My theory of the nature of good evil and the soul

Originally posted by hobbes
What I am saying is bigger doesn't necessarily mean more advanced either.

Yes, I can agree with that.

My point is that for the most part it isn't how much data you have but what kind and what you do with it.

I can agree with that statement too. Data, by itself, is inert.

Did you not get the point of my blacksmith/sword analogy? You act like I hadn't even said it.

I get all this, I just don't see that it fits in with your hypothesis...

Information is what/one dimensional- building blocks.

cunning is how/2d- Adding those building blocks together to create advanced items.

wisdom is why/3d- Is being more then the sum of your parts.

My main query in this line was that according to this quote more information would mean more cunning and more wisdom. There's something else necessary in this equation... I think we both agree that a random conglomeration of "data" is essentially meaningless. Your theory indicates a process at work that you didn't identify. I do understand what you're getting at but you're missing some pieces. There needs to be some functional association here between good and evil and the soul particles. Do the information bits have charges perhaps, towards good or evil? Or is evil based, perhaps, upon false data and good upon true data...


My other query was into this quote Some information can be destructive. With both computers and souls.

As I just mentioned, I perceive data as being essentially inert... and was querying into the destructive posibilties. I think we've gotten to a point that shows that it's not the data

As far as the rest concerning light being a particle at all. I shall look through it. Take the time to digest it all and get back to you. Thank you for the time and effort you used to dig all that.

Do so... there's a lot there.

~Raithere
 
Concerning
http://www.xrefer.com/entry/220935
Statement: Her calculations showed that the total mass of the fission fragments was slightly less than the mass of the uranium that they came from
Assumption: The mass difference had been converted to energy.
Bases for assumption:A slight mass was lost/energy was produced.
Conclusion: Still a assumption.

Other possibilities: matter could have been expelled outwords in the form of fast moving particles. These particles transmitter there movement that is energy.
________________________
Concerning
http://www.optica.tn.tudelft.nl/Education/photons.htm
Interference pattern between light photons show them to to be particles. As does the fact it is possible to do only one photon at a time. If it were pure energy there wouldn't be such a thing as striking a single photon.

But this article also shows even a single photon can show a interference pattern which shows photons to have the properties of a wave(sine wave of course) Of course these are not mutually exclusive. I personally believe light is a photon particle moving in a sine wave pattern.
_______________________________
Concerning
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/light_mass.html
A photon of light not need be a single particle but instead be more like how sound and heat works. Without the proper momentum it does not distribute the signs of light but the particles that exist ed within light would still have locality/mass outside of that pattern.

Most of the pages on this site do not directly handle the issue were grappling with except for this section. Considering its littered with terminology and references I'm unfamiliar with it is a little hard to interpret for me(just acknowledging my current limitations.)

But from what I can make out of it its basically saying there is no hard proof one way or another and is based on basic hypothesis and thought experiment similar to my own. Which means it has similar validity to my own arguments.

Is there any experimental evidence that the photon has zero rest mass?

If the rest mass of the photon was non-zero, the theory of quantum electrodynamics would be "in trouble" primarily through loss of gauge invariance, which would make it non-renormalizable; also, charge-conservation would no longer be absolutely guaranteed, as it is if photons have vanishing rest-mass. However, whatever theory says, it is still necessary to check theory against experiment.

It is almost certainly impossible to do any experiment which would establish that the photon rest mass is exactly zero. The best we can hope to do is place limits on it. A non-zero rest mass would lead to a change in the inverse square Coulomb law of electrostatic forces. There would be a small damping factor making it weaker over very large distances.

The behavior of static magnetic fields is likewise modified. A limit on the photon mass can be obtained through satellite measurements of planetary magnetic fields. The Charge Composition Explorer spacecraft was used to derive a limit of 6x10-16 eV with high certainty. This was slightly improved in 1998 by Roderic Lakes in a laboratory experiment which looked for anomalous forces on a Cavendish balance. The new limit is 7x10-17 eV. Studies of galactic magnetic fields suggest a much better limit of less than 3x10-27 eV but there is some doubt about the validity of this method.
Click to expand...
_______________________________

Concerning http://www.ups.edu/physics/maxplanck
This is written for those already well versed in all the current material and is also im sure written with the idea in mind of sounding really smart(it is a summarization of a intellectual's speech) So i can't use it.

