Good always wins over Evil

Leave a comment

Good has one advantage: it is destructive, while Evil relies on being constructive.

English: A stereotypical caricature of a villa...

(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Just take the average villain of James Bond or whatever superhero.
the villain has constructed a huge empire of minions and resources.
what does the superhero do? walks up to the bad guy and kicks ass! pure destruction!
and the best hero is always the one without a chance to be Evil.
without a Wife he can’t mistreat her, no children to abuse either. nothing to lose.
Evil on the other hand loses everything, a whole life’s worth of scheming!

to be fair I must mention other kinds of villains too.
one nowadays popular type is the villain who didn’t do anything, just using what already is there.
WorldWar2 made use of the antisemitism that already existed.
Islamists and whatever islamic terror abuses religion and general attitude in some people.
if the above type was “the Mastermind”, the actual Evil decribed here should be called “The Horde”.
even though there is no single person who built the circumstances, it’s still something that developed.
similarily it can be destroyed. much more easily than the constuction of these circumstances.

IS is abusing religion and the attitude of people. take one away and IS is gone.
well, what actually is needed is to take one away from all people in the world!
robbing people of what they believe in is easy, any dictator could do that within a few generations.
wont make people stop believing in whatever they believe in, but protects religion from abuse.
therefore this is the path politicians go. one even suggested a unified Quran.
let’s teach children in school the translation that has  been acknowledged by psychologists.
luckily all the religions are based on such ancient books that nobody understands the original anymore.
unfortunately this solution is not very safe. the attitude of those people still remains.
democracy has no means of forbidding alternative translations, this is a double-edged sword.
attitude is a much better point to leverage. We have a demand for explanations, so let’s satisfy it.
what do we live for? for dancing? for watching tv? for getting rich and having sex? for taking drugs?
there exist people who believe that none of above is the answer to the meaning of life. I too belong to them.
find an answer yourself, find a method how people can quickly find an answer. this will destroy the attitude of revolution.

well, this isn’t really so easy to do.
I quickly found the meaning of life:
the meaning of life is to die after lots of experience.
you dance, this is just one experience among many.
you watch tv, again your whole life shouldn’t be filled with that.
having sex, taking drugs, why believe everybody should do these?
there are so many experiences we could have, why emphasize those 4?
unfortunately my insight cannot be taught, it passes on the blind side of most adults.
who would even accept the fact that all human beings have to die?I don’t even know anybody accepting their permanent change.
so you had some fun with taking drugs, you’re a drug-addict.
you had this experience and now your body needs drugs.
so your body has changed, before it lived without drugs for about 20 years!
for most it’s already difficult to accept that. but once you did accept the body’s change:
why you think it can’t change again in the opposite?
why do you believe no other experience can satisfy you?

how I arrived at my “meaning of life” is simple logic:
everybody dies. and everybody enjoys experience.
additionally the same experience over and over again is boring.
so obviously the meaning of life is to avoid repeating experience.
a drug offers infinite experiences, just like mind does in dreams.
I admit it, I never did do drugs, I am addicted to Dreams instead.
the difficulty to get rid of the addiction is the same though.
but I always remind myself:
our creator certainly didn’t have drugs or dreams in mind.
we feel happy through experiences, our purpose is biologically encoded.
these are the words of our creator. repeatedly doing the same stuff isn’t in the spirit of these words.

the actual difficulty is to show people there exists other stuff than whatever they do.
and it’s actually very difficult to teach that more experiences exist than can be experienced in a lifetime.
to children you can teach these things easily.
but as soon as the children grow up, it’s forgotten again.
religions solve that problem by prohibiting some common activities.
so theoretically it’s best to tabooize some experiences all around the world.
that’s the whole idea of religious wars, to force the world into having less common experiences.
looking at a beautiful woman is a frequent experience, so let’s cover all women.
watching tv, listening to music or dancing, all too common in society. let’s prohibit that.
on the other hand praying is much too unpopular, let’s force everybody to do that instead.
again all these rules would go against the spirit of the words of our creator.
if we were meant to pray so much, why do we have the ability to stand upright?
maybe the ability to stand upright is a test for our faith? even though we can, we shouldn’t?
the difficulty with changing people’s attitude is, how do you avoid defining what to change it to?
this question no religion has ever managed to answer so far!
an answer is essential to teaching the meaning of life I discovered…

