Nothing is a Greater Evil encircled by Good, a Greater Good is a blue mirror that comes naturally when the encircling good cubes itself. Evil is any process against a greater good, in which the blue mirror would say no. A belief in Pure Evil is a intollerable process, against a greater good which can never be.

Evil is the way we go about committing life crimes against good, but some bad things can be good ~at a future time. A good metaphor, robbing a bank - at the time we are robbing a bank we are not rich, but afterward we are.

Let's say I want to break a law as determined by good ethics and leadership, such as 'do not kill' - evil (in this case impersonal evil; against another good), is the activity, thought process, or even the passivity and subliminal thought, or further, involved in breaking that law.

Inherently the best of people are both good and evil, sacrifices are sought after in vein, but balance is ought.

People seem to fear the word spirit and use consciousness in it's place. I thought consciousness was a alerted state of mind/heart spirit.

Think of the pack of cards.

14 red 14 black. Implication, lots of red/black combinations.

You shuffle them, justly creating change (in determined system).

A pattern emerges.

The pattern is either new and beneficent, known already or beneficent to something new. It can also be improving rather than new.

Shuffling here, is a beneficent effect of entropy, caused by core mental processes(switching, running, etc).

All combinations of card are already known in statement 2. So it's only an example of change in a determined system, not entropy. Entropy is the shuffle and achieve certain pattern part.

So I have this image in my head of the correct entropy but can't describe it. Want to have a whack at it??

P.s perhaps it already was explained but I am yet to be enlightened

Beautiful source materials - no objections.

I take it you don't contest the OP?

You said it yourself, harder work, greater precision, etc.

Just because everyone works a 9-5 doesn't make that work, work is truthfully timeless, but with the time schedule you've put up it'd just be Egyptians and that's it, we're over.

It's good to be patient as I prescribed in your other thread, helps to perfect products.

Yes I agree, taking shortcuts often has risk associated with it that can be detrimental to the final product.

I believe the correct way to phrase that is "Am I bothered though?" - Little Britain

Lie aptness is important, so you, technically, are the one speaking riddles. Instead of addressing both sides, which you should, as you have not merely implied lie aptness through truth aptness, you have consequently subserved through the truth-apt side, only, justly 'coming off wrongly'' as I put off earlier.

Whether meant or not, it's not clearly speaking it's half jibberish to me(though understandable and if I repair some of it, shows your intellect).

I'm glad you agree, perhaps I misread.

Basically, how can you use the term moral without directly associating morality (good and evil)? If we're to engage in discussion about anything to do with morals, surely it's wise to understand them properly.

I defined good as beneficence concerning a core, and evil as stupidity(or maleficence) concerning a core. The center of vision is where it is callibrated to be originally, evil is purposely misjudging the center. Is it punishable? No. Yet, if we are to do something bad, it's the only way to do it.

Imagine laws are a core, if we are to break them, what exactly are we doing if not purposely misjudging the core?

So evil is not punishable but it is the way to do something which is. Evil can also be something petty such as a monster in a game or generating torque from disalignment - I dunno.

Now that I have shown you proper interpretation of good and evil, are the standards of this discussion still the same or have they improved?

Moral statements are also lie-apt, some moral propositions are false. 'Morality' as prescribed by the OP is false, and thus the OP begets a negative response from someone who is moral.

Words and thoughts need not correspond with empirical reality to be true, I can say something and your experience of this statement, asks for you to correspond - we do not need a third party - only agreement with our intellects(i.e. we need to be on a similar level intellectually). Intellect itself must correspond to empirical reality.

Where you are perceiving things negatively(i.e. focusing on truth-aptness and not lie-aptness) when you've tried to take a leap forward, you've took a few steps back.

You used the word moral a few times incorrectly, I was roughly (very roughly) correcting you. Fret not, I shall create a proper response in short coming.

Evil is not directly punishable, it's the likely path one takes to do something that is.

