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

[djama]

Originally Posted by bewilderment

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.

Again there is a need to be careful of inappropriate conversions because all actually existing things are positive does not imply that all positives are actually existing things. Many abstract things like relationships can be extremely positive, even absences of things can be positive. I mentioned before that 'clean' is an absence of something. Clean is not something that has an actual existence of its own - it is only and entirely the absence of dirt, grime and germs. Clean is however generally regarded as a good or positive thing.

From the above example you can probably see that there is no reason why positives could not be subjective and objective - the interplay of objective elements and subjective elements really opens up the whole area of esoteric cosmology and that is way beyond the scope of an online forum. If this type of cosmology interests you there is also a free download article at my shopfront at lulu.com called The Harmonic Mer Ka Bar/The Complete Enneagram that may interest you.

[djama]

Originally Posted by bewilderment

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.

If you are really interested in this theory I have published 3 versions of it - one is a short essay called Beautiful Garbage and is a free download from lulu.com under 'Robert Martin Duff' the most comprehensive treatment of it is actually an appendix to a book on esoteric raja yoga I have written called A Different Future - this also deals with technical things like semantics and nomenclature. There is also a separate book which I published for the lay reader which deals with this theory alone and which mostly bypasses technical questions (and it has lots of illustrative images) - this one is called The End of All Evil - all 3 of these publications are available from lulu and can be downloaded - best wishes.

[Montgolfier]

What about death then?

If I say "Death is an existing negative" you will probably reply "Death is simply the 'absence of life"

But you can't simply 'add a bit more life' (like you could add a bit more light to counteract the dark, or a bit more heat to counteract the cold) -when death happens it is an event, an irreversible event. It is a truely negative event as it stops the positive act of creation in its tracks.

It's hard to try an explain what mean with this, but I'm trying to say that death can't be simply a 'lack of life'. That life was taken by a negative force, and no positive force can bring that 'life' back!

[djama]

Originally Posted by MrCheese

"Death is simply the 'absence of life" But you can't simply 'add a bit more life' (like you could add a bit more light to counteract the dark, or a bit more heat to counteract the cold) -when death happens it is an event, an irreversible event. It is a truely negative event as it stops the positive act of creation in its tracks. It's hard to try an explain what mean with this, but I'm trying to say that death can't be simply a 'lack of life'. That life was taken by a negative force, and no positive force can bring that 'life' back!

Just because something is only an absence of something does not imply that it is reversible by a simple addition because the thing that is absent may not be simple. I use simple examples to get the principles across but in real life many things are complex – many things that are positive are complexes of; substances, functions and relationships and many negatives are complexes of absences and negative relationships.

Life is the result of extremely complex systems (consider that even now with all the science we have we cannot ‘create’ it). Darkness, ie an absence of light, is a simple absence and can be corrected with a simple addition but life is not simple, it requires many things we do not understand and cannot control or else we would have created it - an amoeba at least.

If we could control all the elements of life we could restore any life in the same way we can restore life when there is only something simple absent from this system and something that can easily be supplied, such as when people are ‘brought back from death’ by the application of CPR or similar techniques.

However if there is a major breakdown of any complex system, like a life, it cannot be simply put back together again. It is partly the complexity of the breakdown that makes restoration impossible, eg if a wine glass is dropped and only the stem breaks – it can be glued and it is still a wine glass – perhaps even imperceptibly different from the way it was before however if the glass is comprehensively smashed it is impossible to restore. Apart from the difficulty presented by the complexity of the system of ‘life’ there many elements in 'life' we simply can't control.

And even with darkness if you do not have the means to create light - a lantern or something - you are stuck in the dark. So it is with life - lacking the means to create it - when it is gone - we are stuck without it - that does not mean it is not an absence - it is just the absence of a complex thing over which we have some but not a lot of control. And death is only the absence of life, no more and no less – that is why it is not something to be feared.

[bewilderment]

Originally Posted by MrCheese

What about death then?

