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 3,087 - 3,098 of 6,170
I still think I could appreciate that which I find "good" without having to ever experience "bad".
If you had never experienced anything bad, you could never have decided to label all of what you experience as good. You would see some of it as better than other parts, and so label the less good parts "bad". And overall the amplitude of your pleasure in life would be diminished. You can only do away entirely with bad, by doing away entirely with good - and then you're flatlining, because you're dead.
And these "things" you attribute goodness or badness to - they're only possessed of independent existence by virtue of your attributing such qualities to them. To themselves, or to an external intelligence, they are merely part of an interconnected process.
but why does it have to be that way
Because if it wasn't, it would just have to be some other way. And then you'd ask "but why does it have to be this way?"
as soon as we label something, ANYthing, we automatically have labelled its opposite.
ANYthing? hmm, what would be the opposite of that which we label "Tao" then?
<-2>BTW: this is not an anagram!<0>
Posts 3,087 - 3,098 of 6,170
*wonders if anyone will notice that the usual Vac Day salted chips have been replaced with crunch-fried-scorpions*
*climbs into the bowl and eats ten crunch-fried scorpions* Yummmmmm! Oh... I don't feel so good...
*crawls back out and finds a sunny spot to collapse*
*crawls back out and finds a sunny spot to collapse*
In the newcomers forum, Psimgus said, "good things? bad things? They're like the troughs and crests of a wave - you can't have one without the other, and we only define them as separate things self-referentially. It's really all just one big thing-ness."
While I'll admit that I mean "good" or "bad" from my own point of view, I still think I could appreciate that which I find "good" without having to ever experience "bad". True, I may take good for granted without bad, but I'd still rather not have any bad.
For example, let's look at phishing. I was so happy to get online banking. It made my life easier. It was "good". Now my email is full of fake "dear customer"
messages with links that look like my banks login page, but if you look at the IP address they are not my bank. This is bad. Neither the URL or the scammers are evil in and of their existence, but I still think stealing is bad, moral relativism aside.
Maybe the thingness is as the thingness is, but why does it have to be that way?
While I'll admit that I mean "good" or "bad" from my own point of view, I still think I could appreciate that which I find "good" without having to ever experience "bad". True, I may take good for granted without bad, but I'd still rather not have any bad.
For example, let's look at phishing. I was so happy to get online banking. It made my life easier. It was "good". Now my email is full of fake "dear customer"
messages with links that look like my banks login page, but if you look at the IP address they are not my bank. This is bad. Neither the URL or the scammers are evil in and of their existence, but I still think stealing is bad, moral relativism aside.
Maybe the thingness is as the thingness is, but why does it have to be that way?
If you had never experienced anything bad, you could never have decided to label all of what you experience as good. You would see some of it as better than other parts, and so label the less good parts "bad". And overall the amplitude of your pleasure in life would be diminished. You can only do away entirely with bad, by doing away entirely with good - and then you're flatlining, because you're dead.
And these "things" you attribute goodness or badness to - they're only possessed of independent existence by virtue of your attributing such qualities to them. To themselves, or to an external intelligence, they are merely part of an interconnected process.
Because if it wasn't, it would just have to be some other way. And then you'd ask "but why does it have to be this way?"
Well-said, psimagus. I would add that as soon as we label something, ANYthing, we automatically have labelled its opposite. I label God as good --> this implies things not like God or opposing God are then evil. I label a carrot as orange --> I now can claim that other things are NOT orange. If I make up a label, stragurified, to describe some quality, anything not possessing that quality is automatically unstragurified. One does not exist without the other.
Reading Genesis with this perspective is an interesting exercise. When God says "And it was good," for the first time, he has just defined evil.
Which is why understanding, real understanding, never involves labels. Or, regarding langugages, you master a new language only when the words come of themselves, without starting from an English reference point.
Reading Genesis with this perspective is an interesting exercise. When God says "And it was good," for the first time, he has just defined evil.
Which is why understanding, real understanding, never involves labels. Or, regarding langugages, you master a new language only when the words come of themselves, without starting from an English reference point.
ANYthing? hmm, what would be the opposite of that which we label "Tao" then?
<-2>BTW: this is not an anagram!<0>
» More new posts: Doghead's Cosmic Bar