Reason evil exists and why it can't fully be explained.

[Meem]

Evil exists for the same exact reasons good does. Largely, I hold this to be freedom. One is free to act out in a "evil or good" manner. Not either one being easily explained or understood, like the more interesting and simpler questions about, "all of this" tend to be.

I have to say, I do not think the polar opposite of evil is live/living. There are many things living and quite well, which large groups of people would agree to be "evil." I would fit into this group.

[mkirkpatrick]

Evil exists for the same exact reasons good does. Largely, I hold this to be freedom. One is free to act out in a "evil or good" manner. Not either one being easily explained or understood, like the more interesting and simpler questions about, "all of this" tend to be.

I have to say, I do not think the polar opposite of evil is live/living. There are many things living and quite well, which large groups of people would agree to be "evil." I would fit into this group.

Thanks Meem,I was attempting and it seems failing to highlight that living in a "good centred mind frame" was about expansion and going with the universal flow of unfoldment,whereas the polar opposite of this is negitive centred mind frame (evil) which is about contraction and opposite to the lifefullness positive flow.

regards michael.

[SteveA]

Thanks Meem,I was attempting and it seems failing to highlight that living in a "good centred mind frame" was about expansion

A good analogy here could be that if you're building something, making measurements and working according to some form of assumptions, the quality of the results can't be any better than the tools the used to create it.

and going with the universal flow of unfoldment,whereas the polar opposite of this is negitive centred mind frame (evil) which is about contraction and opposite to the lifefullness positive flow.

regards michael.

To a fish, swimming is natural and good. To a bird it's flying. After experiencing flying, a fish might consider it an evil action and a bird underwater would likely quickly feel similarly.

Those could be seen as relative goods and evils and not absolute. If there was no such difference and birds and fish were identically able to do all things in equivalent manners, then there wouldn't specifically be birds or fish. It's not impossible that birds can swim or fish fly, but one will never replace the other and each does what it does better than anything else.

I agree with your general sentiment that a better absolute metric for evil would be placing constraints upon the diversity that exists.

There can also be perceived evils that arise from ignorance, but that's a tradeoff for growth. There can be safety nets - birds naturally float on water, fish don't inherently fly, physical reflexes, pain, fear, subconscious and autonomous functions are some examples - but they have their own costs. I don't believe those are ever entirely avoidable, though I do believe their influences can be diminished over time as growth and knowledge provide a greater spectrum of possible actions and associated (positive) values. At any moment though, things are as they are and to what extent that might be better or worse than some other possibility is subjective. If it's to be considered an objective truth that one has any influence over, then a belief/knowledge in some form of objective laws would appear necessary such that because of such and such, things are better or worse than some other alternative and if ones actions are to be a part of that, then similarly a manner to associate ones influences with results would seem necessary, though once again it would appear that to what extent things are better or worse off for that would remain something subjective as there's no way to demonstrate what alternatives would have been other than whatever ones own beliefs are regarding how ones actions resulted, via beliefs in various laws or cause and effect relationships, in conditions that were better or worse than some hypothetical alternative (though I don't belief those alternatives are truly hypothetical, though finite knowledge, even if entirely precise and accurate only provides finite visibility of consequences and, from the track record it appears there are usually always things that, in hindsight, could have been better but then again life itself might require a bit of ignorance, or alternately you can look at it from the flip side and see ignorance as growth and creative or more than everything, as it includes the finite and less than everything too ... spin it whichever way you want. I guess it's more fundamentally about intentions and likely no two are going to match up precisely in all ways forever, but we can still stay in touch

[mkirkpatrick]

Many thanks Steve for your last post,I suppose to fully understand evil you must first understand good,and therein lies the problem,we do not fully understand good or what life is really so its not surprising that we don't understand evil either.I see them both as points on a spectrum one end is positive the other negitive.


regards michael.