If I say "Death is an existing negative" you will probably reply "Death is simply the 'absence of life"

But you can't simply 'add a bit more life' (like you could add a bit more light to counteract the dark, or a bit more heat to counteract the cold) -when death happens it is an event, an irreversible event. It is a truely negative event as it stops the positive act of creation in its tracks.

It's hard to try an explain what mean with this, but I'm trying to say that death can't be simply a 'lack of life'. That life was taken by a negative force, and no positive force can bring that 'life' back!

We're not quite sure yet whether it's an irreversible event. Ever heard of cryonics? When nanotechnology or just technology in general advance much farther we'll find out whether death is reversible or not. Also, who says death is negative? Death may be a conversion of the human self into a greater thing and that would definately be positive. For those around the person, it may be a negative thing because of the lack of that person's presence. It could also be positive thing to a person if said person was a 4 year old who was being molested by the person previously and would have continued to have been molested or any other such similar incident.

[Montgolfier]

Maybe an extension to this theory would be to say that all events are neither positive nor negative, rather just events. . . .

* LIGHT - positive if you're in a cave, negative if you're a fox trying to hunt.

* SILENCE - Positive if you're a librarian, negative if you require conversation

* DEATH - Positive if you are terminally Ill, negative if you have been widowed

Perhaps the terms positive and negative are immiterial concepts when viewed from a more objective universal perspective?

Could all these 'events' really Just be wonderful possibilities thrown out from the complexity of the universe for it's own understanding/amusement.

It's up to us whether we hang the term 'negative' or 'positive' on them.

[djama]

Originally Posted by MrCheese

Maybe an extension to this theory would be to say that all events are neither positive nor negative, rather just events. . . . Perhaps the terms positive and negative are immiterial concepts when viewed from a more objective universal perspective?
It's up to us whether we hang the term 'negative' or 'positive' on them.

The argument that the cosmos is in fact 'neutral' ie neither positive or negative has tremendous merit - at least one school of yogic philosophy holds that the cosmos is neutral and that it is only by the way that we interact with it that we make it positive.

The main problems I see with this POV is that to give everything a neutral valuation is as arbitrary as to give it any other pre-ordained valuation. Also things that do actually exist have a positive existence, ie they positively exist so that positive existence itself might actually bias those things toward the positive end of the scale.

I think we also come across the 'limits of subjectivity' issue I mentioned earlier. Sure darkness can be positive or negative depending on whether you want darkness or light but if we take an extreme event, eg say someone with a severe psychosis and paranoid delusions locks themselves in a kindergarten with 30 kids and starts chopping them up with a machete (sorry to be so graphic but this point needs to be made) can we look at such an event and say: whether it is positive or negative depends on how you look at it?

[Montgolfier]

Originally Posted by djama

I think we also come across the 'limits of subjectivity' issue I mentioned earlier. Sure darkness can be positive or negative depending on whether you want darkness or light but if we take an extreme event, eg say someone with a severe psychosis and paranoid delusions locks themselves in a kindergarten with 30 kids and starts chopping them up with a machete (sorry to be so graphic but this point needs to be made) can we look at such an event and say: whether it is positive or negative depends on how you look at it?

That is a very good example as it's so extreme and takes a lot of thinking about. I guess if you look at it from the point of view of the kids and their friends/family, it would be difficult for them to see the event as positive in any way.

From the psychotic's point of view, perhaps the event was quite positive (he saw the event as erasing percieved demons/voices/evil etc). From his perspective, the sense of accomplishment and/or relief may have been overwhelmingly positive.

Looking at the situation from a wider perspective, the fact that it happened at all may be a vital part of future mental health development - more understanding of psychotic conditions & tighter security/procedures in kindergartens. - a positive knock-on effect.

Looking at the situation from an even wider perspective - from that of the cosmos, of creation itself - this event may have been one of the more profound and interesting things that happened due to its intensity, ferociousness and power. - neither positive or negative - simply potent complexity.

[djama]

Originally Posted by MrCheese

That is a very good example as it's so extreme and takes a lot of thinking about. I guess if you look at it from the point of view of the kids and their friends/family, it would be difficult for them to see the event as positive in any way. From the psychotic's point of view, perhaps the event was quite positive (he saw the event as erasing percieved demons/voices/evil etc). From his perspective, the sense of accomplishment and/or relief may have been overwhelmingly positive.

