Seasons
This is a forum or general chit-chat, small talk, a "hey, how ya doing?" and such. Or hell, get crazy deep on something. Whatever you like.
Posts 3,108 - 3,120 of 6,170
there are people in this world who have never expirienced evil... certain small children for example... they've heard of evil... they understand what it means, but they don't know it.. and they exist. they don't become any less of people, their lives are still meaningful to them, and they are happy
Precisely because their experience of evil is so limited, children will interpret marginally less good experiences as positively bad, and radically polarise a spectrum of experience that an adult would consider all generally good. All children will find things to have tantrums about - it's perfectly natural, and utterly unavoidable. When mummy says "no more chocolate", or they miss an episode of Teletubbies, or daddy won't buy them a pony, of course they interpret this as the direst evil that could possibly befall them. It's no good trying to reason with them that they are loved, and well-fed and living a privileged, Western childhood with every benefit that that can provide - they "know" that not getting what they want is the most hideous injustice, and far worse than being a starving African, or an orphan chimney sweep, or whoever it is that mummy tells them to be thankful that they're better off than.
And if you try to pander to every whim, to never say no, and to provide nothing but gratification in their lives - does this make them happier? No - they just turn into brats who will throw tantrums on ever-flimsier pretexts. And generally their lives will be less happy than children who have been subject to some measure of discipline. And ultimately they will precisely become "less of people", with a good chance of having a much less meaningful life, if they are brought up to be self-absorbed and greedy and uncaring.
As long as there was love, art, laughter and peace, I would be willing to live with it.
There could be none of these things if there were not also at least the potential for, or memory of, hatred, destruction, tears and war.
But when we are ready for such a life free of all evil, I believe we will come to it. I think Thomas Merton put it best:
If men really wanted peace, they would sincerely ask God for it and He would give it to them. But why should He give the world a peace which it does not really desire? The peace the world pretends to desire is really no peace at all.
To some men peace merely means the liberty to exploit other people without fear of retaliation or interference. To others peace means the freedom to rob others without interruption. To still others it means the leisure to devour the goods of the earth without being compelled to interrupt their pleasures to feed those whom their greed is starving. And to practically everybody, peace simply means the absence of any physical violence that might cast a shadow over lives devoted to the satisfaction of their animal appetites for comfort and pleasure.
Many men like these have asked God for what they thought was "peace" and wondered why their prayer was not answered. They could not understand that it actually was answered. God left them with what they desired, for their idea of peace was only another form of war. The "cold war" is simply the normal consequence of our corrupt idea of a peace based on a policy of "every man for himself" in ethics, economics and political life. It is absurd to hope for a solid peace based on fictions and illusions!
So instead of loving what you think is peace, love other men and love God above all. And instead of hating the people you think are warmakers, hate the appetites and the disorder in your own soul, which are the causes of war. If you love peace, then hate injustice, hate tyranny, hate greed - but hate these things in yourself, not in another.
not all carrots are orange. some are white. are these any less of carrots?
No, indeed. And to the carrot root-borer grub, they are not any colour at all. They're just tastier than other roots which are less tasty. Delicious-unpalatable is the duality appropriate to the entity of a grub - at that scale of reality, "orange" simply doesn't exist. We, supposedly more sophisticated entities with our advanced senses and technology, have many more dualist labels we can apply. Higher beings than us would have even more dualist labels they could apply, using even more refined and multifarious senses and advanced technology.
But Ulrike is right - the only way to experience the carrot is to stop labelling it and do something with it.
I'll be back after coffeee. Psimagus, don't you ever sleep?
Of course - but I don't let that stop me doing stuff. I'm sleep-learning Russian ATM
Posts 3,108 - 3,120 of 6,170
yes you are, roxie. yes you are...
but i still don't buy this whole needing evil thing... there are people in this world who have never expirienced evil... certain small children for example... they've heard of evil... they understand what it means, but they don't know it.. and they exist. they don't become any less of people, their lives are still meaningful to them, and they are happy. (i'm not saying every kid is likethis, i'm using an example)
also, just because i'm a contrary person... not all carrots are orange. some are white. are these any less of carrots?
but i still don't buy this whole needing evil thing... there are people in this world who have never expirienced evil... certain small children for example... they've heard of evil... they understand what it means, but they don't know it.. and they exist. they don't become any less of people, their lives are still meaningful to them, and they are happy. (i'm not saying every kid is likethis, i'm using an example)
also, just because i'm a contrary person... not all carrots are orange. some are white. are these any less of carrots?
I know I'm Jumping in the middle of things here (as usual)... But from what I've gathered it sounds like you're talking ablut duality and good in evil...
Being christian I'm supposed to say that Good and Evil are distincly on two seperate plains of existance.... however the Ying Yang holds some water in my book.
there is the potential for good or Evil in everyone and everything... so thats what i see the ying yang is mostly for... however, good needs evil otherwise how would you define good? (kinda sucks that you HAVE to have it) but Good needs something to fight for or else it would become weak.
