Is There Really An Equal Amount Of Good And Bad In Everything?

[impermanence]

There is no good or bad in ANYTHING.

No thinking going on, no good or bad.

What is determined as good and bad is based on out relationship with those things.
A bloody beef steak is good as far as I am concerned; it is bad as far as my vegetarian partner is concerned.
The goodness and badness does not consist IN the steak.

Correct, although the idea only applies to the one doing the thinking.

The entire thread is meaningless.

That's fair. You might characterize it this way.

Those that think the thread makes sense would do well to try to understand this simple truth. It may well transform the way they look at the world. Because right now they have no idea what the **** they are talking about.
They are living in a seriously confused state and conceive the world in a fundamentally wrong way.

Well, Sculptor1, I believe the best any of us can do is to try to see things as clearly as is possible. In this manner, we can react most appropriately, in the interests of ourselves, our families, and those we can help along the way.

[Sculptor1]

There is no good or bad in ANYTHING.

No thinking going on, no good or bad.

What is determined as good and bad is based on out relationship with those things.
A bloody beef steak is good as far as I am concerned; it is bad as far as my vegetarian partner is concerned.
The goodness and badness does not consist IN the steak.

Correct, although the idea only applies to the one doing the thinking.

The entire thread is meaningless.

That's fair. You might characterize it this way.

Those that think the thread makes sense would do well to try to understand this simple truth. It may well transform the way they look at the world. Because right now they have no idea what the **** they are talking about.
They are living in a seriously confused state and conceive the world in a fundamentally wrong way.

Well, Sculptor1, I believe the best any of us can do is to try to see things as clearly as is possible. In this manner, we can react most appropriately, in the interests of ourselves, our families, and those we can help along the way.

Can you not see a problem here? If people wrongly conceive as good and evil and inherent qualities that reside within the world and with objects withing the world?
Surely this is the heart of the misconceptions concerning karma and the concept of the limtied good, as well as many other endemic confusions?

[Pattern-chaser]

It simply "suggests" that [intellectually] in order for x to arise, so must its opposite, y [in equal proportion].

If x and y are not quantifiable, they cannot exist "in equal proportion", a form of words which says that there is an equal quantity of good and bad. How much does a litre of bad weigh?

Good is a verdict. It is the result of a (moral) human consideration about something. So when you assert that good and bad exist in equal quantities, you assert that human considerations resulting in a judgement of good or bad take place so that they balance numerically? I'm sorry, but that simply isn't so.

It is exactly because good and bad are created by humans that they exist in proportion. How can it be otherwise. Think, "For every action there is an opposite and proportional reaction," kind of thing.

Actions and reactions aren't the same as abstract moral verdicts. You can have two or three actions, but you can't have two or three bads. It's like green, something can be green, but green itself doesn't exist, either in isolation, or "in proportion" with some other colour. To summarise:


Your argument seems to me to fall down on the point I made that you have not responded to. That "if x and y are not quantifiable, they cannot exist 'in equal proportion'". So, how much does a litre of bad weigh?

[impermanence]

Can you not see a problem here? If people wrongly conceive as good and evil and inherent qualities that reside within the world and with objects withing the world?

Scultor1, you assume that everybody views the world as do you. I can assure you that I do not [nor does anybody else, for that matter].

Good/bad [in the human sphere] is about as relative as it gets. But that's not really what we are discussing here.

Surely this is the heart of the misconceptions concerning karma and the concept of the limtied good, as well as many other endemic confusions?

Perhaps we can have a chat about karma?

[impermanence]

Actions and reactions aren't the same as abstract moral verdicts. You can have two or three actions, but you can't have two or three bads. It's like green, something can be green, but green itself doesn't exist, either in isolation, or "in proportion" with some other colour. To summarise:


Your argument seems to me to fall down on the point I made that you have not responded to. That "if x and y are not quantifiable, they cannot exist 'in equal proportion'". So, how much does a litre of bad weigh?

What exactly IS quantifiable? And based on your reasoning, if green doesn't exist, what does, and why? Could it be that "things" exist only under a certain set of circumstances? And if those circumstances are constantly changing, where is their existence?

