No, technically not, but I tie it in with Buddha, even if people say it's wrong. Buddha did say that life was full of suffering, and the key to inner happiness was to look around it; find new things. I guess that's what I'm trying to say.
And sorry if I changed the Buddha's words. I either worded it incorrectly, or veiw him differently.
Is it that by its indefiniteness it shadows forth the heartless voids and immensities of the universe, and thus stabs us from behind with the thought of annihilation, when beholding the white depths of the milky way?
In a sense, and now that I think of it, your right. I'd like to change what I said about the bad and the good. What I guess I ment was that, without the bad, we wouldn't be able to be as happy as we are. Think about it: if everything was good, it would just be normal..but if you add the aspect of negativity, hypothetically, you'd be able to feel more happy, when you look in perspective.
I'm not sure, but I think that I fundamentally disagree with the perspective of the original poster. I tend to think that there are two levels; the first being the level of the material conditions of our existence, and the second being the level of our emotional/psychological reactions to our material conditions of existence. The second level is stable, meaning that it will always be there. Humans will always have good/bad valuations to bestow on their environments. The first level, however, is changeable.
In this way, we can view an issue like, say, global warming and climate change as belonging to these two levels. Materially, we are fairly sure that human intervention is needed to prevent the physical environment from deteriorating. Accomplishing this (farfetched or impossible as it may be) would not eradicate the existence of good/bad valuation in the human psyche. Thus, accomplishing what seems like an idealistic (or "good") task will only make the object that we bestowed a "bad" judgment on disappear (stopping impending doom of global climate change), not the function of assigning "bad" judgments.
So lack of willingness to change based on the idea that the "bad" needs to balance out the "good" is a bit silly. Nothing material is "essentially" good or bad, so doing away with some aspect of our material reality that we feel is "bad" will not make badness as some sort of entity go away, throwing the universe into a kind of yin/yang imbalance or anything like that, but will instead force us to readjust what we perceive as good or bad. There will always be a good and bad, or good and evil as long as the human brain is capable of making value judgments.
Anyway, I'm tired and not quite sure that I made any sense just now. Probably not...
This is a really great conversation. I'd like to read it more thoroughly later.
Originally Posted by OneWithSoul
I am in the world, but not of it.
Sounds decidedly familiar ...
Originally Posted by OneWithSoul
I also think that greed, selfishness, and anger help us to learn, and to actually progress in the grand scheme of things. Nazi Germany was one particular event, but look how it's benefited? Any as radical as that, today, wouldn't and couldn't possibly exist, even though some of it is happening. I'm also not saying that I don't care about people, but all I'm saying is that, a few black strokes here and there contribute to the whole painting. When it comes to other individuals, ones you love, It does matter..but when you set that aside, look at the entire world, and look at broad things that are occuring, and not specific things, that they are not necessarily as bad as we think.
I take you to mean that even while we can appreciate the necessary impermanence of all finite existence, and thus detach ourselves from this or that form, which now comes into being and now passes away, that we yet, as finite beings, have wills which work among the finite, helping to prolong lives, ease suffering, create works of art, and so on, which is also, at the same time, that one universal will which wills for its one Self, for love, for life, for creation.
Perhaps there is a necessity to human history which is exactly that structure of the coming into self-knowledge of consciousness. I'm not the first one to say it, but it seems compelling. The ability to reflect on the past and grow beyond it is a matter of having learned from what wasn't clear before. Self-development appears to be a process of learning from mistakes which could not have been known to be as much had they never been given expression. But if the knowledge we come to of ourselves is in time in virtue of the events of history which have provided it, then perhaps we can appreciate that even the awareness we have now of ourselves could not be possible without an awareness of errors, or black strokes, as you say.
This is kind of experimental for me. Thanks for letting me try it out.