
What is Good is infinitely subjective, so Good is not even an adequate qualification. What is Evil is also infinitely subjective.


I agree with what you basically stated, yet I'm pretty sure there is one thing to change: "What is Bad is also infinitely subjective."

I don't agree that Evil is subjective, as Evil is more of a force and Good and Bad are not forces.

[edit on 15-5-2010 by dzonatas]


All expressions have substance and impact. As generated Intellect, each burst is fully dynamic in essence. That said, Evil is an extreme Intellect expression of competitiveness, and as such, while it can be a dynamic force, it's innate dynamic nature requires that it be subjective. Nothing that is dynamic can be objective. Objective suggests an unchanging physical or contextual nature.

True that Good and Bad are not forces, but are qualifications that reflect dynamic contextual relationships between unique wholes and the impact they have on one another within the confines of specific circumstantial snapshots of causal interplay.

I think that people need to be extremely disciplined when using terms. When discussing complex notions, too much is misunderstood when people aren't careful with terminology.



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster
Objective suggests an unchanging physical or contextual nature.


Physics is the science of that which changes, so to say "unchanging physical" is an oxymoron.

What else would you call the force that can equally balance good and bad? It can be done with and without change.



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 08:31 PM
link   
You are talking about moral relativism. Without good and evil existing before creation and being defined by a higher authority, they do not exist. All is good and all is evil, simply a personal perspective. If you truly believe this then a serial murderer can be doing good, if he sees it as good, and therefore you have no right to stop him or disagree with him because there is nothing "wrong" with it even if it hurts others. If you would make any move to stop such a person then by definition you do not believe in moral relativism no matter how much you try to convince yourself.

Without a higher moral authority defining what is "good" or acceptable behavior, morality will shift over time in a society until that society literally tears itself apart with its depredations, Rome and many other examples exist throughout history. It does not consistently shift towards the "better" end of the spectrum, nor does the side of good "win out" over time in such a scenario due to human nature.

You want the power to define in your own life good and evil behavior. Sorry to say you are simply playing a game, a very dangerous game, and lying to yourself in the process.



[edit on 15-5-2010 by slane69]



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by dzonatas

Originally posted by NorEaster
Objective suggests an unchanging physical or contextual nature.


Physics is the science of that which changes, so to say "unchanging physical" is an oxymoron.


Objective doesn't exist. That was my point.


What else would you call the force that can equally balance good and bad? It can be done with and without change.


Good and bad can be equally balanced within a unique (meaning singular) perception, but nowhere else. Good and bad can't even be compared unless done so within a unique perception. Good and bad don't actually exist devoid of contextual setting, and even then, they are the value determinations of each unique perspective that chooses to make that determination.

Seriously. Why do people insist on personifying everything?



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 05:29 PM
link   
Good and evil are not forces in nature, but current cultural constructs.
In a Hegelian struggle of opposites today's good is tomorrow's evil.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster
Objective doesn't exist. That was my point.


Then you have ignored life which does not change. It does exist.

Careful mind would consider not to hurt life simply because it never moves. Who is to blame for its death, because it never moved, because someone moved upon it, or because neither were told their contact would kill each other. Maybe the one that appeared not to move actually moved while the one that appeared to move didn't move. It's all a matter of perspective.


Good and bad don't actually exist devoid of contextual setting, and even then, they are the value determinations of each unique perspective that chooses to make that determination.


It's simple cause and effect. It's indeterminate. For some reason your perception to be finite.


Seriously. Why do people insist on personifying everything?


It's all Chaos and Order to me. I don't expect people to believe me.



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 07:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by dzonatas

Originally posted by NorEaster
Objective doesn't exist. That was my point.


Then you have ignored life which does not change. It does exist.

Careful mind would consider not to hurt life simply because it never moves. Who is to blame for its death, because it never moved, because someone moved upon it, or because neither were told their contact would kill each other. Maybe the one that appeared not to move actually moved while the one that appeared to move didn't move. It's all a matter of perspective.


Moves? What has movement got to do with change? I have no idea what you're suggesting here. What died? The only existing anything of a physical nature that does not change is the indivisible unit of information. Bound together to become facts, reactions, perceptions and whatnot, the combinations change, but the units, themselves, can't change. Once they come into physical existence, as a result of the indivisible causal unit, they remain in existence forever. These units are the building blocks of physical reality. Everything else is in constant contextual adjustment, both in exterior relation with all else that constitutes an assembly whole, and in internal relation with all other wholes that come together in sub-assembly to constitute the functional whole.

Perspective is as dynamic as anything else, and each unique perspective whole consists of its own range of sub-assembly wholes in a dynamically relative fluid association.



Good and bad don't actually exist devoid of contextual setting, and even then, they are the value determinations of each unique perspective that chooses to make that determination.


It's simple cause and effect. It's indeterminate. For some reason your perception to be finite.


