Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Knowledge of good and evil; law


  • Please log in to reply
10 replies to this topic

#1 HydrogenBond

HydrogenBond

    Creating

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3058 posts

Posted 23 October 2007 - 05:19 PM

I would like to look at knowledge of good and evil or law. If you look at law of good and evil, the data that describes all such laws has two sides. One side defines the good behavior and actions associated with the law, while the other sides defines the bad behavior or actions, including the reaction by culture. Although this opposition is implicit of any law, the two sides of law are stored at two separate emotional valences. The images of doing good, by the law, gives one a sense of rest, security, etc.. While the violation of the law may give a sense of risk, fear of punishment, etc.

One way to model this is to look at law of good and evil as sort of a coin, with head and tails. The coin contains both at the same time. But due to the differences in emotional valance or association for each side, only one side of the coin is visable at any time. One can not do good and break the law at the same time, with only one set of actions. This would put one outside the law, where it would not apply. For example, say the speed limit is 55MPH. If we do 55 this a non-event. Since the coin is on heads, one may feel good about abiding by the law. If we go to 65MPH, or flip the coin to tails, so we are in violation, a feeling of risk may appear. One will no longer be as restful, but will have to keep a sharper eye for a speed trap. If we slow back to 55MPH, or flip back to heads, the anxiety lowers. One can only use one side of the law coin at a time.

Because this one coin of law has two distinct dynamics to it, this suggests that law is stored in the brain in two separate areas. It is one law, but to compensate for the extra associations, two storage areas are needed. The double sided data of the law, is broken into two separate pieces.

If one looks at law in general, the head side of all laws of good and evil tend to generate very similar emotional dynamics, while the tail side of generates risk and the fear of some type of punishment. The symbols of heaven and hell, sort of describe the polarized data. All the heads of all laws go to a calm, secure place within the brain. While all the tails of all laws have an association with punishment. This symbolism is describing how all law coins, by being tagged with similar generic valences and extended associations for heads and tails, become stored in the brain as two separate groupings.

The more primative parts of the brain, before all law, treats the coin of law, similar to the way, statistics treats the flipping of a coin. There should be equal probability for both head and tails. Yet to obey the law, one needs to throw heads all the time. Due to the natural odds, tails will needs to periodically appear. This is the basis for temptation. One can use free will, not act on tails. If we are aware the coin has flipped, we pick up the coin and flip it back to heads. The bible says, the law is good, but sin (tails) takes opportunity through the law (dual storage that fill the sin data base) to produce sin of all kinds. One may not act on it, but the tails of the law coins, will periodically appear to create temptation.

Often a religious person is plagued with irrational temptation. They are working so hard to keep tails always on top, that they begin to defy the law of probability, such the tails side keeps popping up. Someone less religious will more often express the more harmless tails, such that this satisfies, the probability, lowering the level of tempation.

Theoretically, if humans never had any law, such that the coin of law did not build up such a large data base, there would no temptation. That entire tails storage area of the brain wouldn't be there and instinct would take the place of both sides of the coin. Unfortuneately, the symbol of original sin, implies because law have been used for thousands of years, it has caused the human brain to have a coin polarization built in. If one got rid of law, the polarization tails would take over and cause chaos, trying to get the historical probabiltiy back in balance. Law caused the problem, but is necessary to contain the very darkness that it created, because of the tail side of law.

Let me give an example, the speed limit is 55MPH on a highway. Most people will stay close to the heads side of the coin, with a few using the tails side, so the probabilty function maintains better social balance. This social balance is why social law will cause some people to be tails. If we decided to take away the speed limit, entirely, such that no law applies for that stretch of highway, then tails can appears more often to make up for the long term imbalance. All of a sudden, anyone who feels good with speed, will speed. Others will poke along. This will make a very dangerous situation, with too many speeds at the same time. The result would be chaos. So law would have to be restored, to get rid of tails.

If you look at a coin, one can only see one side at a time. Even if the coin was balanced on its edge, one still can not see both sides at one time. The only possible way, would be to spin the coin on its edge, such that heads and tails appear to be close together during rotation. This is no longer flat or 2-D, i.e., cause and affect, but requires 3-D or spatial thinking.

