You said "So you couldn't be happy in a world in which people weren't suffering horrible fates? Does one person's enjoyment or happiness depend on someone else's horrible suffering?"

And I find it interesting that your take on " a perfect world would be boring" is to immediately assume that I meant it in the sense of Entertainment...

To answer you directly, no, my enjoyment does not depend on someone else's suffering, nor is that what I meant to imply. What I meant, was that my enjoyment depends upon MY suffering. Which brings more satisfaction: doing the job or hiring someone else to do it for you? Often, enjoyment is directly proportional to the amount of effort invested to reap the rewards.

Same reason why they say "no pain, no gain": it's a fundamental truth of our reality that satisfaction and enjoyment come through overcoming adversity.

Same reason why it's also said, that you could never be happy without having tasted sadness. In a more simplistic sense, you can think of it as how a rollercoaster has ups and downs. The ups are only ups because you come down, then go up again, etc.

Imagine a world where there was NO adversity. No problems of any kind. No bad weather, no conflict, no natural disasters, no famine or death... You know what would inevitably occur? The analytical centers in your brain would essentially begin to atrophy, having Nothing To Process. Meanwhile, more and more of your brain would be used to process enjoyment and creativity. Eventually all rationality would be lost until all that was left was a brain that could only operate on instinctual satisfaction of desire.

Think about humanity. Since our birth what has been the single constant? Adversity. Since he times of cavemen when hey discovered fire and the rudiments of toolmaking. Proceedijg to hunter gatherer states which were a strict improvement. Then on to agricultural and animal husbandry. Then, industry. Now it's information. Next, I strongly suspect, will be culture.

The point is that adversity, struggle, and conflict are an essential part in what has given us the intelligence and awareness we so appreciate, and without which, we would be little more than animals with a sense of wonder.

"The goal of art is not to create paraphraseable imagery, but to create something to which no paraphrase ever does justice."

In my opinion, that sums it up rather well. What makes art, art, in my view, is the fact that it expresses something which otherwise would have been related to, or even outside of, personal experience. In other words, it defines the ineffable and ephemeral, encapsulates them such that it cannot be paraphrased, or broken down further. And allows this to be shared.

Kinda like, how music is so inextricably tied to emotion, and how many people have songs that define them, or at least particular emotions they experience. Hence the fact that we have theme songs for characters, mood songs... How people have happy songs, sad songs... Etc.

As to whether or not such is the Goal of art, or the result of it... Is the Goal of a hammer to pound in a nail? Or is that merely the result? I don't think there's a right or wrong answer here, as it primarily depends upon our experience, which is subject to change and variation. Though if you ask Hegel... :P

I intend to come back through and reply to those who have replied to me. I will admit, I'm not quite sure how to respond, in some cases.

For now, a question. When a writer writes a book. Are they condemned as evil for the horrors in which the characters experience? Unless the book is merely just a cover for the author to live out some fantasies, no. Why is this? Because adversity makes the story interesting, in a most cases.

Yes it's possible to have stories without any conflict or adversity, and yes they can be enjoyable; but they're often short, and simple, and thus proclaimed as children's stories.

So when the author writes of this crazed psychopath who unleashes his killing rage and murders hundreds of people, what makes this acceptable? Not merely the fact of it being a story, because if it was clear that it was just the guise for murderous fantasy, and held nothing in the way of plot or resolution, we would be sickened.

Nay, it's because the violence sets up conflict, which in turn sets up resolution, which presents progress. Or motion of narrative. The killer gets hunted down, or experiences an epiphany and turns himself in, gets accidentally killed... It could manifest in a variety of ways. The point is that we accept evil when we know it Leads to something, and isn't just ultimately senseless.

Some writers even kill off the entire human race but do we decry that as tragedy? Certainly we sympathize but more often than not it's with the principle that's illustrated by the action. An alien race contacts humanity with the best of intentions... But inadvertently brings bacteria which ends up wiping out the human race.

We feel the force of tragedy... But it's utilized in such a manner that we empathize with the alien races despair and subsequent vow never to wander the stars again.

If we lived in a perfect world... We'd die of boredom or lose our capacity for intellectual examination of life, much as the creatures in hg wells the time machine became simplistic and juvenile after completely dominating their environment.

Many people have brought up various diseases. But isn't it the point of a disease for us to overcome it? More than a few books have been written about just that, and we seem to enjoy those perfectly fine.

It's when we are in the story and unable to see the true scope of things that we find evil so tragic and intolerable.. and yet, isn't that another point of evil? Isn't one of the things essential to mankind our ability to yearn for more and rail against corruption?