"data is inert"

Well it depends on what you call data.
I was using it as a generic term representing the three different types of "knowledge" 1d,2d, and 3d. But data meaning 1d knowledge isinert and that as the point I was trying to make. 1d to 3d is all made out of the same basic material its configuration that makes all the difference. Configeration that makes the difference between simply and complex.
Evil being the destruction of the souls complexity and by extension its existence(its existence essentially defined by its complexity).


Do the information bits have charges perhaps, towards good or evil? Or is evil based, perhaps, upon false data and good upon true data...
Click to expand...

Well not exactly. Think of it this way. The taller the building the better it needs to be constructed. If you use low quality material in its construction or design it badly, even just part of it. It might not stand. To reach more advanced and powerful form of soul it needs to be on a solid foundation. Your thoughts being the raw building material and shape of construction.

Hmm.. I do hope i did a decent job explaining myself. I feel like i should have done better. :p oh well. My brains already tired from all that physics and quantum mechanics. So i got a excuse(not a real excuse. without I probably wouldn't have done any better:p)
 
Originally posted by hobbes
Other possibilities: matter could have been expelled outwords in the form of fast moving particles. These particles transmitter there movement that is energy.

Then whence comes the increase in movement (energy, even by your definition)?

But this article also shows even a single photon can show a interference pattern which shows photons to have the properties of a wave(sine wave of course) Of course these are not mutually exclusive. I personally believe light is a photon particle moving in a sine wave pattern.

Then we should be able to detect the particle moving in a wave pattern… how come when we attempt to do so we only find light traveling linearly?

A photon of light not need be a single particle but instead be more like how sound and heat works.

Now your back to the necessity of a background medium for the wave to move in… something that was labeled aether. The problem here is that it fails to account for certain relativistic evidence such as the consistency of the speed of light.

Without the proper momentum it does not distribute the signs of light but the particles that exist ed within light would still have locality/mass outside of that pattern.

I'm not quite sure what it is you're saying here.

But from what I can make out of it its basically saying there is no hard proof one way or another and is based on basic hypothesis and thought experiment similar to my own. Which means it has similar validity to my own arguments.

Not exactly. What they are indicating is that they cannot experimentally demonstrate that the rest mass is 0… only that it is within a certain range of 0. However, if it were not 0, the theory of quantum electrodynamics would be "in trouble". A theory which does bear out experimentally.

This is written for those already well versed in all the current material and is also im sure written with the idea in mind of sounding really smart(it is a summarization of a intellectual's speech) So i can't use it.

Sorry. Here's another reference.
The non-locality inherent in a pair of initially correlated particles that become separated by a macroscopic distance has been investigated by Bell1 and in a variety of experiments.2 These experiments demonstrate a non-local correlation that cannot be explained with reference to any "local" theory in classical physics.
http://www.fdavidpeat.com/bibliography/essays/healtech.htm
Click to expand...
You can also refer back to the double-slit experiment. Note that this experiment has been performed, sending a single photon through at a time. Thus the interference pattern is created by single photons interfering with themselves. To put it concisely, a photon faced with the option of two-slits to travel through actually takes both paths at the same time and interferes with itself.

Configeration that makes the difference between simply and complex.

Agreed.

Evil being the destruction of the souls complexity and by extension its existence(its existence essentially defined by its complexity).

The soul is then the complexity (system or pattern might be better terms) not the particles themselves.

Your thoughts being the raw building material and shape of construction.

This misses the point of my question: Raw data, itself being inert, can have no predetermined affect. What you are left with then is patterns that build complexity and patterns that destroy complexity. We can get into some of that later…

~Raithere
 
Originally posted by hobbes
Other possibilities: matter could have been expelled outwords in the form of fast moving particles. These particles transmitter there movement that is energy.

