Duality as a more abstract concept has been the source of both inspiration and controversy, depending on how one recognizes it in nature. Personally, I’ve learned a lot about the duality of nature that is truly ineffable. I can’t force perspective, but I can push food for thought.
As people, we’re drawn to organize, classify, or label what we observe in reality. On the most basic level, we have good and evil. I’ve found that our middle ground as humans, is conscious experience. Dedicating focus to an extent that unifies both good and evil seems to be the root of universal growth and the infinite expansion of nature as we experience it.
From the beginning of time to the development of conscious thought, it seems nature has run through it’s groove of contemporary evolution. Some speculate this universal development as God, fate, mother nature, etc. At this point, it’s only a matter of perspective. With so many facets of consciousness available on this planet, it could be years, decades, to millennia from now before nature agrees with itself on it’s course to perpetual growth.
To the High Existence community, who I have no doubt witnesses this great debate of morality in the name of unified growth, I ask you: what patterns define the nature of duality and growth in your personal lifestyle? How do you expect to play your role in this perpetual game of follow the leader for the greater good of natural existence as a whole?
I want to understand your perspectives on the good and evil driving our ship through space and time, and how they’ve impacted the way you choose to live today. Please share.
I’ve begun to doubt the inherent nature of duality. Its very strongly tied into the paradigm of modern science and materialism, which has underlying flaws, especially when you try to account for the human mind… “From Science to God” is a good, short book that talks about this, by Peter Russell.
I believe good and evil are real, but that our perspective on them is also rather limited because of the limits of a human existence both in terms of duration and what we are actually able to accomplish with our limited senses and societal pressures that inhibit growth…
its almost like evil is whatever makes you think something is evil
I think that’s true to a degree, with probably the bulk of opinions people have on what’s morally right or wrong in minor situations.
There are some things though that I think are inherently evil regardless of what light they are cast in such as torture, murder, rape, slavery…
Well I would say people justify those behaviors because they believe something about their victims to be evil, or themselves to be evil. But yea there is a level of petty debates and another of more apparent injustice.
Right, well torture and slavery for example have been justified across all sorts of cultures throughout history. Even into today, for instance, some in the west have justified the torture of terrorists to protect the public by gaining information about their plotting (despite the fact that torture is considered to yield very unreliable data).
But I don’t think any justification for these crimes is valid. In other words, the people committing the crimes are still committing acts of evil. They are not in any sense heroes even if they are doing this with the sanction of their government and the full knowledge of its citizens.
I don’t think people should worry about changing anything except what is happening inside themselves. But I’m just me
This is an interesting thought, and my dad and I talk about this a lot in regards to slavery.
Say there was a time way back when when all conscious minds deemed slavery itself as acceptable. Of course there would have been good and bad faces to slavery (like everything else in the world)…owners treating their slaves poorly which in itself is not good or on the other hand treating them as a family member with respect but still regarding them as property of some sorts. If everyone in this time accepted this idea of human property, no conscious mind regarded human ownership as inherently evil, was slavery itself still evil?
It’s easy for us to say yes, it was, because the idea of individual freedom has become so essential to us… to them, not so much. Is morality relative–an opinion based on the people of it’s time–or is morality absolute? My father and I wonder at this because the very idea of morality did not exist until human consciousness itself came into the universe, which has been expanding ever since it began.
I know its a popular notion (and promoted by scientifically minded people) that only human beings have morals. But I don’t agree with this.
I think this idea of dismissing the mental life of other creatures on this planet as that of pure biological programming, i.e. “instinct” – without free will or thought, without emotion, regrets, joy, all the feelings we ascribe to being human, is just a way of denigrating other life forms so we can use them as a “resource.”
We like to think our pets have an emotional life and are intelligent, almost like children. But we don’t think the same of pigs or chickens, or monarch butterflies. They are just biological machines, not really alive to begin with, so free for us to do with as we choose.
What would happen if you could truly inhabit the mind of say an ant, and if by doing so you found out they had a civilization as rich and complex as ours (although founded on things we as humans dismiss as trivial, such as chemical scents in nature, hive mind thinking etc…)?
