we have somehow the ability to compare different phenomena and we label it change. — leo

The ability to compare between two different phenomena.

Before we can compare the two different phenomena, we must perceive them. To perceive, what's perceived must travel some distance between the object that produces it and the object that perceives it; that is, (1) the signal which will be an object of perception, when emanates from its source, although it has not been perceived, it is able to undergo displacement; and (2) before perception is able to detect change, a signal different from the one before must reach the object that perceives it; that is, there is a period which intervals do not necessarily need to be equal. Thus, the space between the object that produces the signal and the one that perceives it has a non-uniform distribution of the signal, and this distribution, independent of either object, varies with time. This variation of the signal distribution in space, time, and periodicity is what I call change which, again, is independent of the object that perceives it (off course I am giving it a name, but its existence does not depende on me naming it). The terms creation and destruction, on the other hand, are names given to the change in the spatial and temporal distributions of signals emanating from a given object by the object (in this case humans) that perceive them. Change will exist independently of me naming it or not, whereas destruction and creation (good and evil, moral and immoral, beautiful and ugly) are relative to human perception; they are subjective terms (I would say they are terms that depend on social interaction).

Sorry if I offended you, but all such arguments seem trivial, so why present them? Of course creativity is not always a good thing, nor destruction inherently bad. — jgill

Thanks for the apology. Yet as you noted, destruction has a negative connotation, and it isn’t trivial to show that this negative connotation is unwarranted. Many people would say, sure there are some examples where destruction is good, but most of the time it’s bad, while most of the time a creation is good. Which is wrong, as my argument shows, any creation is a destruction so a creation can’t be good more often than a destruction.

This civilization is focused a lot on what it creates and very little on what it destroys, because it doesn’t have in mind that anytime something is created there is also something that is destroyed. And because of the widespread misconception of creation being mostly good and destruction being mostly bad, this civilization cares very little what it destroys in order to create.

They say it’s progress, supposedly progress is good, as long as we create it’s good. And meanwhile plenty of good things are destroyed and plenty of bad things are created in their place.

So no, sorry, it isn’t trivial at all to talk about that, about the misguided connotations associated with creation and destruction.

Parallel to it: preservation and suppression are the same thing, stasis, non-change.

To preserve is to prevent destruction. To suppress is to prevent creation. — Pfhorrest

But since both creation and destruction are a change, preservation and suppression prevent both creation and destruction.

To preserve an object is to prevent the creation of something that could be built from it. To suppress an idea is to prevent the destruction of a previous mindset.

- To preserve something good is to suppress something bad.

- To suppress something good is to preserve something bad.

- To create something good is to destroy something bad.

- To destroy something good is to create something bad. — Pfhorrest

Actually I wouldn’t make these associations.

To preserve something is to suppress something else. If what is preserved is good, it is possible that what is suppressed might also be good.

What we can say is that if the thing that is preserved is better than the other thing that is suppressed, then it is good to preserve it.

Similarly, one can create something good while destroying something good. As to whether the act itself is good, both have to be taken into account and compared, and maybe what was destroyed was better than what was created in its place.

Destruction is another word for death and pretty much everyone is deathly afraid of death which means destruction = bad. Hey I feel ya, your argument has some sense to it. But in the end the fear of death will mean most will see destruction as bad. In a similar vein to your original premise, why do we use the words good and bad? Some people's bad is good to other people and vice versa. We are simple beings who like babies and fear death. Thus creation = good, destruction = bad. But yes if we all were more wise then maybe we would see these aspects as different sides of the same coin. The ancient yin yang view of the world and a bunch of other ancient philosophies about the universe look at destruction in a much less negative way so there's that...

I might be late here. However, I find it clear that good is what leads to the greatest happiness for the self, and evil is what leads to the greatest suffering for the self. This may seem to be a naive argument or a common sense view (at least in my own view). The true problem or question is what leads to happiness and what leads to suffering, what kind of change may lead to happiness and what kind of change may lead to suffering.

I would also want to comment on the idea that change is dependent on consciousness. While that idea is probable, I don't see evidence which justifies that idea as certain truth. I see it as equally likely for change to be dependent on consciousness or consciousness to be dependent on change. I do agree that in the absence of consciousness, the meaning of change is reduced, as ontologically everything has the same value of existence. However there are 2 possibilities of change, either change happens as the changing of labels which affects consciousness, or the motion of consciousness is change itself, in which case there will truly be no change, not even a change of labels, in the absence of consciousness.

Finally, it is absolutely true that good and bad, morality, and the whole of ethics is dependent on consciousness, it is purely a phenomenon of consciousness. Without consciousness, good and bad may "exist", but they are mere labels which are in relation to consciousness and without consciousness to relate to, these labels have no meaning and might as well do not exist.

When we destroy something, anything, we create a mess. We can clean up the mess and create something with it. I think this is just a very ancient way of looking at recycling!

Brahma the creator & Shiva the destroyer work in tandem to quite literally recycle not just your garbage but the whole f**kin' universe! Vishnu, the preserver, just prolongs the inevitable.

:death: :flower:

Everything we do, especially just living, net increases the entropy of the universe; fundamentally, we (biomes, civilizations, star systems) are mere maggots surfing the necrotic flow (dao) of cosmic decomposition. — Memo from King Ozymandias

Everything we do, especially just living, net increases the entropy of the universe; fundamentally, we (biomes, civilizations, star systems) are mere maggots surfing the necrotic flow (dao) of cosmic decomposition. — Memo from King Ozymandias

Maggots! :grin: I never knew I was a maggot! :up: