Beautiful Dust• Show poetry

• Last seen on Aug 10 8:17 PM. Member since January 31, 2008.
• I'm a peridot parrot poet for 40 comments.
• My mood is , and quote is "to not suffer is to waste experience and cheapen pleasure".
• I am a 24 year old person (United States)
• When I'm not writing, I'm a remote encoder.
• Visit my homepage at www.myspace.com/spreadblackwings
• 
• I am in the groups Do you want your poem read, Gallery of Poetic Artistry
• I have 40 comments, 29 poems

My Poetry

• Chapter Twenty-Seven (Exorcism)

  This world is filled with disease.
  I shall cleanse it.

  79 lines, September 28, 2008
• Chapter Twenty-Six (Crystalline)

  91 lines, September 28, 2008
• Chapter Twenty-Five (Diamond)

  56 lines, September 6, 2008
• Chapter Twenty-Four (Implications)

  In the darkened sky
  i grew beyond

  75 lines, September 6, 2008

Guest Book

• Beautiful Dust : Refutal on February 2, 2008

  Preface.) This is not the rambling of the depraved, but, rather, my perspective, beyond such primitive terms as good and evil, laid out as clearly as I can state them, so as to, perhaps, broaden your mind, and further my goal of creating a world more enjoyable for myself in interaction with those not limited intellectually by the psychological manipulations of those long dead, nor by those self-flagellating psychological manipulations of self simply to give hope in a greater justice system when there may not be one, as neither of us have physically seen it. Perhaps in this view you can rise above the ignorant, and save the savers from themselves, silencing their cry for, "Convert or be destroyed. There is no truth but mine." I do not claim such; I only claim an alternate perspective which I hope may assist you in your enjoyment of experiences.
  
  1.) Who is to say what is beneficial? You claim that nutrition is good. I claim that that relies very heavily upon the notion that life is good, which is a hard claim to make with so much suffering in the world. The neutrality of non-existence seems an appealing alternative, in the light of such an argument. Beyond that, beneficial to whom? If the greater good, that is to say, the good that would be enjoyed by more individuals than not, is the more desirable outcome, then should mob rule not be life's golden rule? If the proposed ecstasy and torment should be weighed between all parties, then shouldn't psychotic sociopaths, who do so much enjoy the killing, be able to have that fun murdering people in their sleep? I would hope not. You are quite right in that this subject has everything to do with the nature of truth, and I believe very much that the very nature of truth is that reality is perspective dependant, in that we can only interact with reality to the utmost of our perceptions, and that which we call, "reality", is merely the common perception of our environment, as if from a bird's eye view or theologically removed perspective, as if any of us writing here today are a vast multitude of people, or a deity come down upon these planes of existence just to type here, today. My general point in this was that just as reality is perspective dependant, so also are the concepts of good and evil, in that there is no true good or evil, and, if there is, most certainly could not be such upon our physical plane, and every moral decision is but a shade of gray.
  
  2.) You make the claim here that people can be good or bad. People were not created within moral boundaries, signed to contract at birth, nor were they created upon a plane of morals in which we could move so easily across a certain line from good to bad or back. People can not be good or bad, only decisions can (in your current perspective of there actually being a good or bad, not mine), as decisions can be good or bad from the perspective of the decider, thus granting them some small merit of self-actualized moral standing, in holding these acts against some token moral chart they have created for themselves. When writing (for whatever personal reason that would not require some prequisite ink color), should you have to choose between black pen and blue pen, would one decision be good or bad? Or is the decision neutral, because it has not had to be put up against a moral measuring rod (of perceived effect upon others with perceived outcomes of pleasure and suffering calculated)? Better yet, should you be living for some reason in a home for the criminally insane, and your cell-mate is greatly disturbed to violent extremes by the color blue, then does your decision then include moral dilemma? I would hope so, but, then, that might lead one to believe that good and bad are perspective dependant, in that they rely upon the perspective of the decision maker (due to knowledge at hand) in order to be moral or immoral, right or wrong, good or bad; which would make good relative to the observer, and only a shade of gray against any ultimate truth.
  