If an ant civilization has morals, but we don’t recognize such from a human perspective because we are just so alien to them in terms of how we experience reality, then what does that say about all life forms on earth?
I don’t really think morals are relative therefore in the way that you are describing. I think there are gradations of compassion. Slavery in any form was less compassionate than no slavery. But the moral is always the same, the farther you get towards pure freedom, the more “right” the expression of the moral is.
You can write off things like rape and murder as inherently evil, but that’s only because that’s how we’ve been conditioned to approach those ideas. Its widely accepted that murder is evil, but there are still people out there who are willing to justify things most would consider inherently evil.
The thing is people tend to have a natural sense of empathy, to varying degrees. Therefore it’s not hard to ascertain killing another person is wrong, but regardless of popular opinion, it still depends on the individual. That’s something that really intrigues me: how man can define their surroundings to justify their actions, regardless of how society interprets it as a whole. Either way, thanks for the input. I completely understand your perspective
I understand the view that most things are relative.
But I also believe there are certain truths that are not relative such as I pointed out. (I would say they extend to all life forms, not just humanity as well, though this does not mean they are universally enforced).
Are we torturing animals by using them as a food source? Perhaps. But domesticated livestock (at least on small scale farms) also benefit from the arrangement. Protection from predators, disease, a regular food supply, constant companionship with their fellow creatures. (Of course factory farming is a far different story).
So its my view that there are core behaviors that are evil, regardless of the relative nature of the culture, time period, species… I would say the converse is also true. There are core behaviors that are good: protecting life, avoiding physical harm to life, freedom of expression/choice…
The deepest layer I can feel is that all opponent forces are in love with each other and evil is the resistance created before union. Things are never black and white though. That was a black and white statement.
The distinctions we make between ourselves serve evil, but they also make our art. We could have art without condemnation if everyone respected everyone else’s art.
I think condemnation is the highest evil of a human.
Everybody can have a moral code but it’s more of a tool for inner peace than a credential for goodness. Morality goes beyond morality. Love is true.
Progress depends on individual hearts and small units of loving people, not massive movements.
I know exactly what you mean when you say evil is the resistance created before union. It may seem black and white, but it’s applicable to all kinds of situations we experience on a day to day basis.
Condemnation in society is the most straightforward manifestation of evil I could imagine. It’s highly subjective though, because I’ve noticed there are people who seem incapable of recognizing that their condemnation manifests in the form of conversion.
And I use the term conversion very very loosely, as in trying to institute ones opinions or patterns unto others, under the assumption that one’s opinion is worth more than another. It’s a display of ego, rather than acceptance, which is capable of binding our interpretations of good and evil.
Yea, the only time I think it’s appropriate to work hard to get someone to agree on what is right is if you’re married. Any other relationship, especially parent to child, is violated when you try to convert them to your opinion.
There are always choices to be made but I think whatever you’re most attracted to is the best bet.
I love how you put that, short and sweet. Love is true, the only truth, everything else is just a variation of this including evil because ‘evil people’ believe that what they are doing is right, the love of their heart. We climb mountains one step at a time (small units of loving people), not massive movements.
The lightest and most loving person exists only from being completely wedded to their shadow. I gaze inside to darkness, which makes me radiate light. It is ineffable but everybody should try their hardest to explain. I swim in the dark and the only security I find is in the outpouring of compassion that comes anyway. There is a point that can only be put off but not bypassed, where compassion is the light and neediness is the dark. They serve each other and walk together, in an icy burning orgasm.
“There will come a day when even women will see that compassion is borne of fear, and fear is fed by compassion, how the two perpetuate each other in a pointless descent.
There will come a day when even men will see that burning bridges is not the only way to light up a dark path.”
– Hela Loptura Laufey
We shall see.
Honestly this is so disgusting.
i mean it disgusts me that you believe this. but it doesn’t matter.