The symbol of Satan in the tree of knowledge (law) of good and evil, is connected to the shadow side associated with the tail side of law. The symbol indicates a type of data consolidation, which creates an alter ego (tails) to the conscious attitude of the ego (heads). The ancients had an advanced understanding of the human mind. Many philosophers have attempted to reason this polarization trying to get rid of it.

The philosophy of Jesus, was connected to trying to get rid of law of commandments contained in ordinances, by nailing sin or the tails side to the cross. The tails and the sin was to die with him. What ended up happening was the early Christians still were under original sin, or the polarization was still part of their genetic make-up. With their faith, they were able to increase the amount of heads drastically, i.e., love. But the social balance was thrown off, such that, the amount of social tails, had to sky-rocket to maintain the probabilty function at that time in history. Culture is a like huge coin due to law, and the probability had to shift to the tails to compensated for this unusual shift toward the heads. This dynamics released a lot of pent up Satan (so to speak), to where the alter ego of culture, became the good side of the coin. The new temptation was to tempt death and overcome all fear, causing Christianity to spread. The social potential eventually lowered and law was restored.

Satan is not only symbolic of the inner alter ego of a person, due to the tail side of law, but also the social alter ego, since the entire culture uses the same coin of laws. A social alter ego appears in all human cultures, in an attempt to balance the tails. Nature is not based on good and evil, this is purely human. In nature, all is neutral became it is part of the 3-D balance, within nature. So nature is always spinning the coin, trying to create a natural balance of heads-tails. But original sin, makes it almost impossible for humans to follow. So we continue to need law. Maybe the compromise goal is to not add to it, but gradually skinny it back.

#2 LaurieAG

LaurieAG

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1508 posts

Posted 23 October 2007 - 10:54 PM

I would like to look at knowledge of good and evil or law.


Hi HydrogenBond,

Aristotle's 'Ethics' would be a good start, considering the period you are looking at. In the Penguin Classics version the translator notes that one of the statements could be regarded as meaning that being a good man and being a good citizen are not necessarily the same thing, depending on the quality of your government.

Also, Virgils 'Early history of Rome' gives a good introduction to the development of the roman state from a kingdom to a republic, while even Thucydidies 'History of the Pelloponnesian war' gives an insight into the changes to and the operation of the original Athenian democratic state.

There are many non religious documents available from these times that provide good insights into what was originally considered as good and evil, and the laws that evolved into the systems we use today.

p.s. Don't be disturbed by Aristotles Daimon, which is like an individuals conscience. Also Pagan in latin just means rural, a reflection that the 'gods' of the cities came and went while the gods of the rural areas stayed much the same.

#3 Eclogite

Eclogite

    Creating

  • Moderators
  • 1477 posts

Posted 24 October 2007 - 12:52 AM

H-Bond, You have covered a lot of ground in your opening post and I shall not attempt to address everything you have said. There do appear to be some contradictions, implicit or explicit, in some of what you have said. I'd like to ramble on about those for a moment or two.
You state:

One can not do good and break the law at the same time, with only one set of actions.

This appears to be untrue. A couple of years ago a colleague wife began to bleed heavily shortly after returning home after giving birth. Rather than wait for an ambulance my friend drove her to the emergency room. She eventually received eight pints of blood before the bleeding was halted. On the way to the hospital he drove in excess of the speedlimit, and at times on the opposite side of the road. He most certainly broke several laws, yet his action saved his wife's life. Even given the risks he placed other road users in, would you not agree that his actions were good? Laurie makes this same point in her opening paragraph.

In a similar vein I am a little confused as whether your example of the speed limit is meant to be an example, or simply an analogy. I would not necessarily agree that breaking the speed limit is evil!

Finally, you say a religious person is often plagued with irrational temptation. I am not at all clear why you say this is true only of religious people. I am also not clear as to what consitutes irrational, rather than rational temptation. Could you expand on these?

#4 Buffy

Buffy

    Resident Slayer

  • Administrators
  • 8946 posts

Posted 24 October 2007 - 10:35 AM

In a similar vein I am a little confused as whether your example of the speed limit is meant to be an example, or simply an analogy. I would not necessarily agree that breaking the speed limit is evil!

No, but murder might be. So as usual...