  3.) Physics as ultimate truth? How about this? Quanta (that is, quantum-sized particles) have only a certain probability of existing in our dimension at any given moment. They, seemingly randomly, disappear and reappear at length. We don't know if they're different particles blinking in and out of existence in minute lifespans, we don't know if they're mulitple particles existing one moment, not existing the next, and reappearing the next, we don't know if every particle in the universe is one and the same. What we do know, is that these particles, which are within every physical object, are only probably existing in any moment, and so are not truly there, but not truly absent. Furthermore, the effects of certain particles do not exist until the particle, itself, is physically witnessed by a human being, meaning that we create our reality with our perceptions. To give an example of this knowledge in a controlled environment monitored by scientists, consider this true story: A man invented a machine a few years ago that manipulated the magnetic fields of physical objects to a point where he could levitate a cup of ice cream within the field generated by this device. Excited, he showed other people. While this man was in the room, the device worked. When this man was not in the room, the device would not work for certain other people, the trend being that it would not work for skeptics. It is unknown whether it was some part in their brains that effected the outcome through belief in the machine's abilities, or whether it was the effect of the electomagnetic fields of the brains of certain people that caused this phenomena. Mathematics as ultimate truth? Mathematics mean nothing without a real-life application, as variabes and numbers are symbols for concepts of unknowns and real integers. Divide everything by zero and everything is zero, and, thus, equivalent. Were mathematics not flawed, this would not be so. By my argument, you may have guessed that I have some small background in physics and mathematics, and you may be curious as to my position on the application of mathematics to their fullest extent as I can perceive them, in direct regard to a universally perceived truth. This, then, I will tell you. Probability is mathematics (in the calculating of probable outcomes), and probable paths are certain (whether they are perceived or not is irrelevant, as they are conceptualized as universally applicable. They have, at one point or another existed, or we would not be here.). However, certainly, no probability of any possible path is certain. That is the 'truth' with which I interact. I shift myself across probable linear paths of space-time. There is no math, as there is no measuring rod capable of measuring probable outcomes in series of infinites in direct relation to a specific human vessel limited by their own perceptions, as we have no way of accurately gauging our perceptions. There is no physics, as there are no points of reference in an endless, pointless path of space-time. There, then, is no ultimate truth but the existence of (presumably) multiple aware beings, and how we steer ourselves through life is dependant upon our perspectives. Thus, the whole of reality is perspective dependant. I live with my perceptions outside of space and time. You then go on to say that goods are good, but, property is not happiness, as any wealthy man among the destitute will tell you, forgetting your mention of everyone being a billionaire.
  
  4.) It is in the proclamation of righteousness that one becomes unrighteous by their own standards, in my eyes, as they are condemning a person in their views which they have developed in order to survive. If a person is not affecting you with their 'sinful' actions, then what business is it of yours? Romans Chapter Fourteen states that, "Nothing is unclean", but that human beings make things unclean. It instructs not to allow what you think of as right to be spoken ill of, but not to put a stumbling block before your brother. This is in the same vein as that before the knowledge of good and evil, in this biblical story-land, there was no good or evil, and human beings only dressed themselves to hide their shame, as it were. What damage could the awareness of such concepts of good and evil have? The endless calculating of outcomes to determine which choice is good or evil? The anxiety, the fear, the desperation of making such a decision? The hurt, the anguish, the despair of knowing someone may have wronged you? The pain of realizing you may have wronged yourself? It seems then to be all in your head. Your view of actions being in contradiction to your perceived natural order of life is only your view, and you should not put that stumbling block before your brother, by your own doctrine's statements. But, again, that is still based upon the proposition that life is good. How can you know if life is good if you have not experienced death, to know it bad?
  
  5.) These hedonistic pleasures, if not affecting you, should be of no concern. You mentioned only of those that effect others. The education of those that consider themselves righteous could be viewed as a hedonistic pleasure, for they are pleasuring themself with the 'saving' of others at the cost of the suffering and forced change of others, especially when those they are educating are doing no harm to the 'savers'. Education should only be used in conjunction with forcible restraint when it is an absolute necessity in order to protect the victims of the 'hedonists', whether they be physical trespasses, or psychological, such as with such forcd education.
  
  6.) "More aptly, the sinners (without qualifying quotes) delude themselves in buying into their own schemes of communal living, homosexual unions, and utopian pipe dreams. The bulk of people genuinely attempting to live the GOOD lifestyle realize that they are still prone to sin and selfishness and it is but a tiny minority who consider themselves good that militantly suppress or bring harm to people of differing lifestyles."
  
