I would say that I respect anyone's belief who believes differently especially since I don't think it's something that can be proven scientifically and will likely always remain in the realm of theory and belief.
I already outlined my thoughts in the OP and watching that didn't change my opinion, the way he thinks is similar to the way I used to think.
I guess I would just clarify a little bit that in regard to my beliefs that just because I'm trying to not see enemies or evil does not mean that I don't believe in self defense or that we shouldn't try to create a better world.
I think we can defend ourselves and others and work towards a better world without characterizing others as enemies or evil.
The last thing I would mention is that I feel like divide and conquer is one of the techniques the people in power use to stay in power and control so much of the world and that the "good vs evil" creates a lot of division, I'm reminded of a YouTube video I watched which helped me come to this conclusion where a woman was claiming that movies like the "Matrix" were programming us into this mindset of "good vs evil" and that they glorify the mindset of there being a sort of "holy or noble hitman"... I doubt I'll be able to find that video again because YouTube has become so censored and difficult to find things of such nature, but I'll look real quick and see if I can find it.
Not really because I said in my OP I'm trying not to see evil.
If you were playing a board game or a video game it might be helpful and I've done similar before in games, but in a real world context... With the people in power using it against innocent people, it does seem immoral to me or corrupt/misguided.
This can get a bit into semantics at this point, though I tend to think of evil in this context as some kind of spiritual Christian concept as opposed to things that humans just dislike or are averse to. For example I can dislike something without thinking it's evil. Hopefully that makes sense.
I don't. I think maybe you misread what I said.
However, I wanted to get more familiar with the word so I looked at the etymology and it says this... "In Old English and other older Germanic languages other than Scandinavian, "this word is the most comprehensive adjectival expression of disapproval, dislike or disparagement", so it does appear to be a high level of dislike in the eyes of some.
How is it misguided, like good intentions overriding immoral means?
Well, that's my subjective opinion and I think morality is subjective, it's possible there is a universal morality and I'm very open minded to that, however I don't pretend to have all the answers or know everything so I try to come at it from a subjective perspective and in my subjective perspective I feel like "love" and "honor" are preferable, so to me anyone who doesn't choose love and honor are misguided... And, I myself am misguided sometimes... I don't pretend to be perfect, though I think it's wise to try to strive for love and honor and those who don't are misguided in my opinion. Hope that answers your question.
Thanks for the link. Looks like quite a read and my eyes aren't handling staring at the computer screen for long period of time these days so I'll have to put it in the voice to speech app thingy and listen to it sometime.
Word. I'll check em out when time permits.
I'm actually quite interested in Skinwalker Ranch lately cause my dad likes that show and there's a place here in Sedona where I live that is very similar!
I disagree. I said I came from a similar understanding as his, but not the same.
He claimed his way of looking at evil was "as an abstract concept or exaggerated word", whereas while I wasn't looking at it in a Christian-esque manner I still believed that there was a sort of "good versus evil" energy out there and that what some people did was evil even if I didn't believe in Satan or the Devil in a literal sense.
Furthermore he did not begin from where I am now because he never mentioned anything about what I said in my OP about trying to not find enemies in the world in relation to the Hebrew translation of the word Satan, so I'm not sure why you say that... I kind of doubt he even knows the hebrew translation of the word.
Either way, the order of which one came to their realization is no indication of the veracity of such realization and I could use your same reasoning and say what you said in reverse order.
I admit I don't know what the truth is, it's simply my belief and my belief could change again in the future if I saw compelling enough evidence.
In regard to him realizing a deep truth, I suggest reading godel's incompleteness theorems as it's a mighty task to 100% prove much of anything let alone something spiritual and which will likely always be beyond the realm of scientific quantification. We both believe things, I doubt anyone will ever be able to 100% prove such things.
He came from the point of view initially that is where you are at currently.
I don't feel like repeating myself again, but I disagree. I think it's similar but not the same and I could once again say that I came from a view similar to what he has now and I feel like I evolved to a more favorable understanding. However, once again the order at which one changes their beliefs does not indicate veracity. I do often find it interesting how that works though and how people can change their beliefs in the opposite direction like that.
