Lights is something. Darkness is nothing. Darkness is the absence of that which 'is', light.
Does this description apply to good and evil? Can we simply apply an analogy from one framework (light/dark) to another (good/evil), blindly? No, we can't. We need to verify if the correspondence is actually there in reality. That's how we will attain the truth about how a conceptual framework can actually make sense to apply in reality or in our lives.
Is evil the absence of good? No. You can have the absence of active good being created, and still have no evil. Neutral is not evil, making it by default lean towards the polarity of good. So here, trying to apply the "law of correspondence" fails. Blindly corresponding things does not give us a more accurate understanding. In this case of good and evil the reverse correspondence applies. Good is the absence of evil.
Darkness is the default and light is what actively exists (atomic/molecular forces and reactions to emit light). But in good and evil, good is the default, yet both good and evil can be actively created to exist (behavioral forces). Frameworks might appear similar in some respects and have some valid correspondences, but they aren't a perfect 1:1 correspondence in all ways.
There is also looking at the absolute, pure or perfect polarities in the dualistic conceptual frameworks. To imagine only having absolute light everywhere, there would need to be no darkness existing anywhere. To imagine only having absolute, pure or infinite good everywhere, there would be the nonexistence of evil.
While the former is likely impossible, the latter is possible. Absolute saturation of light is impossible or unfavorable at least, since we would be blind, nothing would have breaks from light, would plants even grow? no more life... not better than pure darkness in the end. Saturation of good is possible because we can potentially stop creating wrongs towards others and no longer create evil into existence. Here is yet again where the blind correspondence from light/dark to good/evil would create a misconception and confusion about the framework of good and evil as it actually applies.
All dualities present oppositional poles as a contrast for us to measure thing against. Dualistic conceptual frameworks are ways in which we can see if something in our lives -- or in reality, or in our imagination -- applies more towards the similarity of one pole, or differs more and relate towards the other more. The framework is a scale or spectrum to apply varying degrees of measurements.
We need the contrast of light and dark for us to see the difference between the many multiplicity, variability and diversity of what exists in existence, reality, and the universe. This is how we determine what is true about existence, because we can identify it.
However, good and evil don't need to exist as a contrast in existence for us to know the difference between good and evil. We can identify many types of behavior in our mind's eye,in the light of our minds, in the "multiverse" of our internal subjective existence in imagination, without creating that behavior in the light of external objective existence, the universe. Evil does not need to exist for us to know the good, or to not create evil and let the default neutral and active good deeds be all that exists. This is another difference in how aspects of light and dark don't simply apply to good and evil.
The contrast between the existence and presence of light and dark shows the differences in the multiplicity, variability and diversity of what is in existence, and yes this also applies to good and evil. But, while light and dark are required as a contrast for us to gain knowledge of the things in existence, good and evil are not required together in existence to provide us with the contrast in knowing the difference between how certain behavior is good or evil.
We can see that difference in the contrast envisioned through the light of our mind's eye. We don't have to engage in certain actions to understand the contrast they provide. We can learn from our own mistakes, those of others, or even create fictional representations in reality (movies, TV, books) or in our minds (imagination) that create representations of the difference between good and evil. We can reflectively think about our actions and behavior beforehand, rather than after we engage in them.
Another error people make is in stating that "evil does not exist, only good exists, evil is the absence of good". I did say that earlier, but that's only true in the ideal idea of an absolute pure good world, which may be possible, but currently isn't the reality. Currently, evil does exist, because we are engaging in certain actions and behaviors that are create negative manifestations for ourselves and others on the planet.
Evil only exist because we create it into existence and can asses, evaluate, diagnose, discern, differentiate and judge the difference between other things we create into existence with our actions. To say that evil doesn't exist is a fallacy of erroneous thinking, or at least an error in not expressing the meaning properly.
The nonexistence of darkness applies by default in reality, light is what exists to bring contrast. But evil is only nonexistent if we don't create it into existence, however we can still know the contrast in knowledge of the difference between good and evil even if we don't create, generate or manifest it with out actions.
You do not need evil in existence. So what if there is only good manifesting through human actions? I don't care if there is no contrast with good and evil existing in my life or other's lives. The only contrast that needs to exist in good and evil is the contrast in knowledge of good and evil. The contrast between light and dark need to exist for us to live, while the contrast of good and evil needing to exist -- or evil needing to exist to show us what good is -- for us to live is a fallacy. It only needs to exist in the internal subjective consciousness and as knowledge for us to share (recounts of past wrongs, creating new fictional simulations, but no new occurrences are required).
We can learn of what is evil, to know the difference between right and wrong, and then choose to not do it (apophatic way). When we recognize the wrong thing to do and don't do it, we automatically default to the opposite of a negative action, which is at the very least a neutral action, if not a positive action.