I do have acceptance and non-judgment. I’m sure you have a good reason for believing whatever you believe. I love you, but that mentality disgusts me. I don’t really want to debate about why I don’t believe in it, I don’t need to convince you. I take it as your belief because you posted it as your personal response.
Ok, so assuming/hoping that one day people will choose reason and peace over fearful and self-destructive mentalities… is somehow disgusting?
It’s not a personal belief. It’s not a mentality at all, it’s a premonition or a tale. Hela was a very wise sage, healer and philosopher, her words are not disgusting. No need to be bigoted about it.
Without fear there would be no compassion. Compassion helps us cope with the fear and/or the cause of fear.
Compassion is an instinct, not a mentality. But too much compassion makes people weak and lazy, more dependent and prone to fear. There’s a time and a place for compassion.
you can have suffering without fear and compassion is neccessary to heal it. compassion is not spoiling.
Fear to blame. Blame to anger. Anger to hatred. Hatred to suffering.
Fear has been considering the ultimate route to suffering for quite a number of years.
I can see how compassion has its downside as well as its upside. Same thing with commitment. There are numerous people in this world that consider commitment a burden.
yes I see fear does create suffering, but compassion doesn’t feed it. its an antidote. you can have pain without suffering and compassion is an antidote to that too.
I can understand that compassion is an opposite force to fear (that it helps another person cope with fear, thereby eradicating fear) but that doesn’t mean compassion is ‘borne’ out of fear, like say anger or hatred is.. compassion is rather borne out of love in my perspective, my love towards another person makes me feel compassion, if I hate the person I’m less prone to feel compassion right?
I agree that there’s a time and a place for compassion but I disagree with it being borne out of fear..
I didnt see where it was implied to eradicate it. I just took it as paying attention to what serves you in life. How good things can be bad, and bad things good and that the idea that they are two separate things is what the harmful thinking is to begin with.
Love isnt perfect. Love is love-but its hate, suffering, fear, and all that bad stuff too.
Nah guess the eradicate-part was mine, following from maninmals ‘choosing one over the other’-saying..
But what we’re talking about here is compassion and manimal’s quote saying that it is borne out of fear and he then comparing it to fearful and self-destructive mentalities.. I get all the “it’s just two opposite poles of the same thing” but by removing compassion you are not removing fear so the statement makes no sense in real life..
Yeah, I get what you are saying. I dont consider it a perfect quote at all- just sharing the way I interpreted it.
Im sure its possible to have compassion borne out of fear, though maybe not always. Too much psychology to adequately make an assumption on. Some people are compassionate because they are afraid that someone may not be compassionate to them..Other people are compassionate because they actually care about the other person. So based on that, I would agree the quote has no ‘real merit’ in ‘real life’
Yeah I agree there are different kinds of compassion and when you put it like that I have to agree that some compassion Is borne out of fear, though from my perspective that’s not the main origin for compassion – and I would rather see fearful compassion than I would see fearful hatred.. Glad we can agree on the ‘realness’ of the quote :-)
You misunderstood what I said again.
Compassion couldn’t exist without fear, there would be nothing to be compassionate about. Compassion itself is not harmful, but improper handling and dosage fucks you up.
Sitting is comfortable, especially when you’re aching, but if you sit too much you’re gonna have atrophy and bad posture leading to deformation and constant ache. It makes you weaker until you’re always in pain.
If you use a drug to get high, it feels amazing, until it wears off and you feel like shit. If you keep using it, soon you can’t be happy without it.
Crutches are great when your legs are broken. Using crutches when your legs are fine is just dumb and will render your legs useless. And sooner or later, you will find yourself in a situation where you need those legs.
I’ve already agreed that there’s a time and place for compassion no need to elaborate on that.. I guess the root of the misunderstanding is that I misread the meaning of being ‘borne of’ as something being ‘rooted in’ instead of being ‘in opposition to’ – but what still doesn’t make sense to me is you saying “choose reason and peace over fearful and self-destructive mentalities” when referring to the quote.. do you really see compassion more often being the case of over-indulgence than simply adequate love? or weren’t you referring to compassion when you wrote that?
