[INFP] Good and Evil, versus Ethics

[greenfairy]

- - - Updated - - -

Good and Evil suggests two opposing forces, neither necessary any better than the other but simply opposites which interreact with one another - a battle fought on the spiritual level.

Ethics suggests certain ways of being would be preferrable over others. Less overarching cosmic forces, more that some ways are more reality aligning than others.

Generally agreed.



So I guess we can conclude from this thread that INFP's have no interest in discussing the subject.

Bravo.

 

[PeaceBaby]

So I guess we can conclude from this thread that INFP's have no interest in discussing the subject.

I've come back to this thread a few times and find that there's something about the way the subject is being discussed that renders me kind of speechless on it. It feels off. Sorry about that, if something comes to mind I will share.

 

[greenfairy]

I've come back to this thread a few times and find that there's something about the way the subject is being discussed that renders me kind of speechless on it. It feels off. Sorry about that, if something comes to mind I will share.

Please feel free to elaborate and/or modify it to a style that suits you!

 

[Poeta]

Ethics, "Good and Evil" is a false dichotomy. Acts are not pure, in any sense, but subjectively assigned to "good", "bad", "permissible", etc. However, as far as our perceptions of good and evil go, I do believe that they are relative. We compare good acts to perceived evil ones, and vice versa, we adopt a framework by which we make such comparisons. This framework differs from person to person, it is subjective. So yes, of course an atheist, pantheist or polytheist can "do" good, they do good by their own metric.

My question: Why do you say this is a false dichotomy? At first, I believed you were making the point that every act yields pairs of opposites, good and evil. Is this on the right track?

My answer original query: To define a difference between the two, one may observe the terms 'good' and 'evil' most commonly associated with mysticism; whereas 'ethics' is the philosophical study of how man may best get along with other men in highly organized and complicated social interrelationships - such a thing is society.

 

[Poeta]

Btw, since posting my first response, I've had time to read all of these posts. Allow me to state, as a supposed INFP, that if by going under that designation, I have to also endorse this non-such about absolute good and evil, I shall hereby disinherit said designation for something more sensible. Like a Bigbird outfit, for instance.

 

[greenfairy]

My question: Why do you say this is a false dichotomy? At first, I believed you were making the point that every act yields pairs of opposites, good and evil. Is this on the right track?

My answer original query: To define a difference between the two, one may observe the terms 'good' and 'evil' most commonly associated with mysticism; whereas 'ethics' is the philosophical study of how man may best get along with other men in highly organized and complicated social interrelationships - such a thing is society.

I have no idea what you're talking about. Which is encouraging.

 

[Mole]

Good and evil are religious terms. After all religion claims God is good and Satan is evil. Religion claims good will be rewarded in Heaven and evil will be punished in Hell.

By contast ethics is a secular term. So secular institutions have codes of ethics. So ethics is a way of behaving rather than a way of believing.

 

[greenfairy]

Good and evil are religious terms. After all religion claims God is good and Satan is evil. Religion claims good will be rewarded in Heaven and evil will be punished in Hell.

By contast ethics is a secular term. So secular institutions have codes of ethics. So ethics is a way of behaving rather than a way of believing.

For the second time I quite agree with you!

 

[Poeta]

I have no idea what you're talking about. Which is encouraging.

Seeing as you understood Mole, I'm guessing my use of the word mysticism was confusing. I use this in place of the word religion to cover a mode of thinking that covers all religions. "Religion," has come to mean too many different things for different people. Some, for example, will say they are not religious but spiritual. Either term will have its root in mysticism.

 

[greenfairy]

Seeing as you understood Mole, I'm guessing my use of the word mysticism was confusing. I use this in place of the word religion to cover a mode of thinking that covers all religions. "Religion," has come to mean too many different things for different people. Some, for example, will say they are not religious but spiritual. Either term will have its root in mysticism.

Ah, got it.

 

[KitchenFly]

Good and evil are religious terms. After all religion claims God is good and Satan is evil. Religion claims good will be rewarded in Heaven and evil will be punished in Hell.

By contast ethics is a secular term. So secular institutions have codes of ethics. So ethics is a way of behaving rather than a way of believing.

Let's not put religion in the basket that is not good, religion is into stories metaphors to assist towards good living and higher levels of personal conduct leading to hole-ness, it has is problems as an institution with this very topic.

I would intuit the notion of good and evil there being long established within the hart head and gut of man/women/and hermaphrodite for as long as man has had a degree of conches autonomous thought.