How does that differ from
Well, to me it's not abstract. It's very defined. I'm specifically dealing with a definition which is like the opposite of abstract.
I just looked up the modern definition and etymology and the modern definition actually seems to support what you're saying, but the etymology supports what I said... So... I guess it depends on how you interpret the words... As I mentioned the semantics can get a bit confusing sometimes.
I wouldn't necessarily say I have a firm belief in regard to the subject. I'm open to the possibilities. If I had to lean in a direction... I would liken Evil to predatory behavior when predation is not required for survival, but perhaps there's something more spiritual to it...
I realize that now in accordance with the more modern definition, some of the etymology I read suggests a bit different but I don't mind using the modern definition.
I think that can vary from person to person.
My previous self would say that it's impossible to not judge things in such manner. But, in recent times I've been experimenting with and exploring the concept of non-judgment and trying to understand it better and the popular argument I've heard is that people try to use the word "observe" instead and in a neutral manner to sort of expand the possibilities involved instead of to narrow the possibilities.
If you can theoretically observe without judging you leave room for more growth and learning instead of sort of "cementing in stone" a given subject or idea.
If you believe something is 100% the truth you eliminate all other possibilities and I am trying to keep my mind open to the possibilities.
Good question. I would say it's probably something similar to how a child sees something be the child is taught what it means.
I heard a philosophy guy on YouTube recently quote some other ancient wisdom and say that if you teach a child the name of an animal the child will never again see that same animal.
Once we define things we put limitations upon them. Words hide more than they convey.
But, all of that isn't even a good enough answer because I just don't understand it well enough and I'm using words to explain such, lol...
I'm still trying to figure it out after arguing with New Agers about judging for a good portion of my life. I used to think it was impossible not to judge... Now, I'm trying to understand what some people mean when they say non-judgment and I don't have all the answers. I admit I just don't totally know and am experimenting and learning as I go.
That "evil" is not real probably also implies that "good" is not real. The further one distances events from oneself in time and space, the less one thinks of them as evil or good, but as "happening as they happened". For example, that the stars collide in the cosmos, supernovas are created by powerful forces. Man does not associate this with anything bad or good if he refrains from imagining that he himself will one day be overcome or destroyed by such cosmic forces. In the same way, one cannot impute any good or evil intentions to the micro-cosms, the smallest particles in every body, whether organic or inorganic. Only man knows how to do such things, for example, by calling viruses "enemies" and creating a dilemma in which it is impossible to distinguish between humans and viral enemies. He dumps the baby out with the bathwater. Is that already "evil"? I would say no, it is merely a worldview based on the good-evil theme, born out of the malaise of awareness of oneself.
Observation rather than judgement is an ideal, you can have it.
However, it should be really clear that one can never absolutely live up to this ideal, but if this ideal did not exist, then the level would go even further in the direction of "judgement of goodness or evil", because the alternative, the deviation from these two terms, would be missing.
But you are right insofar as alternatives of something can only be found on the basis of the already existing terms. Where there is no original, nothing deviating from the original can be considered.
The point is that one can allow oneself to judge, but once one has made a judgement, one can also let go of it, instead of clinging to the hatred or accusation that commonly accompanies the judgement of others.
This "not letting go" is a problem, I think. In every encounter, two people recreate themselves every time, they influence each other and behave according to the views thrown at them, there is almost nothing you can do about it.
Whether an environment therefore develops into a primarily conflictual one is up to all the people involved in that environment, who are all at the same time the creators of their physical as well as mental environments. Nothing happens without this permanent creation of reality, in my eyes.
I would say that the moment Homo Sapiens came to consciousness of himself, and thereby became human, he has been a reality creator ever since, an ongoing process. A burden as well as an inspiration.
One can say that it would be better if there were no conflicts, but one can also say that this statement is wrong, because without conflicts humans would not be humans, but animals. Conflict can result in extremely intelligent decisions, as can the exact opposite (and everything in between). A certain acceptance that death, disease and struggle exist is, in my view, part of not going crazy.