Compassion is the one of the most constructive forces I know. I don’t know anything better for peace.
“I don’t know anything better for peace”, well that’s why it’s a problem.
If you attach peace to compassion, that peace is fragile and unsustainable, when compassion fails so does the peace. That peace is fake, because it depends on a relative condition.
compassion is the sensation of peace for me. they aren’t relative to one another.
You’ve never seen an over-compassionate mother turn into a bad thing for the offspring?
Say a child grows up with an over-compassionate mother. The kid finally grows up and enters the real world, only to be crushed by reality. They weren’t exposed much to the negative aspects of life, and so they ultimately suffer more for not knowing even how to deal with this stuff. When other people don’t show them the same compassion their mother gave them their entire life, how do they cope? In this case, their over-abundance of compassion set them up for failure.
Those mothers are over-protective, not overly compassionate.
compassion doesn’t look like sheltering people from hardship
I know it for me. Everyone knows it, it shouldn’t even be discussed. I only said something about it disgusting me because it did.
I see why I come across that way but really I think no one can say what is right, they can only say what they feel is truth in the moment and believe it. there is no ultimate theory. love is the ultimate to me but its not all light, its dark and light.
You just don’t understand the quote, because you need compassion, almost always and your fear of not receiving it is what the quote is about. Instead of inspiring giving compassion, a preacher inspires the need for it. That’s disgusting, but that’s what the preacher’s job is. The quote addresses not preventing the need for compassion.
If you need people to be compassionate for every hurtful feeling you have, even if you’re going to change your mind about it every 12 minutes, you’ll be confusing others to wonder what they should be compassionate about next. Nothing constructive about a cycle… but being a person in such a cycle is a reason to need it in the first place.
Well, exactly. When you look outside the dichotomy..you can’t tell how people see anything. There is no wrong and right. All good and bad is mixed in together. Anything inherently good is bonded with something inherently bad. Regardless if its the case for you specifically, there are bad aspects about compassion. Same with commitment, same with love, etc.
for me love is all those things under one, the ultimate
You’re not really countering what I said, just confirming it.
If peace and compassion feel like one, that means you have a massive attachment right there.
Alex is right. Overly compassionate is overly compassionate. No matter what definition one has of compassion.
The world isn’t compassionate, most people aren’t very compassionate. If you’re in this world, you’re gonna get treated like shit, and faced by millions of things that want to kill or use you. It’s gonna hurt and it’s gonna suck at times.
Trying to set someone up for a perfect easy ride, even if this is done by making them tough and smart and ready for the hard stuff, will just make them suffer more. Even if yo the “do what you will, find out on your own” attitude that I know you support (and so do I) has a negative impact.
Things that feel good and seem good on the surface are usually only good in small doses, too much is devastating.
I don’t think it’s an attachment. I’ve known a lot of compassionate people. They all have different senses of justice so it looks different. I don’t see things that way.
I see your point, and I don’t disagree but I must contest that I know a lot of seemingly compassionate people that look the other way at real tragedies they see on a daily basis. At the end of the day, most people take care of themselves first- which, there isn’t anything wrong with that, per say, but that’s not being truly compassionate is it?
Perhaps we are all looking at what compassion exactly is in a different way. Are we talking about daily compassion or absolute compassion, or just compassion in a general sense? But even then, how are we all defining it?
One of the synonyms for compassion is pity. ‘Pity expresses a negative evaluation of the bad situation of others’ says psychology today, whatever that opinion is worth, but I tend to agree.
As you can see, if we agree on this, over compassion is definitely a bad thing..because you are conceptualizing everything in a negative way at the same time.
Also, spin that inwards too. What about self-compassion? That is heavily related to self-pity, isn’t it? I think when we look at compassion inward, and we can relate that to self-pity, everything becomes a little more clear, because is self-pity not a result of fear?
Self-pity is unrealistic. Everything unrealistic is unproductive. It’s as simple as that. You just can’t go anywhere in life believing in bad things about yourself that don’t exist.