Turning from the wrongs and evil ways is how we build a solid foundation. Even if we don't do any active good deeds, the base foundation needs to be without cracks of active evil deeds -- either done with our knowledge or ignorance matters not for the construction of ourselves and lives. We're still building based on our actions, ignorance is no excuse. That's why learning how to think (Trivium Method) is important so that we can figure out what is right and wrong, good and evil, and choose to not keep walking on the negative path.
Thank you for your time and attention. Peace.
If you appreciate and value the content, please consider:
Upvoting 
, Sharing 
or Reblogging 
below.
me for more content to come!
Please consider supporting me as a Steem Witness by voting for me at the bottom of the Witness page; or just click on the upvote button if I am in the top 50
As I read this, I kept coming back to Marty Seligman's TED talk on the progress of psychology... in which he very accurately pointed out that psychology has enjoyed huge success in terms of making people "not depressed," but "not depressed" has little to do with "being happy."
To be honest, I have always struggled to take pieces of the natural world-- like "light" and "dark"-- and get them to fit well with human consciousness except as illustrative approximations.
Are we inherently "good" or "evil?" Not sure... I'm thinking we simply "are" until we start assigning values to things, and taking active steps. Does the possibility exist that we actively choose to not take evils steps; to never explore "the dark side?" Absolutely! But they are choices, not states of being, as far as I can tell.
It's a bit like being in therapy as a teenager... "I am sad!" I would insist. "No you're not," my therapist would reply, "You FEEL sad."
Meanwhile, I'm feeling a bit undercaffeinated at the moment, so not articulating this well...
Who we are, our current state of being, is based in what we currently create through our consciousness as an external expression. If we do wrongs or support them, and don't want to learn from our mistakes, or are ignorant of them, deny what they do, etc., that is a reflection of our current state of being. I view it in the symbolism of being and becoming.
I did a big presentation of being and becoming as it applies to actualizing potential outcomes. Repeating micro processes of change.
lol I love you post 😀😀😀 my opinion ,good and evil don't exist like light/dark is just in our minds. I read somewhere this : Father kill his daughter !!( is evil things ...but just in our mind why ?...daughter have a virus that could destroy humanity( new father is hero !!!) PS In Mariana Trench was discovered creatures on the deep how not need light to survive
PS2 light/dark is just in our minds why ? The universe is energy ( light =energy=radiation) we found all types of radiation(alpha,gama,beta ,X Radiation) and more.... hubble telescope discover many black holes(energy)new we discover gravitational waves ..
Thanks. Misrepresenting something can provide false conclusions because of that deception.
How did those deep sea creatures live? What did they use to survive and live? Things that come from contact with light or other things that come into contact with light, etc.?
Life always finds a way... "Nasa Juno scientists believe that Jupiter's Europa may be home to LIFE ","On September 21, 2003, after 14 years in space and 8 years in the Jovian system, Galileo's mission was terminated by sending it into Jupiter's atmosphere at a speed of over 48 kilometers per second (30 mi/s), eliminating the possibility of contaminating local moons with terrestrial bacteria" after 14 years in space bacteria could stil live ...Life always finds a way with light or without light 😀
Yes, but life and we know it, plants and animals ... nope. We don't live at the level of micro bacteria. The macro life world can't exist int hose extreme cases where some bacteria survives.
It's interesting that this post reminds me of something I had read that supposed an equation of the word "evil" itself as a kind of compound concept: EVIL = E VEIL = ENERGY VEIL, where E as in Einstein's equation, places neither light vs dark nor good vs evil on respective continua, but posits that evil is that which covers or occludes the light energy.
Another very good post I'm happy to share.
Hehe, interesting. Thanks for the feedback and support.
I agree that the absence of good is neutral. I try to always be either good or nutral and stay away from evil.
That's how to do it :)
I have been explaining this to people for a few decades:
"The contrast between light and dark need to exist for us to live, while the contrast of good and evil needing to exist -- or evil needing to exist to show us what good is -- for us to live is a fallacy. It only needs to exist in the internal subjective consciousness and as knowledge for us to share (recounts of past wrongs, creating new fictional simulations, but no new occurrences are required)."
I usually point out that evil only needs to have happened once in order for good to be seen in contrast to it forever.
You are one of the reasons I keep reading on steemit!
Yeah, and we can even imagine evils that have never even been created lol, yet don't need to create them.
Very true. I usually do not think of or reference the ability to imagine novel negatives in my own explanations. I will now.
Thanks.
I have a very difficult time trying to figure out exactly what evil is, though. Seems to me that it is very subjective -- a product of perception. Thus evil probably exists more in the mind of the observer than the mind of the actor. How exactly would you define evil?