I would say that I respect anyone's belief who believes differently especially since I don't think it's something that can be proven scientifically and will likely always remain in the realm of theory and belief.
I already outlined my thoughts in the OP and watching that didn't change my opinion, the way he thinks is similar to the way I used to think.
I guess I would just clarify a little bit that in regard to my beliefs that just because I'm trying to not see enemies or evil does not mean that I don't believe in self defense or that we shouldn't try to create a better world.
I think we can defend ourselves and others and work towards a better world without characterizing others as enemies or evil.
The last thing I would mention is that I feel like divide and conquer is one of the techniques the people in power use to stay in power and control so much of the world and that the "good vs evil" creates a lot of division, I'm reminded of a YouTube video I watched which helped me come to this conclusion where a woman was claiming that movies like the "Matrix" were programming us into this mindset of "good vs evil" and that they glorify the mindset of there being a sort of "holy or noble hitman"... I doubt I'll be able to find that video again because YouTube has become so censored and difficult to find things of such nature, but I'll look real quick and see if I can find it.
Bummer. Wasn't able to find it. Oh well.
Not really because I said in my OP I'm trying not to see evil.
If you were playing a board game or a video game it might be helpful and I've done similar before in games, but in a real world context... With the people in power using it against innocent people, it does seem immoral to me or corrupt/misguided.
This can get a bit into semantics at this point, though I tend to think of evil in this context as some kind of spiritual Christian concept as opposed to things that humans just dislike or are averse to. For example I can dislike something without thinking it's evil. Hopefully that makes sense.
I don't. I think maybe you misread what I said.
However, I wanted to get more familiar with the word so I looked at the etymology and it says this... "In Old English and other older Germanic languages other than Scandinavian, "this word is the most comprehensive adjectival expression of disapproval, dislike or disparagement", so it does appear to be a high level of dislike in the eyes of some.
Well, that's my subjective opinion and I think morality is subjective, it's possible there is a universal morality and I'm very open minded to that, however I don't pretend to have all the answers or know everything so I try to come at it from a subjective perspective and in my subjective perspective I feel like "love" and "honor" are preferable, so to me anyone who doesn't choose love and honor are misguided... And, I myself am misguided sometimes... I don't pretend to be perfect, though I think it's wise to try to strive for love and honor and those who don't are misguided in my opinion. Hope that answers your question.
Thanks for the link. Looks like quite a read and my eyes aren't handling staring at the computer screen for long period of time these days so I'll have to put it in the voice to speech app thingy and listen to it sometime.
I think I've seen a few of his videos, but I'm not subscribed and don't know much about him. Why do you ask?
I don't think so. Got a link or title name for me to check out?
Word. I'll check em out when time permits.
I'm actually quite interested in Skinwalker Ranch lately cause my dad likes that show and there's a place here in Sedona where I live that is very similar!
I disagree. I said I came from a similar understanding as his, but not the same.
He claimed his way of looking at evil was "as an abstract concept or exaggerated word", whereas while I wasn't looking at it in a Christian-esque manner I still believed that there was a sort of "good versus evil" energy out there and that what some people did was evil even if I didn't believe in Satan or the Devil in a literal sense.
Furthermore he did not begin from where I am now because he never mentioned anything about what I said in my OP about trying to not find enemies in the world in relation to the Hebrew translation of the word Satan, so I'm not sure why you say that... I kind of doubt he even knows the hebrew translation of the word.
Either way, the order of which one came to their realization is no indication of the veracity of such realization and I could use your same reasoning and say what you said in reverse order.
I admit I don't know what the truth is, it's simply my belief and my belief could change again in the future if I saw compelling enough evidence.
In regard to him realizing a deep truth, I suggest reading godel's incompleteness theorems as it's a mighty task to 100% prove much of anything let alone something spiritual and which will likely always be beyond the realm of scientific quantification. We both believe things, I doubt anyone will ever be able to 100% prove such things.
I don't feel like repeating myself again, but I disagree. I think it's similar but not the same and I could once again say that I came from a view similar to what he has now and I feel like I evolved to a more favorable understanding. However, once again the order at which one changes their beliefs does not indicate veracity. I do often find it interesting how that works though and how people can change their beliefs in the opposite direction like that.