But again, this doesn't really address the idea that each side of a duality is created by our minds and must be proportional [as it is one that creates the other].

[Sculptor1]

Can you not see a problem here? If people wrongly conceive as good and evil and inherent qualities that reside within the world and with objects withing the world?

Scultor1, you assume that everybody views the world as do you. I can assure you that I do not [nor does anybody else, for that matter].

Good/bad [in the human sphere] is about as relative as it gets. But that's not really what we are discussing here.

Surely this is the heart of the misconceptions concerning karma and the concept of the limtied good, as well as many other endemic confusions?

Perhaps we can have a chat about karma?

It's like you can't read or something.
NO I am not assuming that everyone thinks like me. They do not.
That is why I am trying to tell you how wrong you are.

There is not such think as Karma. Its the most stupid thing you have said so far.
Good people suffer and bad people prosper. They is no justice to it.
You are just trying to kid yourself.
Karma is a concept invented by the rich, the powerful and the greedy to try to convince all the people that do good that they will one day have a reward for it, and for those that are born into poverty - that it was all their own fault in a previous life.
You have to be quite gullible to accept it.
Is that you?

[impermanence]

Scultor1, you assume that everybody views the world as do you. I can assure you that I do not [nor does anybody else, for that matter].

Good/bad [in the human sphere] is about as relative as it gets. But that's not really what we are discussing here.

Perhaps we can have a chat about karma?

It's like you can't read or something.
NO I am not assuming that everyone thinks like me. They do not.
That is why I am trying to tell you how wrong you are.

Sculptor1, imagine believing that you know whether another person is right or wrong. I don't claim to understand even the simplest of things [because all events are born out of an infinite number of events preceding], yet you claim to understand another person who is the product of an infinity infinites of complexity? Good for you!

There is not such think as Karma. Its the most stupid thing you have said so far.
Good people suffer and bad people prosper. There is no justice to it.
You are just trying to kid yourself.
Karma is a concept invented by the rich, the powerful and the greedy to try to convince all the people that do good that they will one day have a reward for it, and for those that are born into poverty - that it was all their own fault in a previous life.
You have to be quite gullible to accept it.
Is that you?

Interesting theory.

Sculptor1, if I knew even the most basic thing [intellectually], then I would know everything. Fortunately, I know nothing [which I am sure you would agree]. It's not what you know that matters, instead, it's what you know that you cannot know that means everything.

[chewybrian]

...imagine believing that you know whether another person is right or wrong. I don't claim to understand even the simplest of things [because all events are born out of an infinite number of events preceding], yet you claim to understand another person who is the product of an infinity infinites of complexity? Good for you!

I don't have to imagine; I lived it! I was bright enough, and full of logic, but I didn't realize that the logic was only as strong as the underlying assumptions about nature of the world. I focused all my energy on the logic and assumed the assumptions were right without considering their worth with an open mind. I was angry, sad, and fearful at what I saw as the facts of the world around me. I found injustice around every corner. I saw a world that is not what it "should" be, without stopping to wonder why I had any right or reason to decide what it should be in the first place.

...if I knew even the most basic thing [intellectually], then I would know everything. Fortunately, I know nothing [which I am sure you would agree]. It's not what you know that matters, instead, it's what you know that you cannot know that means everything.

And, this^ is the short version of the way out of that trap.

[Sculptor1]

Sculptor1, if I knew even the most basic thing [intellectually], then I would know everything. Fortunately, I know nothing [which I am sure you would agree]. It's not what you know that matters, instead, it's what you know that you cannot know that means everything.

This is word salad.
You have just taken the rug right out from under your own feet, were you to know it.
LOL

[impermanence]

I was angry, sad, and fearful at what I saw as the facts of the world around me. I found injustice around every corner. I saw a world that is not what it "should" be, without stopping to wonder why I had any right or reason to decide what it should be in the first place.

Really. What would you consider to be a just world?

...if I knew even the most basic thing [intellectually], then I would know everything. Fortunately, I know nothing [which I am sure you would agree]. It's not what you know that matters, instead, it's what you know that you cannot know that means everything.

And, this^ is the short version of the way out of that trap.

