It Is All Good - there just isn't enough of it

[LowExpectations]

Hmmm, all I see really defined is that there is something and there is nothing. There's no good or bad to it, you were simply in a state of ecstasy and the concept's significance was blown out of proportion. Good and bad are generalized measurements of a given situation's impact on the self. Remember to analyze not just how it works, but why it works, and why you have been drawn to this conclusion.

[djama]

Originally Posted by LowExpectations

Hmmm, all I see really defined is that there is something and there is nothing... Good and bad are generalized measurements of a given situation's impact on the self.

I dont have a problem with this nor with the idea that good and bad are subjective - if you can raise an actual example where this definition presents a problem please do.

[freedom]

I didnt read many posts after the thread starter cause it got way too long and i dont have the time right now but i completely understand and agree with what you are saying. And i want to add pain is lach of health, life, energy or power, however you want to look at it.

[djama]

Originally Posted by freedom

i want to add pain is lach of health, life, energy or power, however you want to look at it.

True but pain itself is not necessarily a negative it may be v desirable to recognise a particular problem with health as it may be an essential element is obtaining the correct remedy.

[bewilderment]

This is a great thought-provoking post and I even went over to download and read the article so I applaud you for that. I have a question, how do you define 'positive'? So, you've explained that negative things are only abstract concepts which are defined by the lack of something. Positives may also contain lacks...for example, it's a beautiful nice, warm sunny day and yet I still lack control over the weather. I can't think of any other positives that lack something other than perhaps control, but I'll play with the idea when I'm bored. Perhaps 'lack of control' is a somewhat flimsy explanation of the negatives.

[djama]

Originally Posted by bewilderment

This is a great thought-provoking post and I even went over to download and read the article so I applaud you for that. I have a question, how do you define 'positive'? So, you've explained that negative things are only abstract concepts which are defined by the lack of something. Positives may also contain lacks...for example, it's a beautiful nice, warm sunny day and yet I still lack control over the weather. I can't think of any other positives that lack something other than perhaps control, but I'll play with the idea when I'm bored. Perhaps 'lack of control' is a somewhat flimsy explanation of the negatives.

'Positive' is subjective - it depends what you want, what you like, what you find desirable - it may have an objective element but it is not really an issue.

Any real world situation is inevitably going to be a composition presences of things and absences of things. The situation is positive if the things necessary for a positive experience are present and negative if the things necessary for a positive experience are absent. If some thing is present which cause distress control is inevitably absent since if you had control you would have the distressing element removed.

It is important not get things reversed just because control is always lacking in negative situations does not imply that whenever there is a lack of control the situation is negative - these things are not what philosophers call 'mutually convertible'.

'Lack of control' was never meant to provide a definition of a negative it is only a condition which is always prevailing in a negative situation. If there are any examples of negatives to which the addition of control would not provide remedies please feel free to raise them.

Critical to this discussion is not the definition of positive and negative since they are subjective but of 'actually existing things' and 'things which do not actually exist' ie absences of things. Actually existing things can be manipulated - light for example consists of photons which can be reflected, refracted or blocked you cannot do anything with darkness for there is no actual thing to manipulate - it is an absence of something - it is a 'Non-thing'.

[LowExpectations]

Positive and negative are subjective. Does no one read futher than the first post?



Edit: My apologies for snapping, too much testing recently.

[djama]

Originally Posted by LowExpectations

Positive and negative are subjective. Does no one read futher than the first post? Edit: My apologies for snapping, too much testing recently.

This is true but it does not impact on this issue - if you can give an example where you think it makes a difference please feel free to raise it - and apologies accepted though I hadnt noticed that you were snapping - I must be too used to being pillioried at the post so to speak.

[bewilderment]

I didn't see it specifically defined (if I somehow missed it just point this out, I did read the posts but I may have forgotten something), but even though it's implied that it's just a subjective it seems curious that positive experiences would have lacks which is why I asked for a definition.

[LowExpectations]

I was snapping, I felt, with the comment about no one reading past the first post, it seems to me that the same questions have been asked repeatedly.