Then whence comes the increase in movement (energy, even by your definition)?
Click to expand...

No increase in moment. Just release of existing energy. Within our molecules and atoms i believe there to be much movement of the smaller particles that they consist of. The release of that movement is where the energy comes from. Its like popping a balloon. A balloon pops with much force. Where did that energy come from? The moving air molecules within. Where did its mass go to? Out, the mass of air is the carrier of the energy of the popping balloon.

Then we should be able to detect the particle moving in a wave pattern… how come when we attempt to do so we only find light traveling linearly?
Click to expand...
What particle? Are you talking about the particle that you believe light isn't? When we attempt to do what? When has anyone found light to not travel in sin wave fashion? This bit here seems like your completely contradicting yourself.

A photon of light not need be a single particle but instead be more like how sound and heat works.

Now your back to the necessity of a background medium for the wave to move in… something that was labeled aether. The problem here is that it fails to account for certain relativistic evidence such as the consistency of the speed of light.
Click to expand...

What consistency of light? Light has been known to travel at different speeds through different mediums. The quoted speed of light being that of light in a "vacuum". I personally prescribe to the black matter theory and do not believe space is the absolute vacuum we think it is. Also light could work in collisionary pattern affect when going through matter and as a single moving particle in a vacuum.

I am a little bit familiar with aether. I did a search online and I found some pages with some interesting read. I haven't completely digested there contents but perhaps you could look at em and tell me what you think.
This site speaks of aether.
http://ca.geocities.com/rayredbourne/docs/48.htm
This site rejects the idea of aether and Einstein special theory of relativity and its absurd statements of time dilation.
http://www.commonsensescience.org/pdf/light-speed_and_aether.pdf

Without the proper momentum it does not distribute the signs of light but the particles that existed within light would still have locality/mass outside of that pattern.

I'm not quite sure what it is you're saying here.
Click to expand...

In other words without lights momentum/energy its presence isn't known but that doesn't mean those particles it consisted of don't still exist.

You can also refer back to the double-slit experiment. Note that this experiment has been performed, sending a single photon through at a time. Thus the interference pattern is created by single photons interfering with themselves. To put it concisely, a photon faced with the option of two-slits to travel through actually takes both paths at the same time and interferes with itself.
Click to expand...

I do not think that is the only interpretation to the experimentation. I'll need to think about it though.

Evil being the destruction of the souls complexity and by extension its existence(its existence essentially defined by its complexity).

The soul is then the complexity (system or pattern might be better terms) not the particles themselves.
Click to expand...

Well yes and no. Is your computer its pattern or the raw materials its made of? If someone made a computer without a bit of silicon or any of the other material usually found in a computer would it still be a computer? Of course if it functioned as one.

You are the pattern. The soul is the medium. But the medium would not be a soul without said pattern.

Your thoughts being the raw building material and shape of construction. This misses the point of my question: Raw data, itself being inert, can have no predetermined affect. What you are left with then is patterns that build complexity and patterns that destroy complexity. We can get into some of that later…
Click to expand...

Raw data can have a affect on the pattern which consists of raw data. Its all about the affects of raw data and patterns on the existing pattern that is us and our ID and whether it adds to that pattern and its complexity or contributes to that patterns simplification which is its destruction.
 
Originally posted by hobbes

No increase in moment. Just release of existing energy. Within our molecules and atoms i believe there to be much movement of the smaller particles that they consist of. The release of that movement is where the energy comes from. Its like popping a balloon. A balloon pops with much force. Where did that energy come from? The moving air molecules within. Where did its mass go to? Out, the mass of air is the carrier of the energy of the popping balloon.

No. The popping of a balloon is a transfer from potential to kinetic energy... oh forget it...

What particle? Are you talking about the particle that you believe light isn't?

Natch. Light, when observed properly, is a particle. Reread the previous links... you're missing the wave/particle duality of light.

What consistency of light? Light has been known to travel at different speeds through different mediums.

Good point, I stated that poorly. What I should have referred to was the consistency of the maximum velocity of light.