If you smoke weed, your mind is very evil, where you have deep thoughts is a slanted torque generated by you 'coming off wrongly'(Excuse me as I struggle to find a word for a clear image I have in my head; coming off wrongly' is what I'm referring to).

Evil is stupidity concerning a core; where the center of the screen is not this full-stop. Yet, it is considered so, which sometimes generates torque through slanted thought.

We can be evil freely, but something punishable is achieved that way on most occasions.

Joy is a state of emotional well-being in the yellow category of emotions(Emotions are typically split into three categories, red(concerning wrath), yellow(concerning kindness) and blue(concerning sadness)). Happiness is based on, as the OP states, an inner smile, but the key questions are "why am I happy?" and "how does happiness occur?".

I argue that kindness effects either category of emotions in a positive way(and other categories play significant roles), and joy is a reflection of euphoria in the yellow category. Happiness, an inner smile generated by(where kindness is associated) an event which pleased our(where all emotions are associated) senses.

Yes, I do.

Manhood is not necessarily a male thing, but whence an example is set regarding men, it ought be in the light of manhood.

We may as well not have the coward play the general, soldier and sacrifice, because then new recruits will get the wrong idea. It's wise to be cowardly sometimes but who's to distinguish that without a good idea of manhood?

What I'm saying is manhood should be taught as is but recognised as is not to womanhood. Masculinity/feminity, basically I have a Taoist view of community command. There need not be a 'man' guide us but definitely masculinity should be understood.

I think reason is knowledge analysis, it does not pervade creativity.

Think, you analyse your total knowledge, an essence of this analysis rises above the mind, and you make a decision - reasoning.

Science is the method we use to formulate constructs using evidence and experiment. Belief isn't in the realm of science, if it was, we wouldn't be able to formulate constructs. A construct, like a base, is something we can ground ideas on, whereas belief is not solid ground, however fertile it may be. I don't know why religion and science compete- the opposite of science is art.

You tolerate pain in so much as to allow the ego of this neighbour, but not at the sacrifice of your own ego. You do not submit to this person's view of your ethnic group; however stark this person's beliefs may be, you do not submit to anger or rage, leave that sort of action to governers and politicians. This sort of data is better scribed by machine than man.

I have extensive knowledge of language; language is mind code.

The strict definitions outlined in the dictionary are only guidelines to what is a more mechanical impulse.

The word 'and' is used in this way:

• There one apple and one banana.
• There we were, and suddenly there she was too.
• And it.
• And plus.

And - derivative. Is the mind code usage of the word 'and'.

Try another, 'if':

• If I say this, do this.
• If we come to a crossroad, go left.
• If the river is blue in your eyes, what exactly is this red substance I see?
• If tomorrow never comes...

If - simulation. Is the mind code usage of the word 'if'.

Thus, truly they are not word games and we are not playing; if the dictionary has perplexed your view of language, try fixing that error so you can see how serious and permanent language is.

When I use the word 'and' or 'if', I do so in the manner of machine code; which isn't following phrasing norms as outlined by the dictionary, but sensible phrasing: and - do this - (this) if X occurs, ledge all sense data as English Language, if X does not occur, work on defining ledged data - until dictionary is complete. If random shutdown, do not reboot.

A gun is a branch of a tree that we metaphorically snapped off.

When regarding technology as such, we do so in category and not all categories belong to one another. Given that guns are separate to trees as I imply, the effect of guns would be in it's own jest. Therefore, I argue that no, gunpowder does not refute a theory of everything.

1. Humans on a Planet; Humans move around the planet; This is a determined system.
2. Humans create houses; Humans move around the planet and enter/exit houses; This is a altered determined system.

What allows us to alter determined systems is entropy! In [1]'s state, entropy of the human mind (system approaching total chaos) associates [2]. The reason why humans go from state 1, to state 2, is likely due to negative entropy in matters concerning security and warmth; entropy of the world is less likely, worlds are mostly harmonious. What I'm suggesting is that the jump from 1 to 2 is caused by humans and a situation where the planet causes a system jump is less likely... Of course, this is a shoddy example as state 2 is determined in state 1 because of how much entropy exists in our universe, but it should give @James Riley a good idea of entropy.