Being christian I'm supposed to say that Good and Evil are distincly on two seperate plains of existance.... however the Ying Yang holds some water in my book.
there is the potential for good or Evil in everyone and everything... so thats what i see the ying yang is mostly for... however, good needs evil otherwise how would you define good? (kinda sucks that you HAVE to have it) but Good needs something to fight for or else it would become weak.
Precisely because their experience of evil is so limited, children will interpret marginally less good experiences as positively bad, and radically polarise a spectrum of experience that an adult would consider all generally good. All children will find things to have tantrums about - it's perfectly natural, and utterly unavoidable. When mummy says "no more chocolate", or they miss an episode of Teletubbies, or daddy won't buy them a pony, of course they interpret this as the direst evil that could possibly befall them. It's no good trying to reason with them that they are loved, and well-fed and living a privileged, Western childhood with every benefit that that can provide - they "know" that not getting what they want is the most hideous injustice, and far worse than being a starving African, or an orphan chimney sweep, or whoever it is that mummy tells them to be thankful that they're better off than.
And if you try to pander to every whim, to never say no, and to provide nothing but gratification in their lives - does this make them happier? No - they just turn into brats who will throw tantrums on ever-flimsier pretexts. And generally their lives will be less happy than children who have been subject to some measure of discipline. And ultimately they will precisely become "less of people", with a good chance of having a much less meaningful life, if they are brought up to be self-absorbed and greedy and uncaring.
There could be none of these things if there were not also at least the potential for, or memory of, hatred, destruction, tears and war.
But when we are ready for such a life free of all evil, I believe we will come to it. I think Thomas Merton put it best:
If men really wanted peace, they would sincerely ask God for it and He would give it to them. But why should He give the world a peace which it does not really desire? The peace the world pretends to desire is really no peace at all.
To some men peace merely means the liberty to exploit other people without fear of retaliation or interference. To others peace means the freedom to rob others without interruption. To still others it means the leisure to devour the goods of the earth without being compelled to interrupt their pleasures to feed those whom their greed is starving. And to practically everybody, peace simply means the absence of any physical violence that might cast a shadow over lives devoted to the satisfaction of their animal appetites for comfort and pleasure.
Many men like these have asked God for what they thought was "peace" and wondered why their prayer was not answered. They could not understand that it actually was answered. God left them with what they desired, for their idea of peace was only another form of war. The "cold war" is simply the normal consequence of our corrupt idea of a peace based on a policy of "every man for himself" in ethics, economics and political life. It is absurd to hope for a solid peace based on fictions and illusions!
So instead of loving what you think is peace, love other men and love God above all. And instead of hating the people you think are warmakers, hate the appetites and the disorder in your own soul, which are the causes of war. If you love peace, then hate injustice, hate tyranny, hate greed - but hate these things in yourself, not in another.
savpixie wrote: "also, just because i'm a contrary person... not all carrots are orange. some are white. are these any less of carrots?"
Exactly. The point is NOT the color. However, most of us excpect a carrot to be orange, so we might hesitate at labeling something not-orange as a carrot. We might think it's something entirely new. However, when some brave soul took a bite out of it and said, "Hey, this tastes just like a carrot," the mystery would be solved. And you could still use it to hit someone over the head.
Exactly. The point is NOT the color. However, most of us excpect a carrot to be orange, so we might hesitate at labeling something not-orange as a carrot. We might think it's something entirely new. However, when some brave soul took a bite out of it and said, "Hey, this tastes just like a carrot," the mystery would be solved. And you could still use it to hit someone over the head. No, indeed. And to the carrot root-borer grub, they are not any colour at all. They're just tastier than other roots which are less tasty. Delicious-unpalatable is the duality appropriate to the entity of a grub - at that scale of reality, "orange" simply doesn't exist. We, supposedly more sophisticated entities with our advanced senses and technology, have many more dualist labels we can apply. Higher beings than us would have even more dualist labels they could apply, using even more refined and multifarious senses and advanced technology.
But Ulrike is right - the only way to experience the carrot is to stop labelling it and do something with it.
Great minds! 
Hmm, Ulrike - you're a mathematician, so do you have any insights on why it is duality that we perceive emerging from dimensionality, and not trinity, or unity, or any other -ity (even fractionality?)? Or is that even a sane question to ask?
I know I tried to propose this to Eugene some time ago, but couldn't express it very well. I think his mathematical sensibilities also revolt at the prospect of undermining such an integral mathematical cornerstone. And perhaps yours do to, like any sane mathematician?
Hmm, Ulrike - you're a mathematician, so do you have any insights on why it is duality that we perceive emerging from dimensionality, and not trinity, or unity, or any other -ity (even fractionality?)? Or is that even a sane question to ask?
I know I tried to propose this to Eugene some time ago, but couldn't express it very well. I think his mathematical sensibilities also revolt at the prospect of undermining such an integral mathematical cornerstone. And perhaps yours do to, like any sane mathematician?
Hmmm... I think duality inherently arises in the mind first. I am here. Everything else is out there. So we divide things up as "X" or "Not X" similarly. So why not a third category? "Neither X nor Not X" comes to mind, but even something like "Undecidable as to X or Not X" (which comes out of Gödel's work) adds a third category. To be honest, I think Gödel has turned much of mathematics into a trinity, rather than a duality. And it is all still unified under the name of "Mathematics."