Well… that’s being stuck. We’re made to be in motion, rest, be in motion again. I used to believe that the biggest suffering comes from wasted potential we already have, but don’t use. So, it makes no sense staying stuck unless we’re all just encouraging each other to feel self-pity. I don’t even know what writer’s block is any more, because I ignore 90% of all the conversations like this. You know how much time is being wasted spent on asking ourselves why we spend time on asking ourselves why we waste time asking ourselves why we waste time?
You’re right, but it’s not as if nothing was gained. For example, talking on this site, regardless of how important or unimportant the current topic may be, allows me a medium to articulate my thoughts and point of views more coherently. It helps me see and relate to other people, and I find the entire interaction between everyone and everything fascinating. This has crossed over in my day to day life in quite a positive way. I can’t say one caused the other or vice versa, but general communication between people is much more fluent for me (something I always had trouble with)
Another thing, is at any point you are set up to make a positive or negative change in someone’s life. To you maybe, this would be a pointless topic- you get it, and that’s kickass. However, not everyone does. Perhaps you would be the only person able to competently explain something in a way that particular people would understand it?
What if a person, for example, is all sorts of fucked up in their apartment, depressed as shit, or what have you, and they stumble upon this site for whatever reason, be it guidance, chance, or etc.
Random things we say like, “Compassion is seeing a fake smile and making it genuine.” as you said, can profoundly change a person’s existence, and we wouldn’t even know it. That, my friend, is time invested, not wasted.
Well, that’s who I speak to. The fucked up. If you’re depressed and alone in your apartment you’re going to need a large dose of self-expression. If someone stumbles upon an advice that gives temporary hope, that’s fine, but preachers with no real visual benefit of their actual lifestyles is not a good guidance. It’s not even a real example. The logical step after feeling compassion is acting upon it, not talking about it. The happiest people don’t see things that are being opposed. They don’t see duality in parts, they see exclusion of parts in one. It’s good to communicate useful experiences through experiencing them and actually living them, that’s why I think that way of compassion. Once you’ve discussed it already it’s normal to move on and do.
Still word games. I know it is a synonym in the dictionary but I don’t think they have anything to do with each other except that people confuse them.
Evaluating someone’s life as negative and acting like they are defeated and wishing they weren’t is pity and not compassionate.
It’s not about handouts either. To me it’s about seeing things that disgust you as a result of people’s woundedness and not an inherent shittiness, so as not to be despising and policing.
No… I said people confuse them. Compassion doesn’t require regret and wishful sorrow.
Okay well I don’t know latin. What I’m trying to describe might not be the root of the word compassion, but it’s what it means to me and what I think a lot of people who value it mean it to be. I don’t even believe in having discussions like these but it’s hard to resist when people get into “you’re wrong” or “you’re right”. I don’t think it is constructive to act like anyone’s misfortune is their fault because no one is an independent force. We all respond in relationship to the world and our idea of justice is formed that way. To me, compassion for something you perceive as negative is about forgiving whatever seems to be to blame and offering non-judgement.
Ehh, I have felt it from people and given it when it was clear there was no need to suffer. Not judging people for being afraid is compassionate.
Yeah this makes absolutely no sense to me. Firstly, if I didn’t have compassion for myself, well I wouldn’t have much apart from a pretty messy state of mind. And I’m not fearful of any of my mind states, I just prefer it this way. Sure it’s not really compassion if it’s toward myself, but it’s the same perspective of patience and want for change for the better, that I then find more natural to apply to others. I actually stumbled on compassion completely by accident whilst in search for my own sanity.
Also I couldn’t find anything on this Hela woman to verify whether or not it’s even remotely worth listening to.
