[geeks] Ideas and beliefs

[Mike Hebel]

>>Ok in my last post I raised the subject of philosophical and religious
>>beliefs. And actually in my case political beliefs since mine tie
>>in with my
>>"philosophical" beliefs rather strongly.

I don't think anyone can say that their spiritual beliefs don't affect their
political ones. ;-)

>>My wife and I basically hold Deist ideas and/or beliefs (watch "Dogma" and
>>you'll understand that reference), though mine are a bit more diffuse than
>>some.

IIRC the same beliefs of the founding fathers.  (I haven't seen Dogma - for
some reason it doesn't seem to be as available in the Midwest.
*cough*political Catholicism*cough*  I'm sure it's at Blockbuster but I just
haven't got around to finding it.)

>>Basically I believe that there are three essential forces within the
>>universe/multiverse (physical and spiritual dimensions if you
>>will) creation,
>>entropy, and chaos. Creation takes chaos and gives it form,
>>entropy returns
>>that form to chaos. None are inherently god or evil, all are necessary.

Two forces for me - positive and negative.  Those take many forms including
good/evil, creation/entropy, light/dark, etc.  I agree with you that they
aren't inherently evil - just different directions of pull.

>>These are also pretty much the most basic principles of physics
>>by the way.

Ugh!  I hated physics in college.  I still have nightmares of the horrible
teacher that I found out later was the head of department.  She couldn't
teach her way out of a garbage can.  As for physics itself - I do feel from
what I know that it's great for giving a framework in which to help
understand what we _can_ see.  I just don't think it's going to prove out to
be a good framework for understanding stuff we _can't_ see or haven't
experienced yet.  Maybe it will grow into something that will but right now
I think the subject in general has stuck to far too many "fixed" ideas.  We
do only have a small sample of what the whole universe is like.

>>I believe that all spiritual entities are representations of one
>>both or all
>>of those forces in their many aspects, as are peoples personal spiritual
>>experiences. One defines for themselves (or has defined for them
>>in the case
>>of an "organized" religion) ones gods, goddesses, deities of
>>other verities
>>etc... and the belief structure that grows aronud tham. That belief is in
>>and of itself a creative act, giving it form, and with true belief, power,
>>at least over yourself, and with enough belief, power over others as well.

Hmmm...this ones a little sticky for me as I am a recovering Catholic now a
personal practitioner of Wicca/Paganism.  (Not a very heavy one mind you -
I'm still deconstructing the Catholic walls that were built up in me.
 Like - Magic is Bad! or Sex is Evil! or any of the other dogmatisms that
were pounded into my brain.)  As for spirits I believe that everyone has the
potential to be good or bad however a balance must be maintained.  That's
part of the reason things like the campaign against evil by the Catholics or
even the attempt to create order by the CO$ will never fully succeed.  The
more you remove evil/negative from the world the more _good_ you remove from
the world also.  Now can you create more good?  Yes but you also create more
evil at the same instance.  Now it may very well be that in our small corner
of this vast universe the balance matters very little and we could "Help the
world become good!" - at the same time though another world would probably
fall into complete corruption.

As for your last part - I agree and disagree.  Belief in something will most
certainly define how you react and how you keep yourself.  I do not believe
that belief so strongly as to convert others to you beliefs works.  We are
at our very core individuals.  Not one of us reacts the same in any given
situations.  We may appear to but the thoughts and the internals of each
person are _always_ different.  What happens in group beliefs is that the
person who is the core believer convinces the others on and individual or
group basis to see things his way.  While a strong belief in what he's
presenting helps the choice is ultimately left up to the individual.  No
matter what - the individual _always_ at some level chooses to be/not be
part of an existing experience.  It may not be at a conscious level but the
decision is still made.

>>That being said I do believe in good and evil, wrong and right,
>>and good and
>>bad in an absolute sense, but I have a very strict definition for it.

Ok.

>>To me, evil the causing of non-consensual harm for harms sake. Not
>>necessarily for pleasure, that's masochism, or for profit or a goal, those
>>are simply selfishness and callousness, but for the pur sake of
>>causing that
>>harm. Harm as an end unto itself.

Evil is tough to pin down.  "Harm" is flexible definition for the most part
however harming someone as and end in and of itself is evil.  Evil, to me,
is the push from the negative which is always in need of balance with the
positive position.  Think of it this way - two halves in balance.  Both the
positive and the negative are trying to expand in size.  The positive is
always trying to become more positive, the negative is always trying to
become more negative.  The balance never changes so both sides grow equally.
People who are doing things to "harm" are part of the negative side trying
to become more negative.