[SteveA]

Many thanks Steve for your last post,I suppose to fully understand evil you must first understand good,and therein lies the problem,we do not fully understand good or what life is really so its not surprising that we don't understand evil either.I see them both as points on a spectrum one end is positive the other negitive.


regards michael.

Thank you for your additions as well and you pointed out an interesting consideration. If the "good" side of things is growth/creative/living or figuratively "more than everything" due to containing restrictions/details as well, then the "more" side couldn't really be pointed to by anything contained by the present, just as the word tomorrow doesn't literally refer to what things will be present in the future (except as abstract possibilities).

An immediate value of good/bad at any moment might be considered a linear "spectrum", but in terms of potential growth over time I think it's better to consider things in terms of trees of branching probabilities and compressing that into a linear representation removes all the specific contexts and details involved.

I don't see how life can be precisely described as anything algorithmic/deterministic as any such form of description is static. On the other hand, a finite set of values over some span of time could have a finite description and be at least indirectly conveyable.

There are ways (a subset of all possibilities) that a finite set of values can be shared between at least partially independent creative entities though and at least be indirectly perceivable within a common environment. As a geometric/mathematical example, imagine one selection determines an X coordinate of a function and another selection determines a Y coordinate of a function f(x,y). If a common value,v, is present v=f(x,y) then communication can occur indirectly over time. If both x and y are functions of an identical time line, then this reduces the value to being dependent upon a single dimension of time. x=g(t), y=h(t) and v=f(g(t),h(t)), which would be an equivalent of v=f(t), but if x and y are truly independent in some respect (and I do believe the experience of time extends beyond precise logical description and some such form of independent/free will has to exist ... almost implicitly a proof of free will could be decided to be either way. In reality I think there's the equivalent of spectrums of such and not a singular description either. For example, trying to answer the question "is infinity odd or even?" points in the direction of that phenomenon. A typical answer could be that it's undefined or an invalid question ... well maybe we can go past conventionally valid questions to ask and find things with a bit more depth)

Another interesting possible projection of such a scenario could be to take a typical view of a point within a 3-D space and factor the x, y and z components into two objects possessing 1 1/2 dimensions each (Google "fractal dimensions" if you're curious about the general classes of forms these could exist as) and each could effectively convey information about an environment relative to the other ... in other words, if object A presents 1 1/2 dimensions of selection to object B and visa versa, then that's equivalent to each being able to perceive motion in a composite/relative space of 3 dimensions.

... just more ideas

[SteveA]

Sorry for drifting a bit there, though the idea has lots of interesting correlations with physics but regarding the subject of good and evil, if growth/creativity/life is included on the good side, then I'd assume the properties of the dimensions of the space would be equivalent to contrasting static "evil" (but then again that would also be an equivalent source of common values under that transformation so if the whole is included as something good/creative/additive, which it would appear to be if such inclusive growth/creativity/life, in general, was good, then rather by default that "evil" would be equivalent to a necessary (historical/dead) contrast).

I admit having fun trying to find various correlations, though once again I'd have to assume that if life is creative and rather open ended, and if that's on the "good side" of things then there's really no way to specify precisely what good is, except in terms of contrasting historical finite contexts of what good is not (you could draw correlations there with nulls/zero crossings in a quantum wave function).

And if I were to be non-hypocritical, that would similarly imply the closest thing to an affirmation of that would probably be non-specific quantum noise or logical silence and not applicable to anything specific except for enabling the rest.

Yes, lots of interesting correlations between lots of subjects around.

[Drifter]

The seed of the root of all Evil lies
with the disability in the "Discerning Of Spirits"
calcification, in the Pineal Gland, prohibits the trasformation of the Photoelctric Principle Luminessent in humans.

That's my theory anyways.
Science bears this out in various thesis

The "Additive Technology" usuaslly present in human understanding and human Intelligence as an unlearned or un/under-developed sense, becomes severely hampered or even lacking all together, in our Evolutionary DNA.

d.