Less & Less
The patterns of my duality are becoming smaller and smaller everyday. I use to have a greater sense of ‘this or that’ but the more I become aware of my inner thoughts the more I experience ‘this and that’. With that said I find my distinctions between right and wrong are becoming less and less and allowing life to unfold without conflict because this is what I choose. Now I am not saying if someone before me was being abused that I wouldn’t take action to stop this. Yet I find that in redefining my definitions of how I want to experience this life, the less and less I’ve seen and experienced in good and bad, right and wrong, this or that, etc… My judgement of situations has become less. Less judgement less stress, less condemnation of others beliefs and their choosing of their lives. I allow others and with that I allow myself to live my life on my terms not the definitions of others. Most people are living on the program of “this or that” and their judgement’s of me or my life are null and void. I observe what they say, ask myself “is this view one I would like to experience?” and then take it or leave it but without judgement upon what was stated as right or wrong.
Even when I think about this and noticing that I am seeing less and less of all of this I do ask myself, “Am I diluting or not allowing myself to see the pains before my eyes and if so who am I hurting other than myself with this perception?” The evidence from family, friends, co-workers have shown me that I am not diluting myself but enriching my life because their lives are being enriched with my actions as well from what they’ve shared with me personally. I have changed and continue to change into the person I want to be, a person with Heart!
I don’t have a plan to follow a leader for I am the leader of my own life and if I choose to follow another I will ask for that. To me I am standing next to others who find themselves to be the leaders of their lives as well, small in numbers but ever growing. A drop of water doesn’t make a big impact upon the shore but combined with the movement of other drops of water in the same direction they form a wave that can topple cities, clear mountains, and make a noticeable change.
Would an ocean still be an ocean if each drop was separate?
Duality to me is separation from self and I forever want to be connected to self.
We had two basic emotions, five senses, seven to twelve chakras, a mind and a whole galaxy full of stars, planets and multi-coloured dimensions. Also, food, drink, sex, drugs, passions, depressions, delusions, distortions and eons of pure ego. Not that we needed all that for the trip but once you get locked into a serious karma collection, the tendency is to push it as far as you can. The only thing that worried me was the ego. There is nothing in the multiverse more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a soul in the depths of an ego binge, and I knew we’d get into that rotten stuff pretty soon.
I guess like everything in life duality is for conceptualizing unsatisfying amount of imagination. Why limit yourself to opposites when you can observe variables?
There is no good and evil, not objectively. These are merely concepts we’ve created. We want to believe in them so that we can feel secure in our value judgments, but it’s all for naught. It doesn’t matter if every conscious being in the universe believes in good and evil, as there is no way to ascertain the existence of something so intangible(like trying to prove there’s an invisible and ethereal teacup floating beside you). We can put the labels of good and evil on whatever actions or people we wish, but that is only us foolishly trying to link said actions or people with a supposed objective scale that we can’t possibly be certain of. And to be sure, if every creature in existence was annihilated, would this conceptual scale even be relevant? It’s relevant to creatures in societies as a mechanism for stability, a crafted concept with pragmatic ends(with several exceptions), but not beyond that. It does not stand on its own. I subscribe to a mix of Error Theory and Expressivism regarding any notion of “good and evil.”
Practically, however, I do believe in constructive and destructive forces. These forces can exist physically and mentally, but are still relevant to that which is being acted upon. Killing innocents is destructive and has consequences. Charity is constructive and also has consequences. This is a descriptive view of the world, as opposed to the normative “good and evil.”
But, of course, I’m an amoral being. I make decisions based on what tugs my heart strings or ensures pleasure. I never do anything because I feel it is the right thing to do, nor do I avoid doing anything because I feel it is the wrong thing to do. I do it because it brings me pleasure or I avoid it because it might bring me suffering. There is no system or code of laws I bind myself with. My logic and my emotions are all I need to make sound decisions, or at least decisions that provide me with a lovelier existence.
Not everyone can live this way, as I’ve observed. Most people need rules, either imposed on them by a religion or other source of dogma, or instituted and managed by themselves. Once they have these rules, they invariably deceive themselves into believing that these rules are the infallible truth. Even when they abandon one code they trade it out for another that is just as opaque and stifling, just as infallible.
Forgive me if I seemed to have derailed. Thought-puking is a nasty reflex of mine.