>On Fri, 19 Sep 1997, Brett Lane Robertson wrote:
>> In the sense that it is order, it is good (in most cases, though order which
>> reflects reality is truth; and the innocent already know this truth not
>> having experienced its opposite)...in the sense that it is derrived from
>> mistakes at the cost of freedom for innocent people, it is bad. I would say
>> that it is more bad than good.
>Really? If this is a forward moving system doesn't it need to generate
>excess energy by the act of exchange in order to fuel its progress through
>time? Is the generation of this energy good or bad? How are you defining
>"good" and "bad" and from whose perspective?
>When I lion kills an antilope it is "good" for lions, "bad" for antilopes,
>but what is it to the ecosystem as a whole? At worst--a wash I think.
>-Prof. Tim
List,
Good and bad *are* relative. The assessment was an ideosyncratic one. It
is based on the underlying assumption that freedom and truth are superior to
order and mistakes--perhaps operationally defining "bad" as "mistakes".
No, i do not believe in entropy...therefore no energy must be generated.
Energy (life force) is the continual effect of the first action. (something
was potential energy, it shifted...and everything else is continually fueled
by the effect of this action and/or similar "accidents").
"Generation" in this respect is "friction", friction implies only a
temporary change of the forward energy into a contrary direction. Being
temporary, it is "not good"--if good is defined as a forward motion, growth,
development.
Then yes, corruption is "a wash".
Brett
Returning,
rBERTS%n
Rabble Sonnet Retort
Vital papers will demonstrate their vitality by
spontaneously moving from where you left them to where you
can't find them.