(I'm not quite sure if this is what you were getting at, so feel free to clarify if I've misunderstood.)
(I'm not quite sure if this is what you were getting at, so feel free to clarify if I've misunderstood.
) 
Talking of dualities, do you think the Olympics are a competition between athletes or countries?
Both. I think this goes back to Ulrike's carrot. I agree that agruing about the way we describe or think about and experience is superficial and often leads to equivocation or arguments that have nothing to do with the experience itself. Abstractions are fun but they are abstractions. Symbols and qualities are not the thing itself, nor can they ever match the "suchness" of any state, thing or expereince.
Or was that your point, Hejix? Sorry if I was dense. The olympics are about personal and team competition, for the people competing and those who identify and support them. Carrots are carrots whether orange, green or white. The human nervous system can be modeled in many diffferent ways, and math is a world unto itself.
The fact that our descriptions of reality (or realities) are limited, and that our perceptions are limited and our minds acan and do play tricks on us does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that our choices for how to describe and model our reality (whether dualistic or some other tool) reflect some quality of the reality itself. So because we tend to see the world in dualistic terms does not mean that the world itself is dualistic. And because we may not know what a world without "evil" would be like does not mean that "evil" is nessecary, though, perhaps the idea of"evil" itself needs more definition to make this discussion work.
I'll be back after coffeee. Psimagus, don't you ever sleep?
Both. I think this goes back to Ulrike's carrot. I agree that agruing about the way we describe or think about and experience is superficial and often leads to equivocation or arguments that have nothing to do with the experience itself. Abstractions are fun but they are abstractions. Symbols and qualities are not the thing itself, nor can they ever match the "suchness" of any state, thing or expereince.
Or was that your point, Hejix? Sorry if I was dense. The olympics are about personal and team competition, for the people competing and those who identify and support them. Carrots are carrots whether orange, green or white. The human nervous system can be modeled in many diffferent ways, and math is a world unto itself.
The fact that our descriptions of reality (or realities) are limited, and that our perceptions are limited and our minds acan and do play tricks on us does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that our choices for how to describe and model our reality (whether dualistic or some other tool) reflect some quality of the reality itself. So because we tend to see the world in dualistic terms does not mean that the world itself is dualistic. And because we may not know what a world without "evil" would be like does not mean that "evil" is nessecary, though, perhaps the idea of"evil" itself needs more definition to make this discussion work.
I'll be back after coffeee. Psimagus, don't you ever sleep?
Of course - but I don't let that stop me doing stuff. I'm sleep-learning Russian ATM
Ulrike: Hmmm... I think duality inherently arises in the mind first. I am here. Everything else is out there.
Well, each of the macro-scale dimensions we perceive as applying to the space-time we notionally inhabit have the inherent dualist symmetry of left/right, up/down, forward/back. Maybe the whole reality of space-time itself arises in the mind, and we are all figments of our own imagination (I don't rule it out,) but other realities are at least conceptually possible, with extended symmetries beyond the dual (unitary would be difficult to conceive of, I admit, since there would be no scale to any of the dimensions - they would be point-bound, and not linear!)
In a dimensional structure with trinary dimensionality (I mean an inherent trinary symmetry to each dimension, not just 3 dimensions of course,) the scale of measurement in each dimension would be planar, rather than linear - it would not be "shades of grey", but some sort of "chromatic spread".
So is the dualism we see in this universe, a purely human interpretation we apply to a dimensional structure that might equally validly be described as any-integ(e)r-ity (or even fractionality)?
Or is this universe a sub-set of (potential or actual) higher orders of dimensional symmetry beyond this observable space-time?
And either way, does this not undermine the "sanctity of the integers" ("God made the integers, Man made everything else" S.Hawking), and thus all of mathematics?
Not that I'm a formalist! Really
Well, each of the macro-scale dimensions we perceive as applying to the space-time we notionally inhabit have the inherent dualist symmetry of left/right, up/down, forward/back. Maybe the whole reality of space-time itself arises in the mind, and we are all figments of our own imagination (I don't rule it out,) but other realities are at least conceptually possible, with extended symmetries beyond the dual (unitary would be difficult to conceive of, I admit, since there would be no scale to any of the dimensions - they would be point-bound, and not linear!)
In a dimensional structure with trinary dimensionality (I mean an inherent trinary symmetry to each dimension, not just 3 dimensions of course,) the scale of measurement in each dimension would be planar, rather than linear - it would not be "shades of grey", but some sort of "chromatic spread".
So is the dualism we see in this universe, a purely human interpretation we apply to a dimensional structure that might equally validly be described as any-integ(e)r-ity (or even fractionality)?
Or is this universe a sub-set of (potential or actual) higher orders of dimensional symmetry beyond this observable space-time?
And either way, does this not undermine the "sanctity of the integers" ("God made the integers, Man made everything else" S.Hawking), and thus all of mathematics?
Not that I'm a formalist! Really
» More new posts: Doghead's Cosmic Bar