Please tell me what you know to be the Truth.

[impermanence]

Sculptor1, if I knew even the most basic thing [intellectually], then I would know everything. Fortunately, I know nothing [which I am sure you would agree]. It's not what you know that matters, instead, it's what you know that you cannot know that means everything.

This is word salad.
You have just taken the rug right out from under your own feet, were you to know it.
LOL

I know my perspective is very different from others and appreciate your indulgence.*

Hope you are enjoying your holidays and look forward to chatting again!

* eventually it will make sense to you

[Sculptor1]

This is word salad.
You have just taken the rug right out from under your own feet, were you to know it.
LOL

I know my perspective is very different from others and appreciate your indulgence.*

Hope you are enjoying your holidays and look forward to chatting again!

* eventually it will make sense to you

It already makes perfect sense to me. You are the one who is struggling.

Please demonstrate that there is such a thing as karma
Please show how this karma is supposed to work.

Until you do that you are just giving us your own personal version of Santa Claus - a concept which shares features of karma in specific ways.
DO you beleive in Santa too?

[Pattern-chaser]

Please tell me what you know to be the Truth.

Any philosopher who claims to know the Truth is probably confused (at the least), and may not be worth the trouble of communicating with....

[chewybrian]

I was angry, sad, and fearful at what I saw as the facts of the world around me. I found injustice around every corner. I saw a world that is not what it "should" be, without stopping to wonder why I had any right or reason to decide what it should be in the first place.

Really. What would you consider to be a just world?

In the past, I considered a just world to be one that aligned with my own desires. I think this is what most people do most of the time, but they all do it in their own way, with different methods and different ends. But the foundation, I think, is the same. They begin with the idea that they are rational, logical and reasonable. They make the mistake of thinking they can objectively perceive facts in the world without their preconceptions getting in the way. Beginning this way, it is a simple thing to find injustice at every turn, stacking logic on whatever 'facts' you think you've found.

Now, I doubt that I know what a just world would look like, or that anyone else might know, either. I can wish for things to go differently, but this is not productive. I work under the assumption that the world is as is must be, for reasons beyond my grasp. I get along better this way. Oddly, I think I might even bring about more good in the end by limiting my actions and my sense of injustice this way, rather than going around trying to 'set things right' for everyone else. If I set myself right, or a bit less wrong, then at least I might be less of a burden to everyone else.

These are general principles, and of course there are times when circumstances might call for action. If I see some man beating a small child, I'm not likely to allow it to go on without intervening, for example, even though there might be some room for others to argue about whether beating the child was just or not.

Please tell me what you know to be the Truth.

I have lots of opinions, but the only truth I can see is that I exist. It's the only thing I hold to be a fact on which I would bet my life, since I could not lose the bet. (Either I win or I had nothing to bet in the first place)

[impermanence]

I know my perspective is very different from others and appreciate your indulgence.*

Hope you are enjoying your holidays and look forward to chatting again!

* eventually it will make sense to you

It already makes perfect sense to me. You are the one who is struggling.

Please demonstrate that there is such a thing as karma
Please show how this karma is supposed to work.

Until you do that you are just giving us your own personal version of Santa Claus - a concept which shares features of karma in specific ways.
DO you believe in Santa too?

You don't believe in Santa?

Remember, I am the guy who claims he doesn't know anything. But let's talk about karma anyway.

Sculptor1, I would think that you would enthusiastically subscribe to the notion of karma because it is, "cause and effect," a very science kind of thing. Of course, it's not really that, but it's how many people imagine it to be.

Karma has a deeply religious significance [as I am sure you are aware] as it does in the spiritual [non-intellectual], as well. It's true meaning is found in the later.

Just as we can not use the intellectual to understand anything [because of our lack of access to Reality], intellectualizing leaves one only with a taste [at best] of what might be the essence. We can no more understand what karma is anymore than we can understand what love or intuition or affinity might be. It is purely experiential.

The intellectualized version of karma fits nicely into the world view of Eastern thought and makes perfect sense from that perspective, but even then, those who have gone down that path more than just a few steps generally understand that the words are not what it is, they are only pointing the way.