So good and evil are words to describe something an act that strongly affects the phycology.

Seeing someone shot stabbed maimed what ever on Tv is no longer evil in mine and most minds it's good entertainment.

Content-Context: helps in recognising good and evil.

To witness a destructive act that is shocking May help to remember what is evil.

To observe an act that has been generated by the proactive use of ones own intuition of a higher order that has drawn upon the use of sense think and feel to serve selflessly. May remind us of what is good.

do re mi fa so la Ti do

I now understand that I stand, ankle high within a lake.

The self is made of eight part sections from eight master genes controlling the order each section is one of the eight master genes, metaphorically speaking, the feet to ankles could be viewed as the bottom "do" and rising section to section to the final do the seat of conches ness the head.

The metaphor I create selects that egoic man or mechanical man/woman/hermaphrodite , has only its ankles bottom "do" within true conches mess and there for the selfs autonomy is disconnected from the lake of full awareness, Hole ness Completeness.

I am no expert in the structure of the Scale model of the notes in all there six operations, but what I am endeavouring to convey is that there needs to be a connection unbroken between the Top and Bottom Do or the mind and the hole ness of what we are as Human Beings.

The word Christian is a very old word, in its original meaning it was understood to have a the meaning Hole or Complete.

- three forces conches.

Gurdjieff's Law of three is basically a Key to reconnecting the three centres to operate as one.

I am not into religion or religious story books, I am not clever enough to decipher the code and retain my good order of mental health.

But I do know for good or bad there is good wisdom at the hart of the structures that seek to assist.

Maybe one day they will save grace and redraft there teaching books and provide a modern refined table of metaphorical stories for Human development.

The Business of Humanity is secular so if we are to in Transactional Analysis terms , going to move from percent to child , child to child percent to parent, mode of communications To Adult to Adult, where in equality is honoured ,the Sate and the Church are not the distant Adult and the citizen or the devotee is not Child educated to become percent to follow the instruction of the Adult

In short what I am saying Adult to Adult communication will be the modality to get us all across the line.

9w1 INFP

Be the inner observer who has mastery of the selfs own yoyo.
For is it not the yoyo's that seeks to return to the masters hand..

do re mi fa so la ti - __


my my my biases my my my -


Reconciliation:
Do Re Mi Fa So La Ti DO

Feel free to correct me if I have erred in my understand of the structure I seek to understand.

Do Re Mi Sock Fa So Shock La Ti Do ,I think is the correct traditional model but the Egoic Self's General learning , the mechanical person seems to me to take a shape, that lends its self to the eight master genes. But again I remind the reader that I am a layman seeking to understand I am not an authority on the subject.

Cheers

 

[Obsidius]

My question: Why do you say this is a false dichotomy? At first, I believed you were making the point that every act yields pairs of opposites, good and evil. Is this on the right track?

My answer original query: To define a difference between the two, one may observe the terms 'good' and 'evil' most commonly associated with mysticism; whereas 'ethics' is the philosophical study of how man may best get along with other men in highly organized and complicated social interrelationships - such a thing is society.

There is no "good and evil" is what I was saying, objectively speaking. Things happen, and we assign them into two categories, which is a false dichotomy. We cannot say that something is simply good or bad, there's a spectrum, just like light and darkness, not everything fits the categories, well, most thing don't.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

just words

 

[KitchenFly]

There is no "good and evil" is what I was saying, objectively speaking. Things happen, and we assign them into two categories, which is a false dichotomy. We cannot say that something is simply good or bad, there's a spectrum, just like light and darkness, not everything fits the categories, well, most thing don't.

I do know of one spectrum in black and white that successfully maps the fall from good to the point beyond the level of foreshadowing of things to come into the obis of what correctly can be defined as Human evil or Being at the a level Of Pathological Destructiveness.

it can be found in the Appendix of a book titled:

Personality Types
Using The Enneagram For Self - Discovery.

Authors. Don Richard Riso with Russ Hudson

Pages- 465 - 475 (the meaning of the levels of development) and
Pages- 476 - 493 (provide a nine level spectrum for all nine Personality Types)

Attitudes , Behaviours , Desires , Fears ,for all nine level for all nine type energies.

A good read and an eye opening experience for the sincere reader.

First class material for personal development and the understanding of the nine levels of development the phycological health at each of the nine levels.

The book captains 340 pages of concise typologies discussing and illuminating the personality structures of each of the nine personality types through the lens of all nine type energies. Core energy core activity of the type.