Words are used to reference aspects of reality. Evil is a wrong-action that causes harm to others. It's not some literal thing in itself, but a description of actions/behavior. Don't steal life, sexual choice, liberty, body safety, property.
But aren't those the result of a perceptual framework?
For example, taking life is wrong, but then becomes right in certain circumstances -- why is it ok in a righteous war, or self defense?
But righteous war according to whom? If "god" tells you that you are supposed to kill infidels, does that make it ok? Perhaps not, but wouldn't that excuse the act on the part of the believer if he believes he is actually following the commands of his god, whom he believes to be holy? Or at least remove the act from the domain of "evil"?
If your nation tells you that your war is justified, like Vietnam, but it actually wasn't because the event that launched it (Gulf of Tonkin) never really happened, where does that put you if you are a soldier killing young vietnamese men? How about if, as a leader, you were looking for an excuse to go to war there because you wanted to kill communists "over there" so that you didn't end up having to kill them "over here" (domino theory) -- does that make you evil if you pushed an "attack" narrative that didn't really happen?
The more you look hard for evil, the more elusive it becomes. Would cats that play with their prey be evil? Would animals that kill and don't eat their kill be evil? Would animals that eat the offspring of their rivals be evil?
The way I see it -- there is not really any such thing as evil. It is an idea that easily exists in the world of ideas, but falters and becomes wispy and very difficult to pin down in the real world of complex interactions and motivations. An action that causes harm to others is only "wrong" because we don't like the outcome -- we don't like the effect it has on society. But isn't that kind of working backwards? We start with our desired outcome, and then work backwards to the things that damage that desired outcome. Things like stealing break down society, and so does telling others what to do, and lying and forcing others to do things they don't want to do. So we are in complete agreement that those things destroy society and if we want society to survive we don't do them:
But is that the same thing as evil? Or isn't that more like "don't put sugar in your gas tank if you want your car to run well"?
That's why each specific instance of possibility, based on specific circumstances and situational contexts, is in a spectrum. So while murder is wrong, that is killing of an innocent which is unlawful. Killing for self-defense against aggression is not murder. This is how things differ on the scale, because they are different in reality. It's not simply applying an absolute generalization that "any killing is wrong, point blank" as if it's an absolute evil in any circumstance.
Come on man... You are on super pinael gland enhancement level with this post. Blowing people out of the water into wisdom. Yes! Yes! Yes! LOVE IT dearly. I need this in my life at 7:am when I awake to a calm sunrise and lay out back to soak in some Vitamins. The new newspaper is much more interactive than ever before.
Great post.
@krnel The analogy of light/dark vs. good/evil is fascinating but you have correctly pointed out that the analogy has its flaws. In the case of light/dark, absence of one automatically confirms the other whereas, in our world, since it is not pure good or pure evil, absence of an action indicating one does not immediately confirm the other. There is a local language saying we have that says most of us do not steal because we do not get opportunity. This saying assumes that we do not have active good nature but it is passive good. The moment opportunity arises, an evil act would probably occur. Thanks for this thought provoking blog. Upvoted
At my end, I have added a Gif blog with an exciting 'Bathing beauties-Elephant herd tracking and dust bath story'. I request you to take a look when you have time and provide your comments. It will be an honor for me. Thanks
Hehe, I've heard of that before. That's when self-interest and self-centered mindset rules over inclusion of others, ego-centric at the expense of socio-centric inclusion.
Great Post @krnel. This line "Darkness is the default and light is what actively exists (atomic/molecular forces and reactions to emit light)" is perfectand true, I like it.
Thanks :)
In the light you can see the evil coming and do something about it, in the dark, not much warning. .... The world is seeing the light more and more everyday literally and figuratively.
We are the gods with in whom we seek so much!
Yeah, we (collectively) are our own salvation or destruction, not god or satan, it's all from within.
I get what you're saying and great article, but I honestly think the title could have been a little bit better, you sort of gave an example of the point you're trying to make in the title rather than saying the point itself in the title. So for example, the title could be something like "The duality of existence and the limits of language - are good and evil two sides of the same coin?" or something along those lines, not necessarily that.
Lovely article again, and not trying to put it down in any way, just trying to give constructive criticism to help you get your point across better, as the title is pretty vital, especially considering the amount of effort you're putting into your articles. Edit: Gonna upvote this in hopes you see it
I think yes. Because evil is nothing also :p
Great post. Thought provoking and informative. Especially the points about contrasting good and evil.
In life we always need the opposite to appreciate the other. If there's no evil, goodness may not be that appreciated.
It may not be as appreciated by contrast, sure ;)