But is that not why we refer to such people as 'psychotic' ? Because their idea of what is good/right/true is so far removed from what truly is good/right/true, remember the Ford/Ferrari dichotomy. People suffering from such disorders do not see things as they really are even when it comes to make of motor vehicle - the fact that the psychotic believes himself to be driving a Ferrari when he is in fact driving a Ford does not make his Ford his Ferrari, does it?

Looking at the situation from an even wider perspective - from that of the cosmos, of creation itself - this event may have been one of the more profound and interesting things that happened due to its intensity, ferociousness and power. - neither positive or negative - simply potent complexity.

This would be a remarkably callous cosmos - this may be right but also this may be wrong.

[Montgolfier]

Originally Posted by djama

But is that not why we refer to such people as 'psychotic' ? Because their idea of what is good/right/true is so far removed from what truly is good/right/true,

I'm not sure there is such a thing as a universal 'good' and 'right'. Obviously I have my own personal 'rights' and 'wrongs' that I try to live by, but they may be different to other peoples. The psychotic is labeled as such due to his perspective being so vastly different to the one generally accepted.

It would be fair to say that there are definite 'rights' and 'wrongs' within a society to enable that society to function correctly, but TRUE rights and wrongs, universal rules that go deeper than society, I'm not convinced they exist at all.

..but thats a different debate )

[Montgolfier]

We are talking about two different things here - 'true and false' & 'right and wrong' - they sound the same but they're not. For example:

* The Ferrari is not a Ford - TRUE
* You can't split the atom - FALSE
* My computer is switched off - FALSE
* The psychotic is in the minority - TRUE

or...


* It's a lovely sunny day - RIGHT
* It is a bad thing to Kill - RIGHT
* It's a good thing to lie - WRONG
* Kindergarten should be a safe place - RIGHT

THe top set of examples are indisputable 'yes' or 'no' - IE the truth - no-one can prove them otherwise, they are 100% what they are from the view of one person, a group of people or the cosmos.

The second set are more tricky, at first glance it seems I've answered them correctly but I can think of certain situations for all of them where this wouldn't be the case. They are 'grey' areas, open for debate, the outcome depends on who's debating. There are no indesputable 'rights' and 'wrongs' here only opinions. Just because 99.99% of people agree on something doesn't make it fact.

* True and false - EXISTS
* Right and wrong within a society - EXISTS
* Universal right and wrong - DOESN'T EXIST

[djama]

I know these are two different 'realms' that is why one is obvious and the other is not - my point was if a claim can be clear and objective in one realm it is legitimate to ask if a claim cannot be clear and objective in another realm.

In realm 'concrete' the statement 'this Ford is not a Ferrari' is objective truth. What I am questioning is, given that there are such things as 'objective truths' in one realm are you absolutely certain that this phenomenon cannot repeat on another level and there cannot be 'objective truths' in more subtle realms, so that, for example, the statement, 'this bloodbath is not a good thing' cannot possibly be an objective truth?

I realise that one is a 'value judgement' and the other is not, this is because it is precisely the realm of 'values' that is the subtle realm I am exploring and examining.

[Montgolfier]

It's a good question, and I guess that's what forms the basis of most 'faiths' - to trust the instinctive 'rights & wrongs' that are deep-rooted inside us like:

* It's wrong to kill a man

A truth like that seems to go much deeper than just society's 'rules'. But does it? Right from a very early age we learn that murder is very wrong punishable by prison or death, something that will lodge itself into the conscience and torture the soul. It stands to reason that it's not on most peoples 'to do' list. But millions of soldiers have quite happily got on with killing their fellow humans for years. Once the society gives them the green light, takes away the threat of prison and the tortured soul and replaces them with a badge of honour and courage it's a different ball game, the kill becomes a 'right' for the soldier instead of a 'wrong'

So, no real moral 'right and wrong' only feelings born from experience.