I think I see what you're trying to say, practically. Scientifically, it has been suspected for hundreds of years that the universe is made of the same thing, in the end (positive energy as you describe it). Therefore the only thing that is contrary to our existance is the lack of that substance (which scientifically, is likely just slowly vibrating energy.)

A negative object is not essentially negative but that which takes one's personal energy away. This 'lack of control' is simply when when one is at a disadvantage against another body of energy. What develops such controversy are not your theories but the definitions you use to describe them. You describe with what concepts are inspired in your mind, how your head explains the world around you. That's why those who go through that psychedelic process understand, and those who do not cannot seem to comprehend. It's not that you've gone a bit crazy or that they are blind, but that you see the world as how it affects you first, and define it directly from that.

What you present a theory such as this to someone, try to speak to them on their terms, their definitions. In many respects, everyone has the same sort of ideas floating around in their head, just under different names and different roots.

Communication is not about telling someone someting, showing them something new, but inspiring the thought that is already there, waiting to be unlocked. That is why art and varied sorts of communication are so very important, they get something across that words cannot.

[djama]

Originally Posted by LowExpectations

I think I see what you're trying to say, practically. Scientifically, it has been suspected for hundreds of years that the universe is made of the same thing, in the end (positive energy as you describe it). Therefore the only thing that is contrary to our existance is the lack of that substance (which scientifically, is likely just slowly vibrating energy.)

Not really - an absence of something is an absence of something, eg there is an absence of a monitor on my computer at the moment. There is absolutely no monitor there and it has been a negative thing for me - though of course the situation has been beyond my control - if I had control I would have a monitor.

A negative object is not essentially negative but that which takes one's personal energy away. This 'lack of control' is simply when when one is at a disadvantage against another body of energy. What develops such controversy are not your theories but the definitions you use to describe them.

One of the great beauties of this solution is that it doesnt matter what you regard as negative - it is whatever is negative for you. It can be subjective, objective, different for one person than another - it doesnt matter what definition you use for negatives the solution works.

You describe with what concepts are inspired in your mind, how your head explains the world around you. That's why those who go through that psychedelic process understand, and those who do not cannot seem to comprehend. It's not that you've gone a bit crazy or that they are blind, but that you see the world as how it affects you first, and define it directly from that.

The currently popular trend to try to subjectify the whole cosmos is probably no more valid than the traditional attempt to objectify the whole cosmos. Some things are objectively true, eg it is true that the Earth orbits the Sun - it is not simply a convenient concept to explain the apparent retrograde movement of th planets - it explains the apparent retrograde movement of the planets because it is true.

What you present a theory such as this to someone, try to speak to them on their terms, their definitions. In many respects, everyone has the same sort of ideas floating around in their head, just under different names and different roots.

I am using the terms that people use everyday; positive, negative, good, bad, right, wrong, etc as much as i can. The difficulty stems primarily from a linguistic and conceptual convention that just because something is real it is presumed to actually exist.

Communication is not about telling someone someting, showing them something new, but inspiring the thought that is already there, waiting to be unlocked. That is why art and varied sorts of communication are so very important, they get something across that words cannot.

Then wouldnt the inspiration be new? And if the inspiration can be new why cannot the thought also be new?

[bewilderment]

Purpose: To try to resolve the apparent discrepancy between the observation of an all-positive cosmos so often made in states of ecstasy and the common-sense observation of the negativity of ‘bad things’.

You keep saying that the definitions of positive and negative are not important, although, it seems that the definitions would be of utmost importance if this is the situation that you are trying to reconcile.

The assertion that ‘it is all good’ raises a problem – how to explain negative phenomena, eg wars, rapes, child abuse, torture, etc.

So, it seems as if you're saying that negative situations do, indeed, exist but it is only a lack of some crucial factor which makes the situation negative. Basically, all negative things are incomplete and if they were complete then they would be positive. You say that positive things are those things which may be manipulated (because they actually exist), but then you say that the negative situations would have to be manipulated by filling in these 'lacks'.

cruelty and jealousy and all other negatives are real but do not actually exist either.