And naturally it has loads of supporting information so as the reader can experience a informative self-excavation ..and education, discovering the complex basic structure of the basic enneagram model-system in a reader friendly manner.

I found it to be quite a compassionate book because the authors dealt with the subject matter in a honest and respectful way that provides a doorway for the reader with a path to travel, if chosen , a path for saving grace healing and reascending to the heather level that are within.

A Champion effort on behalf of the Authors. A five star effort.

 

[Poeta]

There is no "good and evil" is what I was saying, objectively speaking. Things happen, and we assign them into two categories, which is a false dichotomy. We cannot say that something is simply good or bad, there's a spectrum, just like light and darkness, not everything fits the categories, well, most thing don't.

Thank you for your kind attention to my query. I understand you perfectly well now, although I'm not sure I agree. I believe with this point of view, one would say that either term and all activities attached to it are relative; that one judges one thing as good or bad in relation to some other thing. This is what gives me fits. Without any absolute standard for evaluation, decisions that should not be made (either in one's personal life or on the world stage of international policy) can be shown in better light next to something darker. Thusly, we are thrown into a world where perception becomes reality, except it's not; no, reality is reality and must be accepted as such before we get anywhere. One never built a house, a bridge, or the pyramids, by believing there were no absolute standards by which to judge the materials of the universe. Someone might say that I am mixing categories. Yet the point is that the universe is causal (not chaotic!) and so then are the courses of people's lives causal.

I hope I have done as good a job of giving my thought as you have to me. I will be back from time to time, if you have any tweaks to my saga to add to the mix.

 

[Mole]

Seeing as you understood Mole, I'm guessing my use of the word mysticism was confusing. I use this in place of the word religion to cover a mode of thinking that covers all religions. "Religion," has come to mean too many different things for different people. Some, for example, will say they are not religious but spiritual. Either term will have its root in mysticism.

Almost all religions have a mystical tradition. For instance, Islam has the mystical tradition of Sufism.

Religio means to bind together while mysticism is traditionally the direct experience of God.

And interestingly today there is a secular form of mysticism that uses the same disciplines as the traditional religious forms of mysticism, but without a belief in God.

But what is striking about all the forms of mysticism across all religions and now including the secular, is that they are all remarkably similar.

 

[Obsidius]

Thank you for your kind attention to my query. I understand you perfectly well now, although I'm not sure I agree. I believe with this point of view, one would say that either term and all activities attached to it are relative; that one judges one thing as good or bad in relation to some other thing. This is what gives me fits. Without any absolute standard for evaluation, decisions that should not be made (either in one's personal life or on the world stage of international policy) can be shown in better light next to something darker. Thusly, we are thrown into a world where perception becomes reality, except it's not; no, reality is reality and must be accepted as such before we get anywhere. One never built a house, a bridge, or the pyramids, by believing there were no absolute standards by which to judge the materials of the universe. Someone might say that I am mixing categories. Yet the point is that the universe is causal (not chaotic!) and so then are the courses of people's lives causal.

I hope I have done as good a job of giving my thought as you have to me. I will be back from time to time, if you have any tweaks to my saga to add to the mix.

Well, this seems to be an appeal to the consequences of a belief, however, you say that perception isn't reality... This triggers my subjectivism, basically; reality doesn't hold objective existence, it holds a subjective one, and everyone perceives it differently, therefore; reality is different for everyone. Also; "reality is reality" is merely a tautology, I don't understand why it deserved saying, what purpose does it serve? I don't know how causality proves moral absolutism, but, we are arguing about the truth, not which is more convenient. So, there is no "absolute evaluation", but rather our own subjective relativity, which is compared to our own past experiences and conceptualisations. This is not "good" or "evil", this is what we are taught is "good" or "evil". Moral absolutism died a long time ago, ethical decisions are undoubtedly contextual and subjective.

 

[Poeta]

Almost all religions have a mystical tradition. For instance, Islam has the mystical tradition of Sufism.

Religio means to bind together while mysticism is traditionally the direct experience of God.

And interestingly today there is a secular form of mysticism that uses the same disciplines as the traditional religious forms of mysticism, but without a belief in God.

But what is striking about all the forms of mysticism across all religions and now including the secular, is that they are all remarkably similar.

Indeed. What is the new form you mentioned?

 

[Mole]

Indeed. What is the new form you mentioned?

The new form of mysticism can be found in the book, Waking Up: a Guide to Spirituality Without Religion, by Sam Harris.