Good and bad therefore must be personal rather than universal

This isn't to say I completely disagree with the theory of 'It Is All Good - there just isn't enough of it ' but I have a problem with the word 'good', it's too vague. I would prefer the statement 'It Is All positive energy - there just isn't enough of it.

It would be great to be proved wrong about this by the way, I envy people with faith and a belief in good and evil.

)

[djama]

Originally Posted by MrCheese

Right from a very early age we learn that murder is very wrong punishable by prison or death, something that will lodge itself into the conscience and torture the soul. It stands to reason that it's not on most peoples 'to do' list. But millions of soldiers have quite happily got on with killing their fellow humans for years. Once the society gives them the green light, takes away the threat of prison and the tortured soul and replaces them with a badge of honour and courage it's a different ball game, the kill becomes a 'right' for the soldier instead of a 'wrong'...So, no real moral 'right and wrong' only feelings born from experience. Good and bad therefore must be personal rather than universal

Sorry but logically, the fact that something can be socially conditioned does not prove that it is socially conditioned or that there is no objective truth underlying the conditioned belief (or its opposite for that matter).

Also it is worthy of note that people do not generally find that social or state sanction is enough for people to 'quite happily' go about killing their fellow human beings. One of the reasons that military people worked so hard to get weapons that would kill at a distance was that they found when men looked each other in the eye an enormous number of men actually deliberately fired their guns into the air and two of the prime goals of military training are to de-humanise the enemy and de-humanise the soldier so the question of killing fellow human beings does not enter into it.

This isn't to say I completely disagree with the theory of 'It Is All Good - there just isn't enough of it ' but I have a problem with the word 'good', it's too vague. I would prefer the statement 'It Is All positive energy - there just isn't enough of it.

No problem with that - but isnt positive good?

It would be great to be proved wrong about this by the way, I envy people with faith and a belief in good and evil.)

I have never met anyone who does not have an idea of moral right and wrong it is only that some people do not connect that with religion - some of the secular humanitarians I have known have been among the most 'moral' people I know - in fact usually the reason that have abandoned religion was because it failed to be moral enough.

Are you sure you do not have a belief about an objective underlying right and wrong? Do you really believe that the massacre of children is only wrong because it offends the current cultural mores of modern Western society?

[Montgolfier]

Originally Posted by djama

Sorry but logically, the fact that something can be socially conditioned does not prove that it is socially conditioned or that there is no objective truth underlying the conditioned belief (or its opposite for that matter).

Agreed, there appears to be no proof either way so perhaps I jumped the gun on that one -

Originally Posted by djama

No problem with that - but isnt positive good?

hmm, maybe the wrong choice of word, I was trying to substitute the word 'good' (which I feel implies that the good/evil debate has been concluded) with a word that simply describes the real existance of things (Ie light exists where as darkness does not) without implying anything further.


what about: --> It's all 'stuff that makes you happy' -there's just not enough of it!

;-)

Originally Posted by djama

Are you sure you do not have a belief about an objective underlying right and wrong? Do you really believe that the massacre of children is only wrong because it offends the current cultural mores of modern Western society?

I don't have a belief about anything due to a realisation that belief harbours denial of further input and discussion. Believers deliberately minimise the validity of doubt, their minds are closed. I don't even like to commit to the theory of evolution because while probable it's not undebatable.

At the moment I'm about 50/50 on this idea, the main thing swaying me in favour of an objective underlying right and wrong are emotions such as 'love' and 'compassion'. It's hard to imagine them not existing even when social conditioning has been stripped away.

[Ant-Man]

This is without question, the most stimulating thread I have read yet.
I have surmised from your posting that you both persue an objective perspective regarding right/wrong and positive/negative. You have taken into account many instances relating to this debate, and have regularly used words such as happy, sad, etc. Emotions are fleeting and constantly changing and are not always shared by any particular person or group relating to a given situation.
What is shared are feelings, not emotions, but sensations. The two sensations which can be shared by a group or persons, and have the most profound impact are, pleasure and pain. In order to make myself clear on this question, I need to use descriptive words for these. For example shear bliss, euphoric, orgasmic and such for pleasure. Terror, horrific and mind numbing for pain. As an unfortunate witness and regretable reciever, I can attest that being subjected to, surviving and reflecting on, will change anyones "Objective persective" on classification of right/wrong and positive/negative. Case in point, don't look at your example of, "The massacre of children" from a removed point of view, look at it from the child which is going through, be it hopefully only a few seconds, the shear unimaginable horror and pain. I understand that imagination falls short, but try.