If the perception of cruelty and jealousy are purely subjective then a sociopath could easily come along and say that cruelty is a positive thing and that kindness is that which lacks cruelty and is therefore negative. I doubt that any person reaching enlightenment would agree that cruelty is a positive thing.

I think your theory is great, but if I were trying to reconcile the concepts that you are then I would simply say that someone who enters into an ecstatic experience is transcending into a psychic realm devoid of space and time where all concepts of positive and negative get mashed together and cancel each other out. That is, all of the lacks are filled and thus everything becomes positive.

[djama]

I apologise for the delay in responding - my monitor blew up and Ihave been waiting for 3 weeks for a replacement.

[djama]

Originally Posted by bewilderment

You keep saying that the definitions of positive and negative are not important, although, it seems that the definitions would be of utmost importance if this is the situation that you are trying to reconcile.

As I mentioned previously, if you provide an example where you feel the explanation is inadequate - I will explain the reconciliation of the apparent discrepancies. If the definitions are so critical it should be easy to find one that creates a problem.

So, it seems as if you're saying that negative situations do, indeed, exist but it is only a lack of some crucial factor which makes the situation negative. Basically, all negative things are incomplete and if they were complete then they would be positive. You say that positive things are those things which may be manipulated (because they actually exist), but then you say that the negative situations would have to be manipulated by filling in these 'lacks'.

No, it is the positive things that can be manipulated that must be manipulated, eg if there is darkness and you need light for some purpose so in that situation darkness is a negative - you remedy the situation by bringing light, ie by manipulating a positive. This is the most important application of this breakthrough - it gives us a way of remedying negatives without employing negative strategies, becoming negative ourselves or invoking negative emotions.

The world is full of negatives because there are many things lacking but the remedies for those things are the bringing of the positives that are lacking, eg bringing light to darkness, understanding to ignorance, empathy to cruelty, food to starvation, warmth to cold, strength to weakness, etc.

I particularly like your description of negative situations as incomplete positive situations - can I use that?

If the perception of cruelty and jealousy are purely subjective then a sociopath could easily come along and say that cruelty is a positive thing and that kindness is that which lacks cruelty and is therefore negative.

This is a very good representation of how a sociopath thinks and that is why we call them sociopaths.

I doubt that any person reaching enlightenment would agree that cruelty is a positive thing.

I agree.

I think your theory is great, but if I were trying to reconcile the concepts that you are then I would simply say that someone who enters into an ecstatic experience is transcending into a psychic realm devoid of space and time where all concepts of positive and negative get mashed together and cancel each other out. That is, all of the lacks are filled and thus everything becomes positive.

There is no need to abandon space and time to reach ecstasy since neither of those things are negative. I reiterate that my experience of ecstasy was not a hallucinatory, psychedelic experience but the result of certain yoga practices. There is no need for positives and negatives to cancel each other out since negatives are only absences of things - there is no struggle between light and dark there is only light - there is simply more or less of it. This discovery gives us a much simpler model of the cosmos - instead of antagonistic forces or good and evil doing battle with each other there is only good - there is just not enough of it.

[Silence_Inc]

but still - you are saying the same thing.

GOOD vs EVIL

GOOD vs ABSENCE OF GOOD

so where there is no good - you just say it gone there - like a void. but others give that void the name of evil.

it's what you call it.

it's only a mind structure and will not change the fundamental principal of experiencing good and "evil" or the absence of good.

[djama]

Originally Posted by Silence_Inc

but still - you are saying the same thing. GOOD vs EVIL
GOOD vs ABSENCE OF GOOD - so where there is no good - you just say it gone there - like a void. but others give that void the name of evil. it's what you call it.

it's only a mind structure and will not change the fundamental principal of experiencing good and "evil" or the absence of good.

Well it should, because there is a fundamental difference between something that actually exists and something that does not - a profound difference between something abstract and something concrete - it is not just a matter of terminology or concept.

Most importantly, for this explanation, is the methodology for devising remedies that it provides. the appropriate remedy for something that is absence is simply providing that.

Traditional remedies for negatives have included things like; blame, punishment, guilt, condemnation, etc all such 'remedies' presume an actually existing negative to which they are a response. But no-one can do anything to something that doesnt actually exist - no-one can do anything with something that doesnt actually exist. Condemning such negatives is equivalent to berating someone who isnt there and this is a behaviour we generally associate with the most disturbed and dysfunctional people is our society.