<BuffysBrokenRecord>...I recommend you read Billy Budd...</BuffysBrokenRecord>

A man thinks that by mouthing hard words he understands hard things, :xparty:
Buffy

#5 Inter.spem.et.metum

Inter.spem.et.metum

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 196 posts

Posted 24 October 2007 - 11:32 AM

Cui peccare licet peccat minus - OVID (He who is allowed to sin, sins less)

The idea that you put forth about the two sides of the mind is founded. I would argue, though, that the problem does not occur because of the laws. Rather, laws are an effect of such a thought proccess.

Your model realises the nature of a human to begin creating opposites the second it is born. If something is X, then everything else is not X. Much of this is based on pain and pleasure. Pain and pleasure then become a basis to evaluate what is good and bad.

But I would argue that there truly is a definite good and evil. If it is relative, then it doesn't exist and chaos is the only law. A good rule of thumb is the negative of the golden rule: "Do not unto others as you would not have them do unto you." Following this logic, there are many definite good and evil pairs that have validity in all cultures.

Even in issues of relativity, there is always a core reason behind people's actions, and this usually is applicable to the golden rule.

#6 HydrogenBond

HydrogenBond

    Creating

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3058 posts

Posted 24 October 2007 - 01:49 PM

Thanks for the replies. By knowledge of good and evil, I was making a general statement. There are certain laws, which do not come down to good and evil in any moral sense, such as breaking the speed limit. Speed limits are sort of relative, in that the next state could have a higher speed limit for the same road conditions. But all law, both moral and social sets up a polarization between what is acceptable and unacceptable behavior, resulting is dual data storage. It is still based on the coin analogy. The coins of moral law have a higher denomination than civil laws. Although some civil laws attempt to depreciate certain coins .

The example given about speeding, to rush someone to the hospital, actually came down to weighing two different laws. Speeding is just a social law, while the other other is more moral connecting to preserving life. That was the bigger coin, with respect to the emotional impact, so it trumped the little coin of the speeding law. The police or judge could have been by the book, and still required one to pay a speeding ticket. There were two laws and two behaviors in competition. The better one won.

There is another consideration that was alluded to. The good-evil, right-wrong, acceptable-unacceptable, etc., of moral or social law, does not have to be based on a rational criteria. One can call evil good and good evil, right wrong and wrong right, or acceptable unacceptable and unacceptable acceptable when one compares two different cultures. During war, what is evil at peacetime, is good. Thou shall not kill, is evil, during a battle, when the enemy is approaching. One may have a strong resistance against killing, but the herd says go, under those conditions.

The way to add that to the model, the coins of law still store the data in two different locations but it is the same rational location. During war, the irrational dynamics of the process, calls tails, the heads. Nature is trying to balance out the tails. It is helping to restore the balance that was distorted due to laws. This balancing allows what is wrong to feel like it is right at the gut level. It is wrong with respect to the law, but right with respect to natural balance. It can often lead to social peace.

Let me give a different example, say between husband and wife. They may both try to do good, being understanding of the differences during the early part of the marriage. But inside, they both may have their own laws of what they want the other to do and be. Eventually, the head of their inner law coins are consciously made to come up too much, so there is an unconscious need to restore balance by letting out the tails. So they have a big fight to clear the air. In the ideal case, these irrational laws of the mind, find a compromise, that creates less inner polarization. Either both try to conform to each others laws, or their laws change. If nothing changes internally or externally, the head-tail cycles. The restored balance allows one to build up heads, until the angry balance is needed.

In the bible symbolism, Eve ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil first and then Adam ate. All this means is that the coin of law is more natural for females, since it defines the cultural zone for security. One does not have to guess where the security zone is, law makes that clear. The males don't fair as well under these conditions and eventully need to vent. They are more likely to fill prisons, rebel, or start war. That, in turn, increases the insecurity of females, requiring new laws. The male psyche then starts to gain potential, requiring another cycle of venting. The goal is laws that minimize male inner potential and maximize female security.

Because of the way the brain is polarized ,due to law, sometimes using the tails, associated with minor laws, gives one a way to vent so they don't build too much polarization potential. Although this could create a sense of balance, the idea of using the tail side of any law, causes some people to feel guilty. For example, it may be healthy for a person to vent their anger. But using that tails side of the social coin, could cause one to feel guilty so they avoid it. Anger is sort of wrong in one sense, but if done properly it could be healthy. But guilt could set up a wall where one does not give themselves even healthy tail side outlets for venting.