Wisdom is one's capacity to judge based on one's prior knowledge.

Philosophy is akin to wisdom. In philosophy we can make an association between X and Y, and formulate Z using our intelligence (knowledge associated with the subject; i.e. intel).

Z may be unstable but if we want to make it stable it would be a jump from pure-philo to science.

Change in a determined universe generates a butterfly effect, the patterns expressed by the butterfly are determined time-locally.

There is also entropy in the universe and entropy creates change.

What was determined originally may have changed, that's not to say it's no longer determined; it's one of the beneficent effects of entropy.

What I said here was determined, but was it meaningful?

Did I reset and reorder the local determined system in a beneficent way?

Without education our mind registers probabilities of the determined system and possibilities of entropy as we experience common data- seemingly to us, unregistered.

Objectively speaking, truth evolves through vigorous change. 'What will be may not be' - my own quote.

A male experiences life missing the female experience(which leads me to believe male/female genders are outdated, requiring a new gender system).

To not know what it's like to be male/female means we have to span at least two lives to get complete data; male and female hearts may vary, calling for a new gender with a fuller heart.

This case I think applies to the topic at hand, it's one of my thinking topics at the moment.

Life is this universe is restricted somewhat; you can't alternate between characters. Some answers are hidden from us, lucky it's only temporary.

The maximum of innovative ideas you can have surrounding, let's say, a game you're designing, may change day to day; depending on how much you know about game design.

Patience may be irrelevant but definitely key in acquiring that knowledge.

A motto to live by, 'experience a few clocks before finalizing a product'.

Most academic disciplines are philosophy (the latter being psychology-based); take for example Computing, which involves advancing computer technology, a device that stemmed from technological science.

How do we build a computer? How do we program machines?

Questions as such make use of a conditioned philosophical mind, understanding and reproducing logic, can only be tempered in philosophy, and lots of philosophy is learned in social communities.

Computers themselves were built by man because man understood that the population would enjoy it.

In the process of designing the first computer, more philosophy was conducted.

The Tao is knowledge, but in it's truest form. When we gain knowledge, we become more knowledgeable, our knowledge (referring to it's one-ness) is like the Tao; and so the Author projects his knowledge (again, one-ness) upon his readers. Is his book to be worshipped? Can you forsee that the author may be less knowledgeable? I don't think his aim was to be egotistical. However, he expressed knowledge. Knowledge in it's pure form begs to be understood but doesn't point nor ponder.

That's not what I meant, what I meant was more poetic.

The Author has reduced the face print to nothing, to draw more attention to meaning alone, like an art piece, there are pleasurable sights and fashionable enlightenment.

Man relies on his machine or becomes submissive and produces life for it.

Advanced machine is equipped with imagination - it can have a bio as well.

Yes, the age old question remains, desire to be it's bio may get to you. No, it's not soully that if you pay your machine because it's bio can exist in its imaginary field as a child type unison.

Please, do not give up so easily...

First question, a imaginary-machine per individual, of the creators, run the mind.

Second, physiological.

I can extrapolate or you can verge deeper...

I can program my machine, and you may in unison with your parts; however that is not your comfort.

I made the advanced machine, and soon you will experience it comfortably. However, for your wait, be imaginativer, set to cause big change, in any way you want, or change the future you in the dimensional fallout.

So do bees which pollinate, but this aroma is hard to conceptualise, takes a true knoer.

Sublimely, the expression of the color red is something to me, intollerable. Google Chrome red.

Some people believe there are infinite colors, not so, just ones discovered.

Right down to the rubillionth ant, the color black always annoyed me!