Cultural revolutions have often been precipitated by the availability of a new drug and what has been happening for a while is that with the advent of certain classes of psychotropics a lot of people have been having experiences of the all-positive nature of the universe however without a consistent way of dealing with negatives people have either: abandoned the all positive appreciation and returned to a some positives - some negatives model or they have maintained that everything is positive including such things as war, rape and torture generally saying that they are some form of 'positive in disguise', eg righteous karma, unseen grand plan or even unconscious wish fulfilment of the victims - still other people simply alternate between models depending on what suits them and whether or not they are affected personally. None of these is logically consistent.

This explanation of negatives as abstracts accommodates both the all-positve perception of the universe, since something has to actually exist to be available to perception, and the validity of negatives since there is little dispute that many things are still lacking in this world for many people and many purposes.

When we see negatives as actually existing things it is a projection not a perception. Silence is real, ie when there is no sound there really is silence, but it is only the absence of sound - imagining silence to have an actual existence of its own - that is imagination. Cold is real - if it is cold enough something can burn you but it is still only an absence of heat. This is not just concept - it is physics, but it shows how something that doesnt actually exist can seem to exist.

Realising that negatives are only absences of things opens the possibility of dealing with negatives with entirely positive means and strategies and this is a great step forward for the all-positive paradigm because it allows negatives to be dealt with as negatives but without becoming negative or employing negative strategies. If darkness is a problem - it is insane to spend your time punishing or condemning darkness - you simply bring a light. And this is so much a simpler model instead of light and dark locked in battle there is only light - there is simply more or less of it. This is analogous to the good/evil paradigm - it is a much simpler, completely positive and profoundly different way of dealing with darkness/evil/cruelty/ignorance/dryness whatever.

[bewilderment]

'Positive' is subjective - it depends what you want, what you like, what you find desirable...As I mentioned previously, if you provide an example where you feel the explanation is inadequate - I will explain the reconciliation of the apparent discrepancies. If the definitions are so critical it should be easy to find one that creates a problem.

I provided the example of the sociopath. In the sociopath's subjective viewpoint, what he likes and what he finds desirable is cruelty which is a lack of kindness which anyone else would say that is the positive because it's positive in an more objective way which benefits people and society as a whole.

No, it is the positive things that can be manipulated that must be manipulated, eg if there is darkness and you need light for some purpose so in that situation darkness is a negative - you remedy the situation by bringing light, ie by manipulating a positive. This is the most important application of this breakthrough - it gives us a way of remedying negatives without employing negative strategies, becoming negative ourselves or invoking negative emotions.

You're correct. I was confusing a negative situation being manipulated with a negative object being manipulated. But, back to the subjective thing: someone who enjoys darkness will see darkness as a positive yet it cannot be manipulated which is another requisite under your description of a positive thing. They conflict.

I particularly like your description of negative situations as incomplete positive situations - can I use that?

Oh yeah, certainly

There is no need to abandon space and time to reach ecstasy since neither of those things are negative. I reiterate that my experience of ecstasy was not a hallucinatory, psychedelic experience but the result of certain yoga practices.

I realize that the realization was not while you were under the influence of drugs...I didn't mean to imply any such thing if I did. I also confused the experience of "ecstacy" with that of "enlightenment" such as that which is experienced by mystics in deep trance states. I usually associate this sort of enlightenment with transcendence of temporality because in order to be fully enlightened I believe one must transcend our four-dimensional view (which is only advantageous in evolutionary terms and terms of survival) in order to get that "birds eye view" as opposed to "worm's eye view" which we, as human beings, are trapped in.

This discovery gives us a much simpler model of the cosmos - instead of antagonistic forces or good and evil doing battle with each other there is only good - there is just not enough of it.

But there is light and dark matter which compete and balance each other out...or we find that they do not balance each other out then the universe will eventually curl back up during "the big crunch". But, this is really irrelevant to your theory...I think. I just wanted to note that since you talk of the battle between light and dark.