Ah, sorry. The corruption purity thing is due to the fact that I equate those terms with negativity and positivity, respectively, and use the terms interchangeably.

So to escape, he must lower his tolerance for negativity- ie his acceptance of being in the burning box. And increase his desire for positivity- to escape the box.

And yet, how is this achieved? How does one change their own mind?

Eta- I was not sure of what agoraphobia was- I'm not sure how that term applies. Isn't being in a burning box a situation for panic and helplessness? Or is your assertion that his choice to remain-if it is a choice, I'm not certain it is- allows him a certain measure of control, however fictitious, and that removing himself from the negative situation would be to give up that control?

"You are also referring to the ontological argument, the idea that because the idea of perfection exists, the ideal or form of perfection must exist, and since humans are imperfect, God would be perfection and so God exists."

I would suggest you reread my op. I'm not making an argument for god, im only put this in the philosophy of religion because I used religious concepts to explain my metaphysical one.

And if you had read my op, you would know that I'm not claiming that gos is perfection. I claim he is purity, and explicitly make the distinction between the two. Maybe I wasn't clear enough?

As for the rest, I will make no comment. Simply because I don't know how you got hat out of my op. Never was i arguing for god, I related the concept of God to a metaphysical concept. I even explicitly stated the usage of religious terms as a tool.

Maybe if you could show me exactly why you feel like I'm referring to that? Because if I was, I'm unaware of it; and such was certainly not my intention. My intention to the op was to talk about the state of humans minds and the pah of redemption through corruotion itself.

However. Because I can't resist. You said "Otherwise, saying "God does not exist" would be both affirming and denying his existence at the same time."

In a purely linguistic sense, that is exactly what is happening. By referring to god, you are necessary referring to the existence of such a concept(but not the validity of that concept, I'm not sure how you've come to equate those two as one), and then you go on to state your belief that that concept is invalid. So it is, again, in a linguistic sense, both agfirming and denying God.

I wouldn't say that, even in such a scenario, the creator would be completely blameless. He still gave the creatures that choice. I'm not arguing that God doesn't hold blame for evil. I'm arguing that it isn't senseless, and that it ultimately achieves a greater good. A phrase comes to mind. "No pain, no gain"

Will a man hate his personal trainer? Possibly. What if the man doesn't know he's being trained? Certainly. But if the man were to realize he was being trained, would he still hate?

Oka-ay, Thanks for giving the original question. Now, onto the subject matter? :P

At it's most basic, the concept of "Time" implies change. For if there was no change in anything, ever, there could be no time, and no being to contemplate time. Time is, ultimately, a measurement of change.

So now imagine that from the state of change, suddenly there was motion. Now, too, is there time, for there is a measurable difference between then, and now, as reflected by the change in state of the object observed in motion.(never minding, for now, the fact that this first motion, would have been thought itself, for that's a whole nother topic)

Now, motion implies direction. If something is moving, there must be something it is moving away from, and/or something it is moving torwards, else wise we would never know motion from stillness.

Even here, so early in the definition, we find the concept of Progress. If time is the measurement of change, then progress would be the measurement of that change in relation to a particular object or state.

The common concept of Time can be adequately summed in the phrase "Time marches inexorably onward." The thought is that time is, itself, in motion. This is because time is motion. It is always moving, because if ever there was no motion, it would cease to exist.

Now where does decay enter the picture? Truthfully, it's already there. However at this point my logic must take a more conjectural basis.

If there is no time, no change, then what is will always be, unceasingly. If the entire universe were to suddenly cease... Forever it would remain, so long as it remained unchanging. Do you begin to see? I know my words are a bit rough. Let's go further.

Back to motion. With motion, we have change and time, as ive made mention of already. With these, progress. But he very idea of progress, as it relates to what can be termed a "goal" implies motion away from the same goal. You can move to, and away. But this isn't just true, for physical things. This is also true for metaphysical things, thoughts, feelings, and ideas.

And... Once the "wheel" of time starts... Change is constant. And what will happen to any thing, given enough change? Wear and tear. To not have wear and tear would mean no friction... And it's hard to imagine how anything would start or stop in such a world.

The very act of change incurs decay... The very face of existence itself, as we know it, aka "space-time" stands against the void... And cannot do so without effects. Newton's third law comes to mind. Existence can separate itself from nonexistence, bit in so doing, nonexistence always works to brink it back into the fold.

Oh, okay :) I will then elaborate.

First, the thesis statement.
For a creation to be temporal, that is, capable of change and therefore interaction and growth, it must also be subject to decay.