The quoted speed of light being that of light in a "vacuum". I personally prescribe to the black matter theory and do not believe space is the absolute vacuum we think it is.

I don't know of any theories that state that space is an absolute vacuum, although some regions comes so close as to make no difference.

Also light could work in collisionary pattern affect when going through matter and as a single moving particle in a vacuum.

This still does not explain the wave interference.

http://ca.geocities.com/rayredbourne/docs/48.htm

This one looks like it's pretty much worthless. A lot of wild hypothesis with no references and nothing to back it up.

This site rejects the idea of aether and Einstein special theory of relativity and its absurd statements of time dilation. http://www.commonsensescience.org/p..._and_aether.pdf

And, of course, ignores completely the experiments that have proven time-dilation.

In other words without lights momentum/energy its presence isn't known but that doesn't mean those particles it consisted of don't still exist.

Light has momentum and energy but no mass...

I do not think that is the only interpretation to the experimentation. I'll need to think about it though.

Perhaps not but I've yet to see an acceptable alternative.

The soul is then the complexity (system or pattern might be better terms) not the particles themselves.

Now that I can deal with. Of course, these particles are still entirely hypothetical.

You are the pattern. The soul is the medium. But the medium would not be a soul without said pattern.

Now you're getting closer to what I think... just drop the "soul particle" part and think about the quantum field interactions. Patterns amongst patterns.

Raw data can have a affect on the pattern which consists of raw data. Its all about the affects of raw data and patterns on the existing pattern that is us and our ID and whether it adds to that pattern and its complexity or contributes to that patterns simplification which is its destruction.

Keep thinking about patterns.

~Raithere
 
I'm too late in this topic to contribute anything before I've read through everything, but I have a Information Science background and a few beliefs about the soul &c myself.

  • Data: inert facts (Lat. datum: fact). Not necessarily intelligible. (eg. code) and only useful as information.
  • Information: A package of intelligible data - not necessarily useful - related to other information, such as what you already have in your head, or coming from a source directly or indirectly. (eg. deciphered code, or understood code).
  • Field: Category of information (eg. Biology, Physics...)
  • Knowledge always pertains to data/facts, and is internalised. You can't just have knowledge, you have to have knowledge about something. If you can't remember it, it's not knowledge anymore, and you have to go back to the information. It's debatable whether there is "useless knowledge", because once it's in your head, it might become useful at any time.
  • Theory: Body of knowledge and information pertaining to a certain field.
  • Cunning: I think that's just a way of using knowledge to your advantage.
  • Wisdom: How you put otherwise unrelated material - data, information, knowledge, together in surprising, useful and I would say, beneficial ways. Wisdom can't be formulised, only reduced back to information, and even data, because it lies on the boundaries of interpretation. It is always immaterial, and intrinsically human.

Science is the machine by which data is processed into information and ultimately into information and knowledge. The human brain is the machine by which knowledge is processed into...well, more knowledge. Knowledge can be (cunningly) used for good or evil purposes, but I doubt whether science can ever be called 'wisdom'. I'm aware of scientifically accepted theories being called 'conventional wisdom', but in my opinion that's just pop culture. Wisdom lies on a boundary between the material and the immaterial world.

The soul thrives on wisdom, and becomes debased by foolishness. All evil is foolishness. That's enough for now - I'll post more as I read more...
 
Originally posted by Jenyar
I'm too late in this topic to contribute anything before I've read through everything, but I have a Information Science background and a few beliefs about the soul &c myself.

It's never too late... I liked your list, it'll be interesting to see hobbes reaction.

...I doubt whether science can ever be called 'wisdom'.

Science is a method for obtaining knowledge - Empirical information about the world.
Philosophy is a method for obtaining wisdom - Reasoned argument that enable one to judge what is true or right.

Philosophy and wisdom are more important than science and knowledge. Of course, they also have a dependent relationship as well. One cannot make a wise choice from false belief, nor can one acquire knowledge without the ability to discern truth.

All evil is foolishness.

I concur. Evil comes from a lack of wisdom and/or a lack of knowledge.