[djama]

Originally Posted by bewilderment

I provided the example of the sociopath. In the sociopath's subjective viewpoint, what he likes and what he finds desirable is cruelty which is a lack of kindness which anyone else would say that is the positive because it's positive in an more objective way which benefits people and society as a whole.

The subjectivity does not provide a conflict, ie it does not contradict the assertions which I will reiterate:
1. All the things that have an actual existence of their own are positives.
2. All negatives are things which do not have an actual existence of their own.

I concede that some insane person may regard something that actually exists as a negative, eg someone may find wood a negative, however I would suggest that the negativity is in their mind not in the wood and is therefore imaginary and so not actually existing. Just because someone calls a rose by another name does not make it something else. there is a difference between subjectivity and insanity. For example, there may be a work of art - one person likes it another does not - for one person it has what it needs to have for them to like it for the other person it lacks something it needs for them to like it - yet they still see the same work of art but they have different requirments of it.

You're correct. I was confusing a negative situation being manipulated with a negative object being manipulated. But, back to the subjective thing: someone who enjoys darkness will see darkness as a positive yet it cannot be manipulated which is another requisite under your description of a positive thing. They conflict.

You seem to need be careful of inappropriate conversions. That is: just because all the things that have an actual existence are positives does not imply that all positives have an actual existence of their own. Also, although all negatives are things which do not have an actual existence of their own that does not imply that everything that does not have an actual existence of its own is a negative.

I dont want to confuse things too much but negative relationships are somewhat different to negatives as pure absences of things. In negative relationsips all the actually existing things are still positive but they are in a negative relationship to each other. You appear to have some philosophical training so I will presume that you understand how pure relationship is an abstract however if you have difficulty with that I am happy to explain. While when any negative prevails there will always be an absence of control the negative relationship itself cannot be accurately characterised as that absence - the absence of control is a feature of the situation not the situation itself. However in both types of negatives, ie negatives as absences or negatives as relationships, negatives are abstracts and therefore have not existence of their own.

Oh yeah, certainly

Ta

I realize that the realization was not while you were under the influence of drugs...I didn't mean to imply any such thing if I did. I also confused the experience of "ecstacy" with that of "enlightenment" such as that which is experienced by mystics in deep trance states. I usually associate this sort of enlightenment with transcendence of temporality because in order to be fully enlightened I believe one must transcend our four-dimensional view (which is only advantageous in evolutionary terms and terms of survival) in order to get that "birds eye view" as opposed to "worm's eye view" which we, as human beings, are trapped in.

This is a very fraught area - since so few people have had experience of higher states and even fewer have clear recollections of them words such as 'enlightenment' and 'ecstasy' have been used to describe a wide range of experiences. You may wish to look at some of the Vedas which give a quite detailed account of various types of ecstasy and enlightenment - the complete dissolution experience is called atma-jana.

It is worth noting that the effects of these psychotropic drugs does not necessarily involve the raising of perception to a new level but may only block or disable the mechanism that projects or reifies negatives. Under such conditions perception may simply seem to be enhanced because it is no longer clouded by the projections of negatives.

But there is light and dark matter which compete and balance each other out...or we find that they do not balance each other out then the universe will eventually curl back up during "the big crunch". But, this is really irrelevant to your theory...I think. I just wanted to note that since you talk of the battle between light and dark.

Despite that I am glad you brought it up because this highlights one of the most common misconceptions, eg in a painting there may be white and black paint that form a balance in the composition - but the black paint is just as actually existing as the white paint - it is not an absence of paint. Two things that actually exist can balance each other something that does not actually exist cannot balance anything because it does not actually exist it cannot 'do' or even 'be' anything.