another villain in our world is the impersonal Horde of capitalism and globalization.
to fight globalization is quite easy: destroy all internet connections, all cables and satelites.
takes much more time to repair them than to bomb them down again.
similarly aeroplanes, streets, phone-cables and cell-phone receivers.
you want to stop global warming? bomb down factories and chimneys!
of course you’d need to calculate if the bombing is worth the effort.
but getting below the 2°C is possible this way. (preventing rise of sea-level isn’t though.)
capitalism is a somewhat tougher enemy. it’s not really capitlism that’s evil, corruption is.
of course you’d need to widen the meaning of the word “corruption”.
with enough time this enemy can be slain though. all you need is some science.
observe where the money is corrupting the underlying processes and fix it.
the philosophy of capitalism is to rely on the markets to regulate themselves.
this pure form of capitalism already failed hundred years ago.
if you want something regulated, you’d have to do it yourself!
becoming a largely corruption-free country is hard work, without end!
would you stop doing that work, new ways for circumventing the rules will be found.
the natural state of the world is constant change. rules never account for that.
but in order for the rules to change in sync with the situation you need research.
you need to know the situation, what others do against it, and how efficiently laws are being executed.

next common villain is the spirit of freedom. french revolution, killing all these aristocrats. now hongkong.
china itself is a villain of this type, but also people fighting against china from within are.
in terms of superheroes, this is an extremely rare type of villain, mostly depiced as pirates and such.
I am quite certain also this kind of enemy can be defeated easily with some brainwashing.
roman empire was full of people who believed to be free, then in middle-ages, not anymore.
or rather all these citizens of rome seemingly became bandits and witches and such.
everybody who felt free was hunted down and killed. quite effective.
I’m afraid china will do that too, over and over again, just like europe did some centuries ago.
not saying they’re retarded, I don’t believe actual “development” of society is possible.
point is, now europe is making use of brain-washing, china prefers to kill people instead.
not really surprising considering the over-population there, and the low birthrate here.
especially the high education makes killing too much a loss of valuable resources here.
but these things could quickly change, maybe next century it will be the other way around.
problem with this villain type is, they mostly fight among themselves.
and people who don’t belong to this type are rare.
thereby most of earth’s population is a villain of this type.
as Douglas Adams suggested, we could easily develop into a species of bureaucrats.
so maybe even this kind of Evil can be fought with a bit of genetic engineering.
our struggling for freedom has developed over time, animals don’t have it.
shouldn’t be difficult to make us more alike to animals again.

Now the question that is implied in all that evil-bashing: why?
if Good fights Evil, doesn’t that make Good another kind of Evil?
if Evil can be conquered by blowing up the HQ, wasn’t building HQ a Good action?
shouldn’t constructive be called Good and destructive be Evil?
if you watched some anime, read some mangas, Good and Evil don’t really exist there!
often there is someone who is “right” and someone who is “wrong”.
the “wrong” person is actually the victim of some delusion or fantasy.
being “right” means you have a different delusion or fantasy, usually a more logical one.
alter some beliefs and wrong becomes right and the other way around.
you can’t define Good and Evil as Constructive and Destructive. those depend on beliefs too!

according to maths there exists such a thing called entropy.
you could define Constructive as reducing entropy.
for example human language has lower entropy than random radiation does.
when you look at probability-distribution of words, it isn’t flat.
so how is entropy defined? the less random the distribution the more random the underlying event?
sounds very awkward. especially the notion of randomness is only in our mind.
of course there are quantum-mechanics with its probability-distribution of particles.
i.e. a particle switches to being a wave of probability-distribution, and back again.
but that’s again just an interpretation of some formulas, it’s all in our mind.
in maths you have only the formulas. they don’t justify our interpretation.
maybe formulas will stay the same, but interpretation will definitely change!
it already changed so many times in the last millenia. new formulas appeared.
even the formulas of mechanics became more detailed in last few centuries.
so quite naturally our notion of entropy will change too.
einstein said god doesn’t play dice, maybe that’s true?
hawkins said black holes eat up information, thereby restoring lost entropy.
again a belief. but maybe it makes every Constructive attempts futile?
what’s the use of building anything when it will end up in a black hole?
aren’t then the destroyers of information the Good Guys?