I look forward to reading your response.

[djama]

Case in point, don't look at your example of, "The massacre of children" from a removed point of view, look at it from the child which is going through, be it hopefully only a few seconds, the shear unimaginable horror and pain. I understand that imagination falls short, but try.

I fear we may have strayed a little too far from the original brief and its premises which I reiterate for convenience:

1. All the things that have an actual existence of their own are positive.
2. All negatives are things which do not have an actual existence of their own, ie they are some type of abstract, eg an absence of something or a relationship.

The primary purpose of this thread was to provide the rational, sound and accurate explanation of the phenomenon witnessed by many people in highly sensitized states with highly clarified perceptions, including the most respected sages and mystics in history, that ‘everything is good/divine/work of god/breath of Brahman/etc’.

The way it works is that abstracts are not actually available to perception although apparently because concrete concepts are more easily handled by our minds we often give abstract things a ‘projected concrete existence’. This process of projecting a concrete existence for abstracts is called reification. When perception is quickened and clarified (by whatever means) the reifications, since they were never actually there, disappear hence no negatives are perceived and the perception is of a cosmos consisting entirely of good things.

That said however does not mean that everything is pleasant, eg pain can be extremely unpleasant but it is not in itself a negative thing. Pain warns us of danger, such as the presence of something hot burning our skin. It is only when pain is out of control that it becomes negative, ie when control is lacking. While extreme pain cannot be described as a lack of control in the same way that darkness can be accurately described as the lack of light, nonetheless if control is gained the extreme pain is relieved, ie if you had control of it you would stop the pain. The same is true of fear – it serves a very important purpose – it may not be the most sophisticated way of dealing with danger but its primary purpose is to make us avoid danger and ‘avoiding danger’ is a good thing. Again it is only when fear gets out of control that it becomes negative and again the situation is resolved in the positive if control is restored.

This explanation I provide does not promote the view that there are no negatives as is so often portrayed by the ‘rose-colored glasses’ set – the negatives are real just as darkness is real, just as ignorance is real, just as cold is real but they are all only absences of things, ie they are all types of abstracts. It is the usual conception of negatives as things that actually exist in their own right that I am disputing. I maintain that negatives are legitimate concepts for the world lacks many things, has many things in ‘bad’ relationships and there are enormous deficits in control however all these things are abstracts. Just because they are real does not mean they actually exist and just because they dont actually exist doesnt mean they cant kill you - I think two people have died this week in the Himalayas from 'too much cold'.

[Ant-Man]

Question....Is an "Action/Movement" a abstract or does it exist? Example: Pick up an empty glass, turn the tap and hold the glass while it fills, place the full glass to lips and drink til sated.

[djama]

Originally Posted by Ant-Man

Question....Is an "Action/Movement" a abstract or does it exist? Example: Pick up an empty glass, turn the tap and hold the glass while it fills, place the full glass to lips and drink til sated.

No question - it is an abstract as are the relationships that change when something is moved.

The glass exists, it can be manipulated, as can the tap, the hand, the water and the lips. If for example you 'change the movement' like putting the glass on a shelf it is a manipulation of one of the actually existing things - if you think it is separate try changing any of the movements mentioned without changing one of the actually existing things - it cannot be done.

The 'non-existence' of manipulation gives us an extraordinary possibility since it is by manipulation that 'all the good-things' are set in positive relationships to each other. Because manipulation does not consist of anything actually existing it does not have be procured from anywhere - it is 'something out of nothing' - it is 'magic'.

I realise that this is a little poetic - but like poetry it cant be understood literally because there are no right words in our current language or conceptual paradigm for what is being expressed - one has to try to understand the meaning behind the words - good luck.