~Raithere
 
Evil comes from a lack of wisdom and/or a lack of knowledge.
Click to expand...
I think that there is no evil - we can talk onlyabout morality.

Evil is very relative on the culture and particular person.
 
No. The popping of a balloon is a transfer from potential to kinetic energy... oh forget it...
Click to expand...

Potential energy and kinetic energy are the same thing. Potential energy is energy contained within a vessel and kinetic energy is not.

Its like differentiating between milk inside a glass and spilled milk on the table. Its milk either way.

What particle? Are you talking about the particle that you believe light isn't?

Natch. Light, when observed properly, is a particle. Reread the previous links... you're missing the wave/particle duality of light.
Click to expand...

Im aware that they were saying it seems to show signs of being a particle. I've been saying it is a particle, a particle moving in a wave fashion(I'm aware that there saying it a little differently. Thats why its called disagreeing with some of it). I thought you were saying you thought light wasn't particles in anyway.

A lot of wild hypothesis with no references and nothing to back it up.
Click to expand...
Well that just about sums up some of the content on those sites you gave me links to.

And, of course, ignores completely the experiments that have proven time-dilation.
Click to expand...

No experiments prove time dilation. Just because a atomic clock slows down when moving at a fast velocity doesnt mean time slowed down just the clock. Just like the affects of water can make carbon dating show something to be much older then it actually is.
Atomic clocks are still limited by physics. The time shown on the clock is not absolute as to the nature and affects of time.

Light has momentum and energy but no mass...
Click to expand...
So says you, prove it.

___________________________________

Jenyar the dictionary definition of these words have no meaning in this topic. I'm using these words to express concepts that have no word's so I borrow these word's to express the concept.

Science is a method for obtaining knowledge - Empirical information about the world.
Philosophy is a method for obtaining wisdom - Reasoned argument that enable one to judge what is true or right.

Philosophy and wisdom are more important than science and knowledge. Of course, they also have a dependent relationship as well. One cannot make a wise choice from false belief, nor can one acquire knowledge without the ability to discern truth.

All evil is foolishness.

I concur. Evil comes from a lack of wisdom and/or a lack of knowledge.
Click to expand...

Very smart and well put. I agree with most all of this very much.
 
Good and Evil

I believe that when you die your own mind will decide whether you are good or evil and in that split second that you die you leave this time and enter a new time were a split second becomes an eternity and that could be in heaven or hell its up to you to decide whether you have been good or bad.
 
Originally posted by Avatar
I think that there is no evil - we can talk onlyabout morality.

Evil is very relative on the culture and particular person.

I disagree.

Of course, it depends upon how we define good and evil. Thus far I have been using the word to indicate that which is not good... in such case it is simply a contrast to a generic "good".

Personally, I define evil as malicious intent... a deliberate act of harm. But there other definitions that work as well... This also leaves open the definition of good. I find the Aristotelian concept of good to be acceptable and one I am only beginning to explore. Thus far I can find no errors in the reasoning.

"the good state is truth in agreement with right desire" - Aristotle

Right desire, according to Adler's interpretation of Aristotle is based upon our needs (as opposed to our "wants").

"The distinction between natural and acquired desires, or needs and wants, and the distinction between real and merely apparent goods enable us to state a self-evident truth that serves as the first principle of moral philosophy: We ought to desire whatever is really good for us and nothing else." - Mortimer Adler

Thus knowledge and wisdom (true belief and correct reasoning) become essential to good.

This approach also has an added benefit of enabling one to prescribe action against evil (Correcting errors of knowledge and wisdom).

Here's a well done article on Aristotle and Adler's thinking:
http://radicalacademy.com/gegeorgeirbe4.htm

~Raithere

P.S. I'm thinking of breaking this out into another topic... anyone interested?
 
I think I agree you

and it would be a boring topic if people agree with eachother, but you can try
 
Is there really any reason to put it into another topic?
Its all pretty on topic. If it went into another topic this one might die:p
 
Originally posted by hobbes
Is there really any reason to put it into another topic?
Its all pretty on topic. If it went into another topic this one might die

We can keep it here, I just didn't want to subvert your thread.