if our purpose in life is to experience and die because of us doing exactly that, what’s the use of black holes?
how does a black hole die? how does it perceive? what kind of experiences can it have?
what’s obvious is that it destroys free-flowing matter. is that the meaning of life for a black hole?

what we should maybe consider is that all our constructing might be an act of evil.
whenever we leave any traces in the world, we are committing a crime against nature.
some things we need to construct, but wouldn’t it be better to make the changes as small as possible?
other beings surely do construct stuff too. whenever we build something, efforts of those beings are destroyed.
if we only alter the world a little bit, the other beings can adapt.
IMHO best would be if every being would get an equal share of how much it can construct.
maybe count the amount of cells each being has, and allow only a fixed amount of change per cell.
make it so that ants and bees have a nice head-room for construction.
then define as Evil all the people who construct more, physically.
same can be done on a mental level. only allow a certain amount of ideas to publish.
no more spam on the internet! take max amount of words said every day by humans and add headroom.
a corporation then has to pay people for using their allowance of words, to create commercials…

meaning of lies, the universe and everything

1 Comment


Livestock (Photo credit: Martin Cathrae)

figuring out the abstract reason for which we are alive, isn’t really that difficult.

like everything that’s alive, we live in order to die and to feed other creatures.
and for the latter reason procreation might be a good idea too.
so don’t dare to die till you have children. preferably children who procreate too.
and if you’re religious, then maybe you’ll add “postponing death for as long as possible” too.

especially since religious people tend to have a different understanding of “death”.
thinking about after-life tends to have that effect on us. we feel sort of immortal.
and so we fill the abstract notion of “death” with new meaning.
what commonly is called “death” refers to a part of us that definitely is mortal.
with the real “us” being immortal, its decay plays no important role.
well, except of course that this mortal part is what other creatures eat.
but there is little difference between leaving a corpse and producing milk, for an immortal being.
so above, wherever I said “death” a religious person would have said something else.
be it going to paradise/nirvana, or be it getting devoured by the devil or vultures.
no matter how you look at it, even an endless life has a moment of irreversible change.

if you’re religious, then you might throw up the question: whom do we actually feed?
quite an obvious answer is that our mortal body feeds our immortal soul.
and that’s practically all that’s to it. one answer and many possibilities to redefine the answer’s vocabulary.
although, I personally dislike the prospect of soul being the body’s predator.
it’s as if we were an insect and there’s an invisible-to-us mantis or dragonfly preying on us…

as our lives become longer various surrounding questions come up in this context though.

Hamlet with Yorick's skull

Hamlet with Yorick’s skull (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

they all boil down to asking what to do with our lives.
if you really want to get told what to do: just follow nature’s call and become the best piece of food ever.
take care of your physical health. if you believe in an immortal predator, take care of mental health/growth too.
but imho this approach is revealing how bored the person must be, who asked that question.
we might create computer-games or other media, to keep us entertained. the subliminal boredom prevails though.
if you want to fill your life with an individual meaning, pick a random area of interest and aspire goals there!

thinking abstractly about such things makes it easy to find abstract answers.
even though those answers aren’t satisfying, they show how shallow those topics are.
a much deeper question than the question about “meaning of life” is the question:
what is the reason for lies? what use do they have? what lasting effect will they leave behind?
obviously some lies are for the purpose of deception. nature knows deception.
some birds deceive their own species’ comrades by pretending an action.
but is that already a lie? it isn’t as if they were talking with each other!
I would say lies are what distinguishes us humans from other creatures.

of course animals communicate, some paths of communication more comprehensible than others.
but all this communication is filled with purpose and otherwise void of intention.
the birds don’t “pretend an action with the intention of communicating”. humans do.
we even communicate through the choice of our clothes!
when an animal selects various objects for courting, they don’t communicate but rather make a presentation.
the difference is quite subtle, heavily abstract: communication lacks Intent! presentation is pure intent.
think of that next time you fire up powerpoint. do you want to present, or do you want to represent?