Well, to me it's not abstract. It's very defined. I'm specifically dealing with a definition which is like the opposite of abstract.
I just looked up the modern definition and etymology and the modern definition actually seems to support what you're saying, but the etymology supports what I said... So... I guess it depends on how you interpret the words... As I mentioned the semantics can get a bit confusing sometimes.
I wouldn't necessarily say I have a firm belief in regard to the subject. I'm open to the possibilities. If I had to lean in a direction... I would liken Evil to predatory behavior when predation is not required for survival, but perhaps there's something more spiritual to it...
I realize that now in accordance with the more modern definition, some of the etymology I read suggests a bit different but I don't mind using the modern definition.
I think that can vary from person to person.
My previous self would say that it's impossible to not judge things in such manner. But, in recent times I've been experimenting with and exploring the concept of non-judgment and trying to understand it better and the popular argument I've heard is that people try to use the word "observe" instead and in a neutral manner to sort of expand the possibilities involved instead of to narrow the possibilities.
If you can theoretically observe without judging you leave room for more growth and learning instead of sort of "cementing in stone" a given subject or idea.
If you believe something is 100% the truth you eliminate all other possibilities and I am trying to keep my mind open to the possibilities.
Good question. I would say it's probably something similar to how a child sees something be the child is taught what it means.
I heard a philosophy guy on YouTube recently quote some other ancient wisdom and say that if you teach a child the name of an animal the child will never again see that same animal.
Once we define things we put limitations upon them. Words hide more than they convey.
But, all of that isn't even a good enough answer because I just don't understand it well enough and I'm using words to explain such, lol...
I'm still trying to figure it out after arguing with New Agers about judging for a good portion of my life. I used to think it was impossible not to judge... Now, I'm trying to understand what some people mean when they say non-judgment and I don't have all the answers. I admit I just don't totally know and am experimenting and learning as I go.
Indeed, really good questions.
That "evil" is not real probably also implies that "good" is not real. The further one distances events from oneself in time and space, the less one thinks of them as evil or good, but as "happening as they happened". For example, that the stars collide in the cosmos, supernovas are created by powerful forces. Man does not associate this with anything bad or good if he refrains from imagining that he himself will one day be overcome or destroyed by such cosmic forces. In the same way, one cannot impute any good or evil intentions to the micro-cosms, the smallest particles in every body, whether organic or inorganic. Only man knows how to do such things, for example, by calling viruses "enemies" and creating a dilemma in which it is impossible to distinguish between humans and viral enemies. He dumps the baby out with the bathwater. Is that already "evil"? I would say no, it is merely a worldview based on the good-evil theme, born out of the malaise of awareness of oneself.
Observation rather than judgement is an ideal, you can have it.
However, it should be really clear that one can never absolutely live up to this ideal, but if this ideal did not exist, then the level would go even further in the direction of "judgement of goodness or evil", because the alternative, the deviation from these two terms, would be missing.
But you are right insofar as alternatives of something can only be found on the basis of the already existing terms. Where there is no original, nothing deviating from the original can be considered.
The point is that one can allow oneself to judge, but once one has made a judgement, one can also let go of it, instead of clinging to the hatred or accusation that commonly accompanies the judgement of others.
This "not letting go" is a problem, I think. In every encounter, two people recreate themselves every time, they influence each other and behave according to the views thrown at them, there is almost nothing you can do about it.
Whether an environment therefore develops into a primarily conflictual one is up to all the people involved in that environment, who are all at the same time the creators of their physical as well as mental environments. Nothing happens without this permanent creation of reality, in my eyes.
I would say that the moment Homo Sapiens came to consciousness of himself, and thereby became human, he has been a reality creator ever since, an ongoing process. A burden as well as an inspiration.
One can say that it would be better if there were no conflicts, but one can also say that this statement is wrong, because without conflicts humans would not be humans, but animals. Conflict can result in extremely intelligent decisions, as can the exact opposite (and everything in between). A certain acceptance that death, disease and struggle exist is, in my view, part of not going crazy.