~Raithere
 
Originally posted by Raithere

We can keep it here, I just didn't want to subvert your thread.

~Raithere
Click to expand...

I really do appreciate that. Boiled down this topic is a discussion of the physical nature of good and evil. So its very much on topic.

I mean take away my physical particles that have locality beliefs and replace it with energy or what not and that would have almost no affect on my theory of the nature of the human soul. Cause its about the pattern the nature of that pattern and the carrier of that pattern.

I believe good is that which makes the pattern that is us more complex and evil that which simplifies that pattern till it is none existence. The bulk of our none physics/quantum mechanics debate is a discussion of just that.

(must resist turning back on the computer, have stuff that so needs to be done. .. so hard to resist... :p )
 
life is about balance. We have many different emotions but they all stem from love or fear and these are the only 2 reasons we feel and act. We must learn to act out of love and this involves being true to ourselves and our soul. We must not try to repress negative emotions but they must be expressed appropriately. Those who repress certain emotions do not release them. These emotions sit in the sub-conscious and grow until they consume us. Hitler did not have internal power, he had external power. He was a repressed being who thought he needed to control others in order to control his life. He was not balanced and forgot what the important things in life are. As a result, he caused destruction of his soul and of the lives of others. He lived out of fear and may have had control over the lives of many but he never had control (or had the ability to control) a persons soul unless they themselves gave it to him. he never had true power.
evil is the product of an unbalanced being which then acts to control or direct (or change the will of another) another being. Evil is to interfere with the growth of anothers soul or to disrupt the path of another for our own gain. if we all follow our own true will we shall never collide with another but can interact and share the souls playground that is the earth and the physical life.
 
[*]Wisdom: How you put otherwise unrelated material - data, information, knowledge, together in surprising, useful and I would say, beneficial ways. Wisdom can't be formulised, only reduced back to information, and even data, because it lies on the boundaries of interpretation. It is always immaterial, and intrinsically human.
[/list]

Knowledge can be (cunningly) used for good or evil purposes, but I doubt whether science can ever be called 'wisdom'. I'm aware of scientifically accepted theories being called 'conventional wisdom', but in my opinion that's just pop culture. Wisdom lies on a boundary between the material and the immaterial world.
I do not believe in 'good or evil purposes' only purposes guided by the soul and purposes guided by wants, expectations and external influences. But really, knowledge should be lived not taught or used. We provide the most value to others and ourselves when we are our true self and exist so. To have no motive or to not want something from someone is quite rare in this world but we make the most impact on people when we have no reason to. Knowledge is our own personal journey and each of us will go through this journey in different ways. We have no need to 'feel the need' to help another that we decide needs guidence and direction. If we instead take in the experience of the meeting, we will realise that we have gained and learned from that person more than we ever realised. That we have actually learnt from the one which we felt the need to use our knowledge and to teach. If I had gone ahead and 'used my so called knowledge' to deliberately influence another i would have missed out on the opportunity to grow and learn within myself and i would have also acted to change anothers journey without realising that just because it is not the way you would do things or be or think then it doesn't matter. one of the hardest things to do is to accept that we are and others just are and that is all. Learn not to fear differences only to embrace them, accept them, but not follow or change them. Find your place, your way and just be.
Well that's great in the idealistic world i have in my head.!!