compared to humans, animals are quite introverted. what we constantly do is talking about ourselves.
take a look at our internal dialogue. it is as if we were communicating in our thoughts.
what for? who’s listening? our thoughts are usually not serving much purpose.
sometimes we might think in order to memorize something, to preprogram ourselves.
but most of our lives the thoughts merely draw a picture of what surrounds us and of how we believe to fit in.
and once we open our mouthes it isn’t surprising when that’s what we’re talking about.
so regardless of how much communication is lacking Intent, lies still are unusual.
but yet they exist. most of them are sitting right there in our minds, the self-lies.
the more self-lies the more there will be lies towards other people. a matter of self-discipline.

an interesting development in our society, in the last millenium, is the disappearance of violence.
it even went so far that now beatings are banished from schools.
the idea behind that was that of beating being hereditary.
just stop beating your children, or else they’ll beat theirs.
just break the cycle through sheer self-control.
and with the lowered likelihood of getting mugged, violence isn’t that important part of growing up.
priorities did shift from pure strength to advanced education in martial arts.
and rightly so. much more likely than getting killed is death through excessive stress.
for the sake of survival, taking the meditative approach to fighting is what we should do.

however, while physical abilities and mental capacities for coping with them are important, lies aren’t.
one just can’t ban lies by law and expect anyone to actually desire getting rid of such habits.
there is no incentive bound to survival. nobody died of lies, nor of lying.
additionally nobody ever died from lack of lies, so no reason to seek a replacement-habit.
what does happen is that lies indirectly cause events that lead to someone’s death.
but rarely it’s the liar who dies. same for always telling the truth, people might die but rarely the truth-teller.
sorry, no darwin’s award for liars and gossipers…

self-lie, delusion, is the root of all our lies it would seem. what other reason could we have for lying?
well, there also is the unintentional lie. we say the truth but others get it wrong. not misunderstanding, self-lie again.
what happens quite often is that people get accused of lying, while in reality the accusing person is victim to self-lies.

I watched a doku about wikileaks and assange. there nick davies accused assange of lying about the sex-assault-incident.
but he said that assange didn’t believe to have lied. classical situation of pot called the kettle black.
it becomes obvious there that nick was deeply hurt by the “truths” revealed about assange.
i.e. he lived in a delusion on how assange was, in a self-lie.
assange lived in the delusion of having absolute memory on what he said to whom.
I’d say neither of them lied, they merely said what they believed to be truth — self-lies.

this kind of pattern I’ve seen quite often:
one person is disappointed of another person, and additionally to lost trust, new self-lies get created.
a self-lie is supposed to be self-protection, although it’s questionable from what exactly it’s supposed to protect.
in this common circumstances of lost trust the self-lies are “excuses” for why one did trust in the first place.
but why not accept the situation as it is? why invent “facts” to cover up the self-image?

I know it from my own experience too. and with all this in mind I usually just laugh at myself.
and my solution is to keep my self-lies to myself. when I’m asked, I remain silent.
this way the lies wont escalate. I just self-lie, laugh and record the lies with the tag “lies”.
I’m wondering why at least the smart people I know didn’t get that idea…

in case you didn’t notice, the previous paragraph is a lie.
of course I’m no superhuman who without error can detect self-lies.
but then, that paragraph didn’t claim I was, only the implied meaning is a lie.
that’s a strong distinction I make: grey lies I call it when only implied meaning is a lie.
interpret my words literally and they aren’t a lie anymore. what irony.
such grey lies have an important property:
there are 2 people responsible for the lie. the liar and the person believing in the implied meaning.
it’s a shared responsibility, so the weight on the liar’s shoulders isn’t that heavy.

the foundation of this article should be a definition for what a lie is, but there is none.
the next best thing is defining what we think a lie would be.
when listening to how people accuse eachother of lying, eventually everything we say would fall into that definition.
and rightly so. our whole language is based on the concept of lies.
when I say “sun” I am not really talking of the star at the center of our planetary system.
instead I actually mean the bright thing I see in the sky during daytime.
there simply is no 1-to-1 mapping of words onto meaning. context always counts.

from the point of view of the liar one could define a lie as something contradicting the person’s beliefs.
self-lies are beliefs too. therefore most of our lies are no lies at all.
problem is a lie-detector might disagree here.
self-lies create stress too, but the liar will claim there’s no lie.
this kind of lie isn’t what a lie-detector is after, though.
but it must be quite funny when especially a female is caught lying about her age this way.
still, this point of view is rather useless. why would anyone want to know if he/she lied?

