homer at lightlink.com
homer at lightlink.com
Thu Oct 4 03:06:03 EDT 2012
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
THE BEGINNING OF MAGIC
Basically in a best of all possible AllThatIs's, which this is,
Good is the eternal existence of what (fortunately) already exists, and
bad would be its non existence.
In other words good is accordance between desire and the WhatIs.
And evil is discordance between desire and the WhatIs.
But the purpose of this WhatIs seems to be the creation of
illusions that this perfect accordance does not exist, and illusions
that the being did not create his present state of illusion.
That's responsibility for irresponsibility.
Thus the goodness of the WhatIs includes the ability to believe for
a while that the WhatIs is bad.
Thus the intent to HAVE accordance between desire and the WhatIS,
includes the intent to NOT HAVE it for a while.
In other words good is having what you want, and bad is not having
what you want, but good seems to want not having what it wants, namely
bad, for a while. Adore defines that intent of good to have bad, to be
Majesty, as in Majestic practical joke.
What troubles me about this view, is that good then really does
have ontological precedence over bad, as bad is an illusion created by
Why the hell would good create bad. That seems to be what good
enjoys creating most. Chase and failure after desired goods.
In otherwords Dura, the world of permanence, creates Sabe, the
world of loss.
However it does present an auditing route out, which is to recover
the goodness to the creation of the bad, at which point the being will
regain sovereignty over the creation of bad and will be able to vanish
it at will.
And that then would be the beginning of pure magic and super power.
Super power is, at the top, the ability and willingness to create a
state of non super power.
In article <4cf0a87c at news2.lightlink.com> you wrote:
> dapperdobbs <GeorgeCFL at hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 25, 1:24?pm, ho... at lightlink.com wrote:
>>> ? ? ? GOOD AND BAD
>> Very interesting, explanatory, and compelling logic, but ....
>> Consider that God created Order, and that Order itself is good. Then
>> consider that disorder was introduced by Man.
> Ok, I will bite.
> 'God created order.'
> Was God not already a form of order before he created order? No
> 'disorder was introduced by man.'
> Did not God create man or was man an indepdent agent that came in
> and interferred with God's plan?
>> So you get a big circle of AllThatIs, a big circle of what God
>> created, inside that a circle of what Man created. I don't see how you
>> can define what Man created as the same as what God created,
> Clearly you are missing your own point. If the man circle is
> inside the God circle, then everything made by man is made by God. Only
> if man's creations lie outside of the God's creation circle, can there
> be anything that man created that God did not.
> Then God and Man are co creators, each independent of each other.
> If so you might as well say that there are two kinds of Gods, one
> trying to create order, and the other trying to create dis order.
> And perhaps their circles overlap where they co create the same
> thing. Other wise their circles do not overlap.
>> though what Man created falls within the circle of AllThatIs. I.e. The
>> principle of self-determinism does not determine whether what Man
>> creates is good or bad.
>> In brief, when a gang with guns are standing there on your doorstep
>> threatening to kill you, rape your wife and kill her later, thus
>> wiping out your entire family with very substantial pain and
>> suffering, are you going to ponder the inherent encompassment of good
>> and bad, or are you going to shoot the gang, or shoot your wife, or
>> beg, offer money, run, or find just the right thing to say? The
>> question is, I think, "What is the right thing to say?"
>> If one wants to get philosophical about it, then one must duplicate
>> what the gang is in order to effectively find the right thing to ssay.
>> Extending that, one must duplicate God's creation, then create the
>> right thing within it to be harmonious. Harmony, dis-harmony; both
>> imply order.
>> If one considers nothing bad, and nothing good, but each equivalent
>> and just a matter of perspective or opinion, then what is the
>> reasoning for not doing anything one "damn well pleases?"
> Yes, exactly. But your decision that order is good might still be
> All you have said is when in Rome do as the Roman's do.
> No mention of who is right or who is wrong.
> Take the following example.
> As the universe expands, near the end, the fight is to maintain
> anti entropy, energy in useful forms, as the tendency to dissipate
> energy into entropy is relentless. If we don't DO something to maintain
> anti entropy, we won't survive on the good graces of the universe alone.
> But if the universe turns around and starts to collapse, near the
> end, the fight will be to maintain entropy, again energy in useful
> forms, because as the universe gets too tight, the tendency towards too
> much compression of energy will again be relentless, and we won't
> survive on the good graces of the universe alone.
> In other words we like 72 degrees. In an expanding universe the
> fight is to keep warm. In a collapsing universe, the fight is to stay
> So in the first anti entropy is good, and those that help in that
> direction are good, and those that create entropy where it is not
> desired or which wastes hard earned anti entropy are the bad guys.
> But in the collapsing universe its the other way around.
> So in this sense survial is good as a top level generic, and
> everything else is consideration dependent upon how we have made
> survival dependent on the state of the universe.
> But one can imagine a higher god state where survival in space time
> is in fact no longer good, so one really wants the maintain facility in
> creation, survival and destruction, so a new game can be created.
> That then would be the highest good.
> Ability to manifest and not manifest at will.
> Evil would be the illusion that these do not obtain, and going into
> the valence of such a thing that seeks to make sure they do not obtain.
> But one of the things a GodSoul can manifest is the illusion
> that he can not manifest. As a fair chosen manifestation it is good,
> but as an apparency of inability to manifest it is bad.
> As long as the God can see his inabilities as fairchosen
> ABILITIES TO BE UNABLE, then he can continue to see the good
> to his suffering.
> But he can chose to not see that good, and thus to him
> things look bad. But that too is how he chose it so it
> remains good.
> If he wants to recover his awareness of responsibility
> for inability, then helping him do so would be good.
> But if he doesn't want to recover (just yet), then such
> help would be bad.
> In otherwords if he wants to persist more, then vanishment
> is bad, but if he wants to vanish, then persistence is bad.
> Depends on which part of the create, survive, destroy cycle
> he is on.
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer at lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Sat Nov 27 01:56:38 EST 2010
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Thu Oct 4 03:06:02 EDT 2012
Send mail to archive at lightlink.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning, but
not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the HomerWSmith-L