PsiPog.net : View topic - One of my many theories.

# PsiPog.net

# View topic - One of my many theories.

PsiPog.net Forum Index » Skepticism » One of my many theories.

Goto page 1, 2 Next

One of my many theories.
Author | Message
--- | ---
One of my many theories. on Fri May 12, 2006 10:54 am

### azsxdc

Joined: 12 May 2006
Posts: 90

I have many theories of the universe. Here is one.
Nothing can exist without a balance of good and evil.
Generally, we try to seek the positive and stray from the negative, but if there was only one, good or evil, then the universe would collapse. Which leads me to think that there is an evil side to Psi. What do you think on this matter?

Back to top
Posted on Fri May 12, 2006 1:31 pm

### Peebrain

Site Admin
Joined: 27 Nov 2005
Posts: 716

That's called dualistic thinking. Maybe this article would interest you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualistic
~Sean

Back to top
Posted on Fri May 12, 2006 1:58 pm

### Archamond

Joined: 08 May 2006
Posts: 89

I personaly don't belive in good and evil, I think it is just human point of view

Back to top
Posted on Fri May 12, 2006 3:30 pm

### bladeslinger

Joined: 10 Feb 2006
Posts: 1337

I think it depends on the way its used..

Back to top
Posted on Fri May 12, 2006 4:21 pm

### Vladimir

Joined: 14 Jan 2006
Posts: 666

I see it more as a void filling itself creating a new void.
For psi, I personally see it as: we generate psi using our own bodies' resources, so we need to replace those resources.

Back to top
Posted on Fri May 12, 2006 6:52 pm

### neveza

Joined: 12 Jan 2006
Posts: 1147

Archamond wrote:
I personaly don't belive in good and evil, I think it is just human point of view

You've never met my friend. He's 80% evil 20% neutral.
I believe there is a balance, since I believe in Karma, but the only thing that bugs me, I do as much good as possibly can, but I still get screwed in the end...when I do something bad, I get really fucked at the end....It's a no win situation...that's lame.

Back to top
Posted on Fri May 12, 2006 7:48 pm

### Bob_stew

Joined: 14 Jan 2006
Posts: 265

I think this is a clich?. "Good" and "evil" are popular concepts, but they are also relative terms with very vague definitions. People like to think in "good" and "evil", though. Urgh, I dislike clich

Back to top
Posted on Fri May 12, 2006 8:29 pm

### Lightbringer

Joined: 29 Jan 2006
Posts: 293

The only reason any good-evil duality exists is because we create it. People believe the only way they can live their lives is by making decisions that result in one party winning and another losing. Sometimes people are willing to take the hit and "lose" in the name of selflessness, charity, etc. but often that's just so that their ego can get the "win" of feeling good about one's self. The end result is one-upmanship, selfishness and greed with intermittent good deeds.
People refuse to realize that they can live lives free of duality. They could simply do their own thing without having to conform the the wishes of others, they give love and compassion to those around them regardless of whether they receive love or hate in return, etc. But that takes work, work people don't want to do. Thus our laziness and poor choices create dualities including the one of good and evil. So they do exist, but they aren't universal constants, just constructions that manifest quite readily and dramatically.

Back to top
Posted on Fri May 12, 2006 9:28 pm

### DagSplintard

Joined: 02 Feb 2006
Posts: 75

When someone harms you, it is bad. When someone helps you, it is good. People cannot be defined as good or evil, because people in general act in different ways to different people. Some people are motivated by kindness, which by some is considered good, but considered bad by others. Others are motivated by greed, which is good to some, but bad to others.
If you write someone down as good or evil, then you are giving an unhealthy expectation and also creating a mental block, in your own mind, for further interactions with the said person.
People do not live by a set right or wrong, they live by their own rights and wrongs. Does this mean that there is no right and wrong?

Back to top
Posted on Fri May 12, 2006 10:24 pm

### Bob_stew

Joined: 14 Jan 2006
Posts: 265

Lightbringer wrote:
People refuse to realize that they can live lives free of duality. They could simply do their own thing without having to conform the the wishes of others, they give love and compassion to those around them regardless of whether they receive love or hate in return, etc. But that takes work, work people don't want to do. Thus our laziness and poor choices create dualities including the one of good and evil. So they do exist, but they aren't universal constants, just constructions that manifest quite readily and dramatically.

*Is* it actually possible to live your life without creating system? IMO, creating system is what learning really is. Generalizing is a necessary part of learning. If we didn't make mental models which are simpler than what they describe, or create associations, connections... we wouldn't learn anything. I'm pretty sure you, too, generalize directions in your mind to "left/right", "up/down" instead of having a 'complete' understanding of all thinkable directions in 3 (or more) dimensions.
I think we all have a complex mess of dualism in our minds. All people separate to some degree or another between "good" and "bad", "right" and "wrong".. And they make up conceptual opposites (or whatever you call it, concepts which are opposites by definition), and favorize one of them. That is good, no?

Back to top
Posted on Fri May 12, 2006 10:51 pm

### bladeslinger

Joined: 10 Feb 2006
Posts: 1337

Bob_stew wrote:

Lightbringer wrote:
People refuse to realize that they can live lives free of duality. They could simply do their own thing without having to conform the the wishes of others, they give love and compassion to those around them regardless of whether they receive love or hate in return, etc. But that takes work, work people don't want to do. Thus our laziness and poor choices create dualities including the one of good and evil. So they do exist, but they aren't universal constants, just constructions that manifest quite readily and dramatically.