basically there is no objective truth on whether a sequence of words, words with partial context, is a lie.
redefine the meaning of some word, and a lie becomes truth. that’s simple change of context, extended context.
that way, figuring out the meaning of words obtained by hear-say is quite a piece of advanced algebra.
the only meaningful definition of lie is when putting that word in the context of a whole belief-system.
so using the word “lie” on its own doesn’t make sense, one must always add for whom it’s a lie.
and most likely also the point of time where it is a lie. people learn, extend belief-system. new words can turn lies into truth.

all this implies an easy answer to the question of why we lie: we don’t do it intentionally!
wrong answer. maybe we don’t lie intent-fully, but lies still are something intentional.
also our language cannot be blamed for all the lies. language is usually full of redundancy for this purpose.
a good liar will accompany each lie with a self-lie that makes the lie a subjective truth.
generally lies are extremely short-living knowledge, eventually contradictions will clear things up.
and if they don’t, then the topic wasn’t important anyway. then the contents of the lie is easily forgotten.

one common reason why I do lie is to  tell a joke, or otherwise express humour.
I am addicted to irony. irony for me is about 2 similar things opposing each other.
so I sometimes pretend to be pro some movement, just to exaggerate their beliefs.
this way I create a perverted image of their goals, turned into the opposite of what they want.
remember, my thoughts run in an abstract way, so also my definition of irony is abstract.
a mathematical function that is its own inverse function, self-inverse, that’s irony for me.
but also more generally, I enjoy it when an inverse function only differs by one glyph, is a “dual” function.
and when I see a bird landing on a twig too thin to hold its weight, I laugh too.
I don’t laugh at the stupidity of someone. it’s just that the same action elsewhere would be opposite.
an example for irony is my chiming into the clamour for punishment of all people who behave against society.
so when I say assange should be punished for rude behaviour to females even if otherwise non-guilty, it’s a joke, a lie.
the film Demolition Man did do something similar, peaceful society full of violence. what an ironic film.
btw, I don’t do sarcasm, each word I write is meant literally. when I lie, it’s the implied meaning that is a lie, never the literal.
sarcasm is a bad idea when writing, saying the opposite of what is meant will cause a lot of damage to the discussion.
irony on the other hand wont do much, it’s the sort of lie that’s easily forgotten when unnoticed.

an important notion when talking of lies is the notion of truth. truth isn’t the opposite of lie though.
a lie is something said or written, this way it can only be opposite to a truth being communicated.
however, somewhere I read there’s a bounty on a veritably true sentence, and nobody claimed it.
the notion of truth is much too strict to be applied to human communication.
lies simply have no opposite, only scales of severity. the whole idea of words representing objects is causing them to be lies.
nothing a human ever says can fully represent an actual object. objects are infinitely deeper than the words we use.
still doesn’t change my question. why do we use the grave kind of lies? why not stay closer to communicated truth?
and the reason for my question is that lies are bad for science. bad for growth of our knowledge.
in the middle-ages scientists had to lie in order to not be prosecuted by church. in a mild form some scientists still lie for similar reasons. white lies for the purpose of not offending someone’s beliefs.
we lie for entertainment. we lie for keeping up self-image, for self-representation. we lie for deception, for our advantage. or we use white lies for someone else’s advantage or lack of disadvantage.
all these lies are somehow steal time from the search for knowledge, from science.
but what exactly is the reason we need entertainment, self-image, egoism? what’s the use of people demanding protection from offensive science?
I can understand that we sometimes lie in order to speed up things, but why all the other lies?

one kind of lie I didn’t talk about yet: the lie with a purpose of speeding up things.
for example astronomers learn that the earth is the center of the universe, sun and planets revolve around it.
this knowledge, as antiquated it might sound, makes calculating planet-position faster.
for the same reason also in physics the relativistic point of view isn’t all-dominant.
the lowered complexity justifies the means.
but in a few thousand years archeologists might find our astronomy-books, and laugh at our geocentric beliefs.
maybe we’re already doing the same, with archeologist’s opinion on the ancient cultures.
my solution to this problem you can see here: the next paragraph says the previous was a lie.
and to speed up learning, that info is indented so the reader can skip it…


communication (Photo credit: flavijus)