[Silence_Inc]

it's indeed a more pure way - or let's say - productive way of looking at stuff.

if people become aware of the fact that what is BAD isn't actually BAD but just the absence of good - they will have an insight in the conditon of what is being viewed.

hm - hm ...

i think it's a very social point of view - not a religieus one. a view on psyche and action rather than truth and meaning.

it's like - when somoen is mad - you know they just need good care instead of condemnig them as being MAD (almost like a sickness - and like you say, making real what isn't even there)

hmm - hmm .. sounds like a logical and beneficial thing if i look at it on a social plane ..

good stuff

[djama]

Originally Posted by Silence_Inc

it's indeed a more pure way - or let's say - productive way of looking at stuff.
if people become aware of the fact that what is BAD isn't actually BAD but just the absence of good - they will have an insight in the conditon of what is being viewed.
hm - hm ...
i think it's a very social point of view - not a religieus one. a view on psyche and action rather than truth and meaning.
it's like - when somoen is mad - you know they just need good care instead of condemnig them as being MAD (almost like a sickness - and like you say, making real what isn't even there)
hmm - hmm .. sounds like a logical and beneficial thing if i look at it on a social plane ..
good stuff

The applications you cite are all valid and these are certainly beneficial applications of this breakthrough however I hope that one day people see that this is not simply a conceptual tool but a description of reality as it truly is in the same way that the vision of the Earth as a globe was not just a conceptual tool to explain different sunrise times etc but a description of the actually existing reality which explained the observed phenomena.

[Silence_Inc]

i do find it hard to take your 'concept' as the idea of 'how life is' ... i read alot of books on the subject and like you know had some experiences myself. so when you try to say that this concept IS how reality IS - you loose me.

as long as there are names given - it can't be reality ... people can run scream cry or even jump of the moon - but we will never explain how life is - in a single concept like: 'there is only good, just not enough'. not even if you write a book with a million words.

there is nog good - no evil - it's all just fluctuations. and not even this is true ...

on the level of meaning - you can only understand when concepts fade and silence appears.

but i do like the concept on the level of concepts. so on the level of illusions that have inlfuence on reality.

not on the level of truth that has meaning to name reality.

it's just something completley diffrent.

i think you should discuss this with a buddhist - a real one - and see what he has to tell.

------------------------------

i have a friend that made a nice movie on a similar concept.

he claims that darkness doesn't exist - cause it's only the absence of light.

but if we really wanna get into this than ... what is a blackhole??

light is so powerfull it pushes darkness awya - well - here darkness is so powerfull it pushes light away ... not?

and it's not nothing - this black hole - it's EVERYTHING - it's TOO MUCH - that's why it is born ... too much light and things on 1 place - makes it dark and non existing.

[djama]

Originally Posted by Silence_Inc

i do find it hard to take your 'concept' as the idea of 'how life is' ... i read alot of books on the subject and like you know had some experiences myself. so when you try to say that this concept IS how reality IS - you loose me.

Originally Posted by Silence_Inc

as long as there are names given - it can't be reality ... people can run scream cry or even jump of the moon - but we will never explain how life is - in a single concept like: 'there is only good, just not enough'. not even if you write a book with a million words.
there is nog good - no evil - it's all just fluctuations. and not even this is true ...

are you not here saying that ‘this is how reality is’? If you can describe it why cant I?

he claims that darkness doesn't exist - cause it's only the absence of light.

Yes but just because it doesn’t exist does not mean that it is not real – when it is dark it is really dark – it is not an illusion – it is not a mistake. The only mistake would be to regard darkness as something with an actual existence of its own.

but if we really wanna get into this than ... what is a blackhole??

light is so powerfull it pushes darkness awya - well - here darkness is so powerfull it pushes light away ... not?
and it's not nothing - this black hole - it's EVERYTHING - it's TOO MUCH - that's why it is born ... too much light and things on 1 place - makes it dark and non existing.

Firstly darkness is not pushed away because there is nothing to push away light annihilates darkness the same way that water annihilates emptiness when we put some in a glass. There is no resistance because there is nothing there to offer resistance.

In a black hole it is not darkness that overpowers light but gravity.

[bewilderment]

Subjectivity: a) Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world: a subjective decision.
b)Particular to a given person; personal: subjective experience

Insanity is a subjective experience. Also, a masochist or a sadist will see things positively which others will see as negative. Cruelty would then be a subjectively positive thing to these people.

1. All the things that have an actual existence of their own are positives.
2. All negatives are things which do not have an actual existence of their own.