The soul thrives on wisdom, and becomes debased by foolishness. All evil is foolishness. That's enough for now - I'll post more as I read more... [/B][/QUOTE]
I agree that the soul thrives on wisdom, but that we need to rid ourselves of all the distractions to our soul and all the defences we have built up and all of our issues and 'demons' and the brainwashing we have experienced as a result of growing up in a materialistic society which has no purpose other than to get a job, earn money and be society's definition of 'successful'. Once we uncover the soul then true knowledge can be aquired.
As for the soul and evil: i don't believe in good and evil. It is something that human made up as concepts of control. This is seen primarily in religion where we have a bunch of rules we must abide by or we will go to 'hell' because we have sinned, disobeyed or strayed from God. The notion of good and evil keeps us in living in fear of doing wrong. It tells us that we must follow and that we must listen to God's (or who ever is named) teachings and we must become one with him. In other words, we must give up our lives to another and therefore we must give up all power over ourselves.
If instead we are nurtured from birth in an environment which lets us grow and lets our soul grow and encourages knowledge of the self and using this knowledge to guide us in life then we would be truly powerful within ourselves. And there would be no notion of good or evil, just true will. If true will is followed by all then we will never make the wrong decisions and choices. Good and evil would not exist.
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by Simona
life is about balance. We have many different emotions but they all stem from love or fear and these are the only 2 reasons we feel and act. We must learn to act out of love and this involves being true to ourselves and our soul. We must not try to repress negative emotions but they must be expressed appropriately. Those who repress certain emotions do not release them. These emotions sit in the sub-conscious and grow until they consume us.
Click to expand...

A very metaphysical take on things. Not views I necessarily agree with though not entirely disagree with either. I for one don't like the word "emotion" It encompasses too much.
Lets examine some emotions.
(all this is pure observation and opinion)

Fear is a physical reaction. Its ones basic flight or fight response.
Which is why fear is closely linked with anger. The second definition is more long term and more closer to worry. A little bit of worry can be good. It can make you take necessary precautions. Too much worry can slowly poison the mind and body, not so much the soul but none too good none the less.. Worry can be a paralyzing force that slowly shuts one down.

Courage is the intellectual willpower over ones mind. The basic mind over matter, or more apt over fear. Courage is the ability to reason that something needs to be done and to do so despite the affects of fear and worry. It is also closely linked with love. Because the advanced understanding of love is what helps give you the strength to overcome fear. Hate can also give a sort of courage. But hate causes you to tune out all but your hate and that includes being able to tune out your fears. Not a true sort of courage because your not overcoming your fear instead your tuning it out.

Anger. Second half of fight or flight. It is the motivating force.
Long term is more grudge like and can lead to hate. This "emotion" can very corrosive to the soul and to a lesser extent the mind. But small amounts of anger and the right kind of anger can be a positive motivator.

Joy-pain fun misery are all rather simple physical characteristics even if the cause is not as simple as the sensation.

Love is..........its a huge word. It can mean a sensation of closeness and sharing between you and your mate. A strong bond of friendship. A paternal/maternal dedication to a particular persons well being. But it can be alot more as well. Words can not describe it properly but it is what I would call "3d knowledge" Love is..the why. Love is the working element of "goodness"

Love starts with understanding which is why love is a advanced form of wisdom. Wisdom being a advanced form of things like even basic scientific understanding

Hate is the void. Hate typically starts out with the desire to see something destroyed. It causes your field of vision to narrow so that is all you see and then can blind you altogether. The desire and will to destroy that without inevitably destroy's that within. Hate can be generalized too.Not necessarily focused on a person or organization.That kind of hate usually steams from a unhealthly amount of conceit .
Hate is the working element of "evil"

Hitler did not have internal power, he had external power. He was a repressed being who thought he needed to control others in order to control his life. He was not balanced and forgot what the important things in life are. As a result, he caused destruction of his soul and of the lives of others. He lived out of fear and may have had control over the lives of many but he never had control (or had the ability to control) a persons soul unless they themselves gave it to him. he never had true power.
Click to expand...

Its true. Hitler never really had real power. He gave his power to the hate and evil inside of himself. He cause a current of such destruction within many. He was able to direct this current. A little bit. But he didn't really have control over it. If he had suddenly got up and said ok lets stop killing jews and build a good will center for jews as a apology for killing them my guess is he would have been deposed. Also control over others is a illusion when you have no control over yourself.


evil is the product of an unbalanced being which then acts to control or direct (or change the will of another) another being. Evil is to interfere with the growth of anothers soul or to disrupt the path of another for our own gain. if we all follow our own true will we shall never collide with another but can interact and share the souls playground that is the earth and the physical life.
Click to expand...

Also very metaphysical. Some of these I agree with more then some of your first statement for sure.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top