Natural Opposites Vs. Unnatural Opposites? (Earth, Torah, God, Article)

[Master Vigil]

I am not sure how to put this. It was just a Though that came to me while I was trying to sleep. There was probably a scientist who figured out what I'm confused about, and if anyone knows. That would be lovely.

With natural opposites, one seems to be the dominant one. If you take something that is wet, and put it with something that is dry they both become wet. So wet is the dominant opposite. If you have lightness, you cannot introduce darkness to it to make it darker. You must take away light. So light is the dominant opposite. If you have something that is high, you can not introduce something that is low to make it lower, you have to take away height. If you have something that is cold, you put it with something hot, it will become warm. So this idea of dominant opposites exists somewhat in the natural world. But this doesn't happen in the unnatural world.

If you have something good, and you introduce evil. One will not necessarily dominate the other. For someone may still think it is good, while another still thinks it is evil. But if these opposites do not follow suit, does that mean they do not exist outside of our minds? And as such, are perhaps figments of our imagination? And if they do not exist, perhaps the idea of a "good god" does not exist either? What do you think. (please elaborate and correct me where I am wrong. Remember it is almost 4 am for me.)

[Master Vigil]

I asked this a loooong time ago, and recently thought about it again. It was probably stupid (which is why no one posted), but I wanted to ask again. Is this just a foolish thought?

[oracle]

Originally Posted by Master Vigil

I am not sure how to put this. It was just a Though that came to me while I was trying to sleep. There was probably a scientist who figured out what I'm confused about, and if anyone knows. That would be lovely.

With natural opposites, one seems to be the dominant one. If you take something that is wet, and put it with something that is dry they both become wet. So wet is the dominant opposite. If you have lightness, you cannot introduce darkness to it to make it darker. You must take away light. So light is the dominant opposite. If you have something that is high, you can not introduce something that is low to make it lower, you have to take away height. If you have something that is cold, you put it with something hot, it will become warm. So this idea of dominant opposites exists somewhat in the natural world. But this doesn't happen in the unnatural world.

If you have something good, and you introduce evil. One will not necessarily dominate the other. For someone may still think it is good, while another still thinks it is evil. But if these opposites do not follow suit, does that mean they do not exist outside of our minds? And as such, are perhaps figments of our imagination? And if they do not exist, perhaps the idea of a "good god" does not exist either? What do you think. (please elaborate and correct me where I am wrong. Remember it is almost 4 am for me.)

Technically darkness is not the opposite of light, it is the absence of it. The opposite would actually be the anti-particle of a photon. I could say the same with H2O. Just because you apply what is wet to what is dry doesn't mean that H20 is dominant over dirt. The opposites that you speak of, I would think corresponds more with Taoism, and the "dominant opposites" is just a subjective perception of the world. Theres a lot of complexity when it comes to good and evil. Overall I don't think good and evil are opposites, just that evil is the absence of something. The "good" is in reference to completion. When God created something [in the Torah] and when He saw it as good, He saw that it was complete [from what I understand from rabinnical comentary]. Evil is really absence: incompletion. God is wholeness, unity, and that is what perfection" or "good" is. Evil is the absence of that.
I'm sure you know my whole standpoint on evil.

[michel]

Originally Posted by Master Vigil

I am not sure how to put this. It was just a Though that came to me while I was trying to sleep. There was probably a scientist who figured out what I'm confused about, and if anyone knows. That would be lovely.

With natural opposites, one seems to be the dominant one. If you take something that is wet, and put it with something that is dry they both become wet. So wet is the dominant opposite. If you have lightness, you cannot introduce darkness to it to make it darker. You must take away light. So light is the dominant opposite. If you have something that is high, you can not introduce something that is low to make it lower, you have to take away height. If you have something that is cold, you put it with something hot, it will become warm. So this idea of dominant opposites exists somewhat in the natural world. But this doesn't happen in the unnatural world.

If you have something good, and you introduce evil. One will not necessarily dominate the other. For someone may still think it is good, while another still thinks it is evil. But if these opposites do not follow suit, does that mean they do not exist outside of our minds? And as such, are perhaps figments of our imagination? And if they do not exist, perhaps the idea of a "good god" does not exist either? What do you think. (please elaborate and correct me where I am wrong. Remember it is almost 4 am for me.)

I think one factor that you have not included in your 'theory' is that of frames of reference - I was thinking, particularly, of your example of high and low.
Another exa,ple of the 'frames of reference' effect is that you could not apply that theory to weight, and even if you did, your tennet would change if you were on Earth, on the Moon, or in space. (Mathematically to be correct, I should have used mass instead of weight).

Otherwise, I agree that the point made by oracle - the one about darkness being the absence of it. I disagree with you Oracle, in that evil is an absence of good; evil is practiced with 'Malice Aforethought', whilst Good can be both well intentioned, or done with no preconception of the eventual classification of 'good'.

[Master Vigil]

Yeah, it was just a wierd thought. Thanks guys. I see it holds almost no weight at all.

[Bright-ness' Shadow]

Originally Posted by Master Vigil

Yeah, it was just a wierd thought. Thanks guys. I see it holds almost no weight at all.

And what we added was a more weighty argument

[Master Vigil]

HAHA!! Exactly.

[oracle]

Originally Posted by michel

I think one factor that you have not included in your 'theory' is that of frames of reference - I was thinking, particularly, of your example of high and low.
Another exa,ple of the 'frames of reference' effect is that you could not apply that theory to weight, and even if you did, your tennet would change if you were on Earth, on the Moon, or in space. (Mathematically to be correct, I should have used mass instead of weight).

Otherwise, I agree that the point made by oracle - the one about darkness being the absence of it. I disagree with you Oracle, in that evil is an absence of good; evil is practiced with 'Malice Aforethought', whilst Good can be both well intentioned, or done with no preconception of the eventual classification of 'good'.

Ignorance is definitely an absence of knowledge. Being only self-aware, and not aware of others is lack of awareness. My ideal of good is not necassarily defined by morals since I believe that reality is amoral. I was implying that evil is an absence of something, in this case I was actually wanting to point out ignorance as an example, lack of experience and understanding which leads to fallacies. Now malicious intent is not only the absence of understanding, but an absence of unity and love. I don't consider it an opposite, because evil from what I believe, does not really exists, only that it is temporary. Being ignorant and making mistakes is necassary and complementary of love, because you have to learn what love is, you have to experience it painfully by making mistakes.

Opposite, is a dividing and discriminative word, if perhaps you see the point that I'm trying to make by saying that. So evil to me, is not an opposite, and neither is someone that I would consider evil opposite from me. I simply see that they have an absence of something, and that is the absence of understanding me and caring about my needs. Darkness is the absence of light, and I'm sure that is a sort of analogy that the Torah uses for evil being the absence of good. Hence you have what is called Shaoh in Judaism, which is destruction, and that is also explained as the very absence of God.

[angellous_evangellous]

Yeah, I must say also that the wet/dry thing only works in certain qualities. Some things are so dry that water will simply evaporate immedeately.

You have a good point in recognizing that there are few true opposites: opposite in quality and quantity. That is why in most opposites, on thing is uaually dominant: they are not truly equal opposites. The best example of truly equal opposites would be opposite poles of equally powerful magnents or ellectric currents, but concluding anything on dominance in opposites would have to presuppose equity, so you aren't going to go far....