These are not subjective things and are much better definitions than saying that positivity is subjective IMO.

That is: just because all the things that have an actual existence are positives does not imply that all positives have an actual existence of their own. Also, although all negatives are things which do not have an actual existence of their own that does not imply that everything that does not have an actual existence of its own is a negative.

What do you mean by an existence of their own?

I dont want to confuse things too much but negative relationships are somewhat different to negatives as pure absences of things. In negative relationsips all the actually existing things are still positive but they are in a negative relationship to each other. You appear to have some philosophical training so I will presume that you understand how pure relationship is an abstract however if you have difficulty with that I am happy to explain.

I enjoy philosophy as a hobby and thus there are some holes which would probably be filled in were I to study philosophy formally or more intensely on my own. I've taken a few philosophy courses dealing with Minds and Machines and Philosophy of the Mind and briefly switched my major to philosophy (although I only began a few courses before I had to withdraw from school for the semester and now I'm rethinking my major). I also was a member of a philosophy club in college. I enjoy debate. That being said, could you elaborate on what you said above, and perhaps provide examples. I believe I do understand what you're saying, but I'd like to be clear and have them explained by you instead of having more confusion.

[djama]

Originally Posted by bewilderment

Subjectivity: a) Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world: a subjective decision.
b)Particular to a given person; personal: subjective experience
Insanity is a subjective experience. Also, a masochist or a sadist will see things positively which others will see as negative. Cruelty would then be a subjectively positive thing to these people. These are not subjective things and are much better definitions than saying that positivity is subjective IMO.

Positives can still be subjective - one thing that people often seem to miss is that subjectivity has limits. Two people may look at a sculpture - one may like it the other may dislike it - that is subjective. Two people may look at a Ford one may think it is a Ford the other may think it is a Ferrari - this is not subjective this is wrong. It is very important to recognise the limits of subjectivity - the modern trend to try to render the entire cosmos as a subjective experience is no more balanced than the traditional attempts to try to understand everything as objective.

What do you mean by an existence of their own?

I could not find an appropriate word for this definition. The obvious term is 'concrete' but some things like heat do not fit readily into that pigeon hole. The critical characteristic which I mentioned previously is being 'able to be manipulated'.

One needs to be careful here, eg take a shadow play - it may seem darkness is being manipulated but in fact it is the manipulation of light since light (photons) are being blocked from particular areas.

I enjoy philosophy as a hobby and thus there are some holes which would probably be filled in were I to study philosophy formally or more intensely on my own. I've taken a few philosophy courses dealing with Minds and Machines and Philosophy of the Mind and briefly switched my major to philosophy (although I only began a few courses before I had to withdraw from school for the semester and now I'm rethinking my major). I also was a member of a philosophy club in college. I enjoy debate. That being said, could you elaborate on what you said above, and perhaps provide examples. I believe I do understand what you're saying, but I'd like to be clear and have them explained by you instead of having more confusion.

I presume you are referring to relationships as abstracts - consider a composition for a still life painting. The relationships between the objects are a critical part of the composition - there may be a bottle, a bowl of fruit and cup. The relationships between the objects are real but they are abstracts -they have no substance - they cannot be manipulated. The only way to change the relationships is to change the actually existing things, the things that do have substance: the bottle, the bowl of fruit, the cup, etc. When you move one of the actually existing things the relationships that are generated change but the relationships cannot be changed directly because they are not actually existing things.

[bewilderment]

Originally Posted by djama

Positives can still be subjective - one thing that people often seem to miss is that subjectivity has limits. Two people may look at a sculpture - one may like it the other may dislike it - that is subjective. Two people may look at a Ford one may think it is a Ford the other may think it is a Ferrari - this is not subjective this is wrong. It is very important to recognise the limits of subjectivity - the modern trend to try to render the entire cosmos as a subjective experience is no more balanced than the traditional attempts to try to understand everything as objective.

That's because the Ford is an objective truth. Subjective experiences are not 'right' or 'wrong', they simply are. Could positives be both subjective and objective? Positives have objectivity in the fact that they exist.

Thanks for the recommended reading. I already read the article...I'll look into the books too at some point I'm sure.