The bible talks about a sacrifice for guilt. What the guilt sacrifice is suppose to do is take away guilt. It is not designed to take away the guilt associated with breaking any law one wants. This is a little tricky, since it can become difficult to know where the line is. For example, one may be taught the law of building a model plane. But one should not feel guilty about doing it a different way, even if the social law is trying to enforce conformity. One does not have to feel guilty about hurting these irrational feelings, since it is healthy for them to deal with this irrationality. But on the other hand, one could also lose guilt about things that can cause real social problems. For example, adultry can lead to murder and suicide. In modern culture, the guilt line has already become distorted, where one can not say certain words, but adultry is considered a form of dating. It could be due to adultry being a better venting process for law.

The practical problem with lowering the potential between the two sides of coin, via a guilt sacrifice, is it can cause the natural potential to gain momentum so it become a snowballing push to remove the potential due to original sin, so thousands of years of neural programming, is removed in a short period of time. The guilt sacrifice will open up a can of worms. One could have natural and extreme good and evil expressions, all at the same time, but it may not be clear which is which.

Let me give a possible analogy to the confusion. Say the body has a natural instinct for eating specific food. That is one set point. Social law is also around, defining its one size fits all for eating properly. This is the second set point, which may not be the same, due to marketing. If one follows the social laws, there are now two inner potentials, one natural and the other due to the tails of law coin. The tails can reduce the overall polarization potential, so it might be felt as natural. Whereas, the natural could increase potential by going outside the coin. The potential is now with the entire coin, looking for a new law to make sure this unknown is safe. But once it enters the law grid, the natural lowering of potential is reset again. So one tries to follow the impulse without any expectation, but it is uncertain whether it is natural or just the tail end of laws. The result will be the mind having to learn to think in 3-D, since there will be three axis of potential pulling the mind in three directions.

#7 Eclogite

Eclogite

    Creating

  • Moderators
  • 1477 posts

Posted 24 October 2007 - 10:30 PM

No, but murder might be. So as usual...
<BuffysBrokenRecord>...I recommend you read Billy Budd...</BuffysBrokenRecord>
A man thinks that by mouthing hard words he understands hard things, :phones:
Buffy

I'll add it to my TO DO LIST. In the meantime could you rephrase and clarify your entire post. Regretably, for me, the semantic content seemed to be approximately zero.

#8 Buffy

Buffy

    Resident Slayer

  • Administrators
  • 8946 posts

Posted 25 October 2007 - 12:55 AM

I'll add it to my TO DO LIST. In the meantime could you rephrase and clarify your entire post. Regretably, for me, the semantic content seemed to be approximately zero.

Sorry about that! The suggestion actually is to those who might see your traffic example as lesser laws that "do not come down to good and evil in any moral sense" and thus claim that there is no contradiction demonstrated in the point you were making. I simply wanted to raise the stakes to murder, which can indeed be morally ambiguous, as this amazing little novella goes a long way to show!

Morality is simply the attitude we adopt toward people we personally dislike, :phones:
Buffy

#9 Eclogite

Eclogite

    Creating

  • Moderators
  • 1477 posts

Posted 25 October 2007 - 05:37 AM

Sorry about that! I simply wanted to raise the stakes to murder, which can indeed be morally ambiguous, as this amazing little novella goes a long way to show!

Ah. that makes sense. Thank you.

#10 HydrogenBond

HydrogenBond

    Creating

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3058 posts

Posted 25 October 2007 - 07:11 PM

Morally ambiguous is a good way to describe law of good and evil. The one size fits all mentality just doesn't work. But on the other hand, it has been used for such a long time, it is part of the human psyche.

In the old testament, many of the laws were more concerned with how the culture would treat its own members. Once another culture came into the equation, the rules were a little different if they were labelled enemy. For example if one was a Roman citizen, the law was in their favor and they could do legally, was not possible for others.

In the old testament time, the two sided coin had a better chance of balance, since the polarization due to law of good and evil, had an outlet for culture ,via the stacking of the deck. Most had to use the head of the coin, while those who stacked the deck would vent the tails for all. So the culture was able to reach sort of a steady state and not implode.

What Christ did was increase the potential of the polarization. The ideal of the head side of the law, went way beyond had been the way for so long. Killing did not just apply to the clan, but now killing had to extend to even enemies. This polarization by increasing the potential, caused the tail side of the coin to become darker. Christianity increased the potential within the law coin and required a more drastic tail side venting. The deck, was eventually stacked, within the church and monarchies.