We can think of time in many ways. Motion being the simplest. But decay is the other. These two concepts, we find, our tied together. Unravelling them may be no easy task; I have the understanding, but transitioning it into words may be a little rough so bear with me.

Continued

Which bit? The phrase "corrupted data", or the inevitability of corruption thanks to time?

As to the latter have you never heard of entropy? It's not just the decay of physical matter, or information, it's negativity and corruption in all its forms.

As to why I claimed it's corrupted data. There's way to much scientific evidence on the correlation of reality to computers and holograms for me to even know where to start.

Well, andrewk. Firstly, I'm not a theologian. I'm a metaphysicist.

Secondly that's not "Evil", that's corrupted data. Which is an inevitability for beings who inhabit a temporal structure. That which allows us life and breath, also introduces decay and corruption. There is no avoiding the latter, without cessation of the former. Not saying it's not bad, or horrible. It's just not "evil"

Evil, is someone coming and raping then killing the baby. Evil, is slaughter of a thousand babies. Evil, is subjugation and indoctrination of a million more babies.

These things are, inarguably, evil. And yet, what if there was more than our limited, human, temporal consciousness could perceive? Consider the actions of Adolf Hitler. Can we say his actions were evil? Yes. But can we say that everything that follows as a result of his actions, is also evil? We cannot. What if, in fact, The consequences of Hitler's actions, teaches us humans such lessons that, a thousand years to the future, we have a peace and prosperity such as could have not occurred in any other timeline?

My point here is that all we see of evil is the action, we don't see the results of it. The reconciliation of an all powerful hod and an all good god is that evil serves a purpose, his purpose, to bring about a greater good than could have been achieved without it.

My op illustrates this principle in action, in the form of the human individual questioning and facing his own corruption. The reason evil exists in man is for it to be faced, fought, and conquered, such that ensures, quite literally, a greater good than the greatest possible amount of pure goodness.

I know that last sentence is confusing so I will reiterate: Purity is the greatest amount of good, such that it has no evil, no corruption. But, purity can become corrupted, by their very definitions, because corruption is what makes purity no longer pure. Once corrupted, a sample can be purified, resulting in the death of the corrupt sample. Now pure, the sample can become corrupted again.

God could strike all evil from our world, snap his fingers and give us heaven on earth. But you know what would happen if he did? It'd just get corrupted again, because without the knowledge of how heaven on earth was built, it cannot possibly be maintained.

The point of evil is to be overcome. When evil faces and conquers itself, a greater good than purity is achieved. As it is still corruption, it cannot be corrupted again. But as long as it resolves to fight itself, it won't act as corruption, but as purity.

Now imagine what corruption is to the human. Is it not of the mind? The actions follow from the mind. The metaphors contained in the Bible, which I separately discovered as logical truth, and only afterward discovered the correlations to the Bible, highlight the method by which an evil being overcomes itself.

Firstly, please don't presume to lecture me on the importance of perception, okay? I know more than most how perception is effectually godlike in power where it concerns us humans. That's besides the point however.

You said "Perception precedes consciousness/awareness; it takes place wholly outside conscious awareness. "

And I don't disagree. However, I would argue that while, yes, perception occurs outside of conscious Awareness, it does not occur outside of the conscious mind. I would in fact state that perception is the very first rung of he conscious mind, because everything that conscious ness is, is built off of it.

As far as embellishment goes, embellishment is defined as "the action of adding details or features." So no, it is not more than embellishment, it is just embellishment.

Finally, you said "... and this is part of what our brains and minds do to enable us to perceive the world."

LOL. If you're going to lecture of the difference between conscious awareness and perception. You really should be a lot more careful of your usage of the word perception :)

To get to the bottom of this we must ask ourselves what the definition of Conscious light is. Which would be the light that is perceived by the mind, as distinguished from physical light and it's Neural counterpart. As we know, the brain is the seat of the mind, the neurons feed into the brain and it's reactions we perceive as our own.

So in my view, the thing which distinguishes Neural light and consciousness light, is the act of perception, by consciousness itself. I agree there is some extra processing her but I think it's embellishment more than anything, building up a picture using the composite given by the brain, with imagination

I have yet to read all the comments yet but in my opinion you overcomplicated things. A much simpler(but more importantly, truer) diagram, is as follows: Physical light hits the retinas, which is transformed into Neural light inside the brain. That Neural light is perceived by the conscious mind and is transformed into conscious light. So we would have PL---->PM---->NL---->CM---->CL

I know that leaves some confusion about what happens to the conscious light and what it's used for if you follow the diagram alone. Neural light is perceived by the conscious mind and transformed into Conscious light, by the very act of perception. Thus we can see there really is no need for an inter mind