>>Pure "good" is the causing of "good" without regard for benefit to self of
>>any kind, including the emotional benefit of doing good.

Good, for me, is just the reverse of above.

>>Most everything else is relative. Some may consider something good while
>>another bad etc... and who's to say if they are right or wrong.

The balance remains.  Your view of the balance depends on where you are in
the balance.  The best treatment of positive/negative balance I've ever seen
is a set of fiction books by this guy:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0812505182/o/qid=986400663/sr=8-1/ref
=aps_sr_b_1_1/102-4540733-2948131
(you'll probably have to reconstruct that link)

If you read these series of stories you'll get a good perspective, IMHO, on
how the balance works.

>>Needless to say pure human evil and pure human good are very rare
>>things. By
>>my definition, Hitler wasnt evil, he was angry, selfish, and
>>insane. He was
>>a very very bad man, but not pure evil.

Some people are at either end of the spectrum and can not see the balance
for what it is.  Imagine taking a circle divided into halves - one dark one
light.  Now imagine it as one piece of round rubber.  Now take it into three
dimensions where the very upper end of the white side is being held up by a
long rod and the end of the dark side is being held down by an extremely
small but incredibly heavy ball-bearing.  The tip of the light side is so
far up it can only see the dark half of the circle.  The nadir of the dark
side is so far down it can see nothing but darkness.  Thus the pinnacle of
light strives towards eliminating the darkness because that's all it ever
sees and the darkness attempts to make itself larger because all it ever
sees is itself.  It's the poor sods in the middle that get shoved around.

>>That said, I have seen what I consider to be true evil in human beings. It
>>is a VERY unpleasant thing to see, it cannot be cured, it can
>>only be dealt
>>with.

While I agree with the unpleasantness of viewing evil I must remind you that
it depends on which side of the circle you stand on as to what view you
take.  As for dealing with evil - I believe someone even truly "evil" can
change.  It's hard to climb out of the hole but it can be done.

>>I have also seen pure good. In my experience it appears most frequently in
>>those who consider themselves "religious" or "spiritual" but I don't think
>>it is in any way tied to spirituality or religiousness.

Just depends where you stand in the whole.

>>I honestly believe that Mother Teresa helped all the people she did, just
>>for the sake of helping them, not because god told her to do it,
>>or because
>>she felt good about herself, or that she would get into heaven if she did.
>>I'm fairly certain that even if it made her miserable, guaranteed
>>she would
>>go to hell, and god told her personally she shouldnt do it, she would,
>>because she truly and honestly knew it was a thing that had to be done
>>simply to benefit mankind and the universe.

True, she was a high point on the light side.  She also was not too far up
to not be able to see the balance.  That's what made her great.

>>I have also seen many many things that do not fit with most current
>>religious or anti-religious beliefs, which i would be happy to
>>talk about if
>>people are interested, but that's yet another topic.

A lot of things in this universe but very few can be explained by us.  And,
yes, that's another topic. ;-)

>>My basic philosophy in all of this is simple, don't do what
>>people or things
>>tell you to do because they tell you to. Dont think what people or things
>>tell you to think because they tell you to. Figure out what works, and
>>what's truly right for you, and then do that thing as long as it
>>doesnt hurt
>>others that dont want to be hurt.

Mine is just as simple.  One of the things that attracted me to
Wicca/Paganism is the Threefold Law.  Anything you put out there comes back
to you threefold.  Thus every decision I make is "What will this bring back
to me?"  AFAIC everyone follows this law but very few understand that they
do.  I understand it but I'm just not sure what I've given out to get back
what I'm currently getting.  Of course some of this is complicated by my
belief in past lives which means AFAIC that I'm probably paying now for
something I did previously.

>>That last part is pretty important, because for some people, being hurt is
>>what works for them.

It all depends on what people want back out of their life.

>>Or as I put it somewhat more humorously (and plagaristically if any of you
>>are Dennis Miller fans) on my web site
>>
>>"I am neither a Democrat nor a Republican. I'm a constructive anarchist.
>>Basically that means I think, that all things being equal, responsible
>>adults should be able to do whatever the hell they want to do as long as
>>no-one's getting hurt who isn't paying extra"

A good quote!

Mike Hebel