*Is* it actually possible to live your life without creating system? IMO, creating system is what learning really is. Generalizing is a necessary part of learning. If we didn't make mental models which are simpler than what they describe, or create associations, connections... we wouldn't learn anything. I'm pretty sure you, too, generalize directions in your mind to "left/right", "up/down" instead of having a 'complete' understanding of all thinkable directions in 3 (or more) dimensions.
I think we all have a complex mess of dualism in our minds. All people separate to some degree or another between "good" and "bad", "right" and "wrong".. And they make up conceptual opposites (or whatever you call it, concepts which are opposites by definition), and favorize one of them. That is good, no?

thats a good point there bob, never really thought about it like that....

Back to top
Posted on Sat May 13, 2006 2:45 am

### Lightbringer

Joined: 29 Jan 2006
Posts: 293

Many generalizations have dire inaccuracies though as a result of their broadening of scope. Information is lost because as you make something simpler, the less truthful it becomes. Thus generalizations are not the best tools for decision-making, and looking for trends within the universe and one's self. It's true that we do simplify things, but at a certain point, at the extreme of human understanding, generalizations and facts seem to become so numerous yet simple, that they become much more truthful. They become elegant truths with tons of simultaneously impicit meanings, like the koans of Zen Buddhism or metaphors and symbols in exceptional writing and poetry. I have no idea why this happens, because it would make more sense if simplification of facts results in loss of information as it usually does, but for some reason it does and the result is far more positive and useful.
For example, rather than following a complex moral code I simply do what must be done. Now how do the circumstances that decide what must be done vary? Should good or evil or some neutral solution be found? These are all implicit to me and come to the surface when I simply remember that I must do what is necessary, but they are not known to anyone else. I believe this is why you can not simply teach someone to be enlightened by simply sitting them down and talking to them for a bit. More than pure verbal communication is required to synthesize these truths. Experiences, emotions, beliefs and other things must be thought on before an elegant solution can be synthesized.
So that's what I have to say on the idea of generalizations and elegant truths. Next I'll talk about why living by elegant truths means freedom from duality, but only when it's not 2 in the morning. And you can probably guess what time it is for me now...that's right, 2 am a.k.a. bedtime

Back to top
Posted on Sun May 14, 2006 10:31 pm

### mattz1010

Joined: 14 Jan 2006
Posts: 885

If you have any advice on how for us to live our lives without the good/evil duality, I'd like to hear it.
[/not sarcasm]

Back to top
Posted on Mon May 15, 2006 1:23 am

### InnerFire

Joined: 12 Jan 2006
Posts: 172

Its quite simple, if you act only based off of your thoughts, do not label yourself, and are not altered by others you are in effect doing this, because good, evil, and even nuetrality are relative descriptions, it is something placed on you by either yourself or others. For you can look at it this way, labeling yourself as any of those is useless because you cannot self-determine an impression that is made by others, the paradox is also that very few if any people are properly equipped to make a definite interpretation of you either. In that way any labels could be seen as useless or illogical. For example while I may think of myself as good, I may be wrong, insane people usually do not know they are abnormal, so it is safe to say anyone here could be insane and would have no clue that they were, and thus what they think is "good" could fit the generalized definition of "bad".
Note quite simple does not mean easy to do, just that it is not complicated in description. It is quite difficult to reach this state because humans have a need to feel justified in their actions and thoughts, so you will instinctively want to apply some label to yourself as either a praise or an excuse for your actions. And completely avoiding society's influences is quite difficult considering humans are mostly social creatures, and that avoiding any influence is also a bad idea in the first place unless you are completely formed, which in itself is almost impossible to do.

Back to top
Posted on Mon May 15, 2006 1:37 am

### Lightbringer

Joined: 29 Jan 2006
Posts: 293

The best way to win a game that you can only lose at is to not play.
You need to be above the duality by not accepting it as reality. Once you realize that the duality is just in people's heads and that they're making it their reality, you simply need to refuse to follow that same path. Ultimately you need to just make the decision to be duality free (and it is simply a decision).
If you have trouble with believing that such a decision is actually possible and could have any real consequences then first you need to meditate on the duality until you believe that such a decision could solve your problem. You have all the pertenant information in your head already, it's simply been twisted around into a jumbled, facade of order. That's the result of having a less than useful frame or way of looking at things.
You also need to have pure, dogged persistence. Your frame isn't going to change overnight so you need to stick with your decision and not crumble at the first resistance you encounter because there will be plenty. You'll create your own resistance because humans naturally not want to change. The reason you've kept your current frame is for protection's sake. You've hardwired it into your brain (as well as it has been hardwired by your parents, society, the media) that your current frame is "safe". That, by not taking risks and remaining static in your current frame, you feel that you are gaining some security, some protection from your fears. But being stuck in an outdated frame has its drawbacks, especially the inability to take risks because risks could result in a change in frame which would be "unsafe". What could be riskier than deciding to live by a philosophy virtually no one else even believes is possible? This leads into a whole world of needing peer approval and self-confidence but I won't get into that.
You'll also get resistance from others because, like I said, they won't even think that what you'll be trying to accomplish is possible. They'll oppose it as vehemently as you will because to accept that such a change is even possible would be the first step to changing themselves. A very risky potential chain of events so they'll want to deny it as viciously as possible for their own selfish purposes. They'll likely insult you, mock you or begin to ignore you just in hopes that not having their approval will sway your decision. And we're not talking just random people, I mean family and friends will act this way. Like I said, dogged persistence.
So there's no doubt it will be risky and it will be hard but those very obstacles are also signs of the rather large payout at the end. The question is whether you're willing to go through all that, take a huge risk by challenging your frame even though that frame has served you (although you must question how well) for your life thus far.

Back to top

Goto page 1, 2 Next

PsiPog.net Forum Index » Skepticism » One of my many theories.

All Content, Images, Video, Text, and Software is © Copyright 2000-2006 PsiPog.net and their respective authors. All Rights Reserved.

You must agree to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy to view this website. Click here to contact the webmaster.