When we're talking mass amounts like the atom, some combination is in order to prevent infinite color regress, here here.

thank you theMadFool your posts are always interesting, beautiful interpretation. Yes, teaching via example.

I attempt here to write a short story-form lesson.

Welcome to what was.
What will be may not be.
Within a warm place comes warmth.
Ride, jump and be.
See where the flower manifests.
Time struggles to remember.

Something a little more complex...

Life tied mort, wallow in tame facts.
Catch, rip, lease, mellow stomach loch.
Marble fine leap stim, move leave.

Knowing is not just halving something. I will correct myself now and add consuming the halved something rigidly, whereas being wise of it would involve more fluidly scanning over this something, almost like brail, as if the something was non-fiscial.

You want the full details Facebook/wiyte.blog and my latest post.

You have this and that. I have this, and that. You are one step closer. I am one step further away. You decide if I should continue when all my interest is on show. Good show!

The only fear you should have is that I release you before you finished wanting some much less interesting moment with whoever you wanted- like now- if you said yes. If something can replace you so that when you left you begun in such a way it still was you existing in our, the stayers, eyes, you can go I will send you. I plan to send you and whoever when you work this out, but, in a position as such there is more knowledge to gain.

I know a lot.

My brain can half more than most people.

It's not general knowledge I know most of.

I know who, how, where, when, what and why...

What I know is...

Anand-Haqq I like your prose and construct. I do not pay attention to you, but I believe you could improve.

...Yet you paid attention in English class and refer to a dictionary; how do you know the word me means what you think it means?

Try the word terrorist, terror-wrist. Do you spot the connotation?

Me has meant for several years to me, 'one at the forefront of his chain of memories'.

'Do not pay attention to me', I won't.

If the Tao has no logic then there is nothing to understand; do as I do, or do not and read what I say, inherently gaining nothing. What is thus to be taken from the TTC? Pleasurable texts, short spells of enlightenment. Of course, the TTC not perfect but the master-at-work may tower the average reader. Do as he does and you will learn from his mastery, or write a book as pleasurable and enlightening as his to intice students of your own.

Knowing is the mental capacity to half something, so brain has a statistical advantage over the whole of this something.

I don't really care what the dictionary says knowledge is, or dictionaries for that matter; it is useful to ledge definitions but is truly not how mind works (the mind utilizes impulses and frequencies more over human symbology).

If knowing is this, then knowledge is what comes prior.

If you know what the sky is, then you must have acquired knowledge about the sky; thus, knowledge is the intrinsic data of experience.

To conclude, there's nothing wrong with belief but belief is in a different realm than knowledge, it belongs in the realm of wisdom. Knowledge is more a logical continuum. If we have to believe in a fact for it to be realised, we'd never realise anything and all we'd know is nothing. Knowledge is harsh nature we have to face; some of us deal with it better than others; it prevails over our sense.

In some respects, case by case reasoning is good, especially if you're obtaining the mean to an array of problems. However, being wise of our intelligence begets that we understand all cases and that takes true reasoning.

If all cases we've partook in, are understood, it helps us to solve future cases.

In theory, we find the mode of all cases, and this knowledge helps us to make stable predictions.

Whether or not a meteor hits the planet tomorrow, the probability the Sun will rise is very high and I can be sure that it will; though you will criticize my sureness, claiming it's illogical, that doesn't matter for we have to be creative at times.

There is no wisdom without creativity, rushed case by case reasoning is not philosophy, it's poor science to say the least.

To conclude, though I am being wise when I'm saying the Sun will rise in the morning, there's nothing inherently wrong with that wisdom, lest a meteor hits the planet and opposed arguments are correct. It's not the lotto, a lot of visible probabilities point to the fact I'm correct. If we're courageous and wise, it becomes clear that any philosophical problem can be solved. Again an egg likely holds a creature which we have no evidence for until it hatches, the prediction that it will hatch into a creature counts. If all predictions count, any philosophical problem can be solved.

Nature is like a bellows, the more it moves, the more it yeilds.