There is nothing that is infinite. Infinite is an intellectual surrender. A cop out. Anyone can imagine infinite, but logically it doesn't exist. Permanent existence exists, but infinite existence is not permanent existence. Infinite existence demands that there be no genesis, and logically, that's simply abhorrent to everything that exists to initiate and maintain existential structure. You can't have a rigid, tightly-woven existential structure that allows for progressive physical development, and then insist that there be a present violation of that structure that has free access to that structure. I suppose that you can insist on it, but then you can insist on a lot of things that you can't have.

Cause and effect establish structure through dynamic consistency, and infinite defies that very structure. You have two notions that can't co-exist here.



Seriously. Why do people insist on personifying everything?


It's all Chaos and Order to me. I don't expect people to believe me.


The personification of qualifications has nothing to do with chaos and order. What are you actually stating that requires someone to believe or to reject? Life is an extremely sophisticated expression of causal/informational symbiosis, and yet you offer it as relevant in this most primitively elemental of discussion topics. I guess I'm a bit lost as to what's being suggested.



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 07:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by halfoldman
Good and evil are not forces in nature, but current cultural constructs.
In a Hegelian struggle of opposites today's good is tomorrow's evil.


Well Put


However there is a substratum that goes below culture. IMHO Negative evil is an absence of humanitarianism. Positive evil is more of a cultural construct. Sadly without the Holocaust for example the jews would never have got Israel their own nation state. But then the Palestinians would not see it like that..... So thereis the issue of perspective which is yes culturally defined.



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster
These units are the building blocks of physical reality.


I didn't argue the building blocks of physical reality.. that's off-topic. My statement is of merely a logical argument.


There is nothing that is infinite. Infinite is an intellectual surrender. A cop out. Anyone can imagine infinite, but logically it doesn't exist.


Logically it does, and there is a world of QM scientist that believe in it. Therefore this conversations is over if you can't even respect that.

Don't force your views on us. The rest of your argument tries to put to infinite into finite sense.

[edit on 17-5-2010 by dzonatas]



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Tiger5
 


sources are not people so they are not the end means

sources are not god either, sources are of objective concept fact being absolutely real

so when there is an absolute positive reality result, sources mean truth as positive certainty facts always

and where thre is an absolute negative reality result, sources mean evil as negative certainty results always



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 07:21 PM
link   
Watch "The dark crystal" it kinda seems that way.

Read my signature and read the Tao Te Ching or listen to it.

Thought's and Concepts only mask the mystery of life and dull everything. If we reach a state free of that its enlightenment in itself.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 06:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by dzonatas

Originally posted by NorEaster
These units are the building blocks of physical reality.


I didn't argue the building blocks of physical reality.. that's off-topic. My statement is of merely a logical argument.


Logic and reality can't be separated. Reality is the contextual state that is shared by all that physically exists. Logic sets the structure to allow the necessary consistency needed for even the most primitive of physical existence. You argue that life doesn't change, and I present the sub-structure of life, and suggest that since life is a dynamic expression of this sub-structure as collective units, that life itself is dynamic, and therefore in constant change.

How is this off-topic?



There is nothing that is infinite. Infinite is an intellectual surrender. A cop out. Anyone can imagine infinite, but logically it doesn't exist.


Logically it does, and there is a world of QM scientist that believe in it. Therefore this conversations is over if you can't even respect that.

Don't force your views on us. The rest of your argument tries to put to infinite into finite sense.

[edit on 17-5-2010 by dzonatas]


Theoretical QM is intellectual masturbation. I watched a "scientist" state - and with a straight face - that a certain Russian cosmonaut, the man with the world's record for prolonged time in orbit on the space station, is 1/50 of a second younger than he would've been if he'd stayed on earth that whole time, due to the fact that he's spent so much time in a 17,000 mph orbit. If you can't see that statement for the irresponsible crap that it is, then you just go ahead and swallow what the QM community tosses out there to get published and do what it can to get out of the drudgery of the classroom and onto the professional book/speaking tour circuit.

Another QM genius claims that he sent out lasers (didn't explain exactly how this was done) on 120 degree angles to two specific points in the universe (from here on Earth) and then he calculated the angle between the two laser trajectories and "proved" that the universe is actually flat.

Seriously, this is what this character stated in a documentary on the physical structure of the universe. Then again, the next guy explained how each universe is a globular bubble that floats freely within some outer environment (or maybe just a nothingness, which he never explains the nature of) along with an infinite amount of other globular bubble universes. The documentary's writers and producer never bother to challenge either on how the hell they "know" this, or what makes their assertions any different than the Garden of Eden story.

QM is faith-based religion with math formulas offered instead of scripture. Human beings - especially successful human beings - worry about where they are in the hierarchy that they exist within, and this is pretty much all they worry about. Physics majors have two career paths - teacher and author/lecturer. One pays a lot better than the other, and with the latter (better paying) career, you don't even have to make sense as long as you "suggest" whatever it is that you assert. People won't challenge you for fear that you'll toss a chalkboard full of squiggles at them and they'll look stupid when they admit that they can't read any of it.

As far as infinity is concerned, you go ahead and believe what you wish. No one will lose an eye over it, so it's not a big deal either way.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join