It didn't start that way for the original Christians. They were not under law of commandments contained in ordinances, but under faith. This more natural state of human instinct, created an inner polarization for those who were still under the law. In other words, it was not natural for those still under law, but it could be copied increasing the polarization.

Let me give an example. Say we met a person who just instinctively eats right and remains always in good health. They are not affected by the latest fad, but do this naturally with exceptional results. Someone who is more part of the law of the latest fad, may copy this person exactly and deem this as the ideal way to eat for good health. They have an example as data, to support this conclusion. They see the healthy person eat white bread, in square slices. If this is good, then round slices ,or bread that is not white, will be seen as something evil or less than good. The natural person only eats this due to convenience, and could just as well eat other things, as part of a moderation diet. But the person under law, sets up a polarization law based on what they witnessed the person doing.

The early Christians had this charisma of natural human instinct. But it wasn't natural to those still under law, causing their inner polarization to gainpotential. After that original group died off, then the leaders were trying to maintain the good of the natural but with stricter laws. It is sort of like the person who sticks to the white bread, in square slice, diet, and now becomes the new spokeman. His polarization is extreme. What he now deems as necessary is needed for his own demons. But the more will power he uses, the less able he can vent. The venting may require others doing it for him. Now he is justified in punishing them. This may cause or even help them create more will power, but also more polarization.

One of the main persecuters of the original Christians was Saul. After he had a vision, he became converted and became Paul. He was very intelligent among the original early Chrisitians. He was invited to Rome to address the Senate, who were also very rational and intelligent. Actually, he was invited as a prisoner, and was summoned to amuse them. But he used this as an opportunity to teach the difference between faith and law. He got the Roman hair in a bunch, and Christianty was now a problem. He spoke from the heart and did what had to be done.

One of his quotes goes sort of like this; is the law sin, heaven's no, but sin taking opportunity through the commandment, produces sin of every kind. I would have not known about coverting, if the law did not say, thou shall not covert. But sin taking opportunity through the law, produces coverting of every kind. Before the law, there was no sin. But after the law, sin multiplied.

Let me give an example, say someone found a way to hack a computer. For the most part, very few would think of this angle. But to prevent it from spreading, we come up with a law against it. By teaching what not to do, we point out a new way to hack, that few would have thought on their own. So some will decide to try it and other to slightly modify this theme, since this angle is not forbidden yet. That may now need a new law, to show and tell what not to do. If the law didn't point it out, it may have stopped sooner. But with social tails needing a way to vent, the law points a fresh way to do this that has some legal flexibility.

Paul also said, "for until law, sin was in the world; but sin is not inputed where there is no law." Once you make a law, you create sin that didn't exist before the law was created. For example, the global warming religion is making it a sin to give off CO2. Now, under their new law, we are all sinners, because each breath we take, gives off CO2. Not too long ago, I was able to breath, but now I am sort of a sinner against the earth. Luckily, one can be granted forgiveness for this sin, by purchasing offsets. If one can not afford offsets, for forgiveness of sin, then one must perform a sacrifice. If one does not make a sacrifice or buy redemption, then you must feel guilty. If that doesn't work, the church will punish you. This sin is all based on faith that we need to repent, since the time of judgment is at hand. As long as they don't use the word religion, this religion is able to recruit aetheists. This template is very familar and has been used for thousands of years. The head of the law, creates tails and sin. The tails and sin produces fear. The fear now needs more law to reduce the fear.

Paul to the Romans, "But if I do the very thing, I do not wish to do, I agree with the law, confessing that it is good. So now, no longer am I the one who is doing it, but the sin which indwells in me. I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wishes to do good.

To do good by the law, creates a shadow of tails. The shadow can then drive one's behavior due to the fear associated with the law. The global warming zealots are trying to do good, by the laws of global warming, are getting less rational and using the more polititcal compulsion that is coming from the fear of global punishment due to this sin.

Lastly, "you have not recieved a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but have recieved a spirit of adoption as sons" Law versus natural.

#11 Inter.spem.et.metum

Inter.spem.et.metum

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 196 posts

Posted 29 October 2007 - 02:14 PM

Good and evil exist, though. Even if ambiguous. If they don't, then nothing matters. I can do what I can when I can because it is good to me.