Philosophy Now Forum

Yes are local things evil. So that if we are proud of or possess local things we are localised by them. And become evil. Or is there some middle ground here.

Yes, most likely local things possess us, so that they are localized by us.

And then is it our localised consciousness that localizes those local things.

jackles wrote:And then is it our localised consciousness that localizes those local things.

Even if, I don't see anything evil in this.

David you say you dont see evil in eny of this. Which means you do see evil but just not in eny this. A thief thieves because of his attachment to the local material plane for one reason or another is that evil.

I don't know what you mean, exactly. I am trying to say I don't see evil in things, just in humans' actions.

Yes thats what the question was about its not the locality thats evil. Its the attachment to locality thats evil by the consciouness of the observer. It attachment to the locality makes the locality seem real and above god which is nonlocality. Hitler convinced some observers that they where local and called germans and that they as germans where superior to other observers. See what I mean about location as being evil. The jews could be seen in the same light they insist they are local in identity.karma is caused by local identity.wars are always between different local identitys. Its the local identity that is evil.

jackles wrote:Yes thats what the question was about its not the locality thats evil. Its the attachment to locality thats evil by the consciouness of the observer. It attachment to the locality makes the locality seem real and above god which is nonlocality. Hitler convinced some observers that they where local and called germans and that they as germans where superior to other observers. See what I mean about location as being evil. The jews could be seen in the same light they insist they are local in identity.karma is caused by local identity.wars are always between different local identitys. Its the local identity that is evil.

If attachment to "local" affairs is "evil", then it would seem attachment to or allowing oneself to be regulated by "non-local" affairs can be, too. Intellectual / broad objects (like a formal plan for justice) might seem ideal, eternal, and smooth (like fields). Compared to the interactive modifications and rough fluctuations of narrow objects which can serve multiple masters (that is, variably belonging to more than one classification and governing system, resultingly becoming unpredictable or vulnerable to change and chance). The specific acts / instances falling out of Nazism was the latter ideology put to practice. Though that system or conceptual model itself was abstract, its general principles motivated concrete events to be performed which have been designated evil (in the everyday sense, at least). So it seems difficult to exonerate some broad objects from responsibility for evil, simply because their potency is either distributed over / through a region of space and time (lacks definite location) or the internal structure of their scheme is immune to the mutability of particulars (bodies like us) which are instantiated by spatiotemporal location and process. The former intellectual / broad characteristic classically treated as if it is some kind of perfection (good / true / real) and the latter phenomenal / narrow characteristic treated as if imperfect (bad / false / illusion).

Its the selfishness of an action or nonaction that is evil because its attached to gain in the event. Unselfishness or self sacrifice is nonlocal and heaven. Where as those that live in self interest and ego go to hell if they die in that condition regards consciousness. When the die they will be being selfish completly alone in dark eternity. Where as the humble and meek and unselfish will be in what they have sown which is love.

jackles wrote:Its the selfishness of an action or nonaction that is evil because its attached to gain in the event. Unselfishness or self sacrifice is nonlocal and heaven. Where as those that live in self interest and ego go to hell if they die in that condition regards consciousness. When the die they will be being selfish completly alone in dark eternity. Where as the humble and meek and unselfish will be in what they have sown which is love.

I can see why you would think that but it's not true. There is no such thing as infinite love. Upon death you would experience finite love and the god being would due to the laws of causality feel a need to create a need to fill the void with rubbish. God is unintelligient, both roads lead to the same path. Hate and love are transitory. When reading a book one feels hate but such hate can be discarded. Such is a life of hateful actions and deeds. Hate can be discarded at any moment. Life is like reading a book. Hate is a sour form of love. Fear is the opposite of love. Feelings are causal, feelings cause actions feelings are caused feelings are transient. Time is only the sum of complexity. Reality is transitory. The moment is defined by change. Experience is change. Without change there is no time nor experience.

Yes I see your point entirely trixie me old china. But the love that your feelin aint what im talkin here. As you say that is finite. But its the realisation that love is nothing that is eternal. In other words there aint no such thing as nothing cos it nothing is love. And that is bliss.

jackles wrote:Yes I see your point entirely trixie me old china. But the love that your feelin aint what im talkin here. As you say that is finite. But its the realisation that love is nothing that is eternal. In other words there aint no such thing as nothing cos it nothing is love. And that is bliss.

my earlier point is that all the nu age hoodoos and religious texts indicate god gets tired of nothingness. the english language is inadequate...it is like a force of nature, god's will to something, it is not a choice, but a creative drive, the drive to something you will not have the eternal nothingess with this will to something still in the picture

Yeah I guess you are right or that is the truth.

I think it is not the local thing that is evil. It is the vices that human have which is evil. Since attachment to local things is resulted in greediness and enviousness.

Yes and virtue is the exact opposite of attachment to local posessions . Virtue is nonlocality. And love of nonlocality is a virtue love of and attchment of local things is vice.