  WOW. The communal living is not better than a dictatorship? A democracy is very much an example of communal living, although Jefferson admitted it a "mob rule, in which the majority bully the minority". Homosexual unions harm no one. Utopian ideals should be everyone's ideals, as Utopian merely indicates a lack of suffering. Are you saying, then, that you want suffering? I didn't think so. Why then, would you talk down upon these three examples that you, yourself cited, when you claim that it is a tiny minority that consider themselves good that militantly suppress different lifestyles? Are you then putting yourself in such a category as you, yourself have created?
  
  7.) While I never truly believed in such, perhaps, if only out of fear that this may one day may used against me, this is still very much fun to play devil's advocate with. You say that that person has a right to life. What about serial killers? You say that that person has a right to life. What if there were a killer that could not be contained, but could be killed? Would it not be necessary for the survival of all? Hypothetically, what if God is/ was the entirety of the universe as one singular, sentient being, and decided to 'kill' him/her/it-self to give life for all others? Would such an act be wrong? What, then, of suicide? Is that wrong, if you are leaving the resources for others to enjoy? What if a person had a genetic defect that caused them to use more oxygen in a lifetime than our planet could support in ten years? Would that be in the greater good? What of a paraplegic, tortured every day, begging for assistance in suicide, should they not have their will fulfilled? Such killing isn't indiscriminate, it is calculated, cold, and efficient.
  
  If we are all extensions of God's will, and each of our perspectives is one that God willed, for it is one that he created, as we can not create anything, only move things around, then, as God lives vicariously through us in the minute planning of our lives, in allowing us to have grown in these exact ways under these exact circumstances, we are all exactly where God wants us to be, and, as we are, again, extensions of God's will for His divine experience of His own will, then every love is narcissistic, and every hurt sado-masochistic.
  
  A life lived only in pleasure is a life lacking pleasure, for it has no painful point of reference with which to view the pleasure. Any hurt would hurt one in such a pleasurable circumstance immensely. A life lacking suffering is a life wasting God's gift of that experience which would enhance such pleasure. If suffering, then, is not bad, not good, but neutral, a tool, a device, then good and evil would not seem as universal as certain extremists might like to believe, but, rather, as primitive and contradictory forces, much like positive and negative charges in an electrical system. As a young child, in my efforts to become close to God, I attempted to become like Jesus, in his own search to be like God, and grew beyond such primitive concepts of good and evil, as a 'good' God would never create anything not good. Thus, either everything is good, or nothing is good, or everything is neutral. God would not be able to view himself as good while still remaining humble, a good trait, while creating that which is bad, and would not be able to view himself as bad, while creating such good, and so must view himself as neutral, perhaps, even, as a force, and as we are extensions of His will, we are, then, neutral, truly a victim of our environmental and genetic circumstance. What, then, is the purpose of life, if not to decide? To experience, perhaps, so that God might experience Himself, His universe, through us, much like a finger running through His hair, and snagging, and returning to running through His hair. Not positive. Not negative. Just neutral experience for His eternal passing of time to relieve boredom in eternity.
  
  In closing, allow me to explain what thoughts guide my actions. I act based upon the perceived probabilities of the effects of my actions, choosing to act in my own favor (as that is all any of us do, in my own humble opinion, as even compassionate acts are only to appease something inside of us that is only appeased by such, regardless of whether you believe that to be because you truly care about an individual more than the evolutionarily placed trait of emotion meant to further bonds between people for strength in numbers, or because we identify with whatever other person due to perceived similarities, and would then feel as if we were doing something to a version of ourselves), by reducing the suffering of others in an effort to reduce lashing out due to pain by others, so that I might live in a more peaceful environment. I live the life I would like others to live, by example, opening minds, treating kindly, standing in defense of my person, property, and family, for our protection, and to further the notion that you will be met with resistance if your path is not the path of consideration.
  
  Or, am I a nonreligious former Christian, with deeply embedded moral values, looking to justify my moral stances by proclaiming my actions the most intelligent regardless of perceived moral standing and differences between moral measuring rods, from Satanists to Christians to Muslims to Atheists?
  
  Given the argument, would it really matter?
• Exit-Stage-Right : Couldn't Disagree More With Your Premise on February 1, 2008

  [My comments in brackets]
  
  "The concept of 'good' is a label that the weak use to separate themselves from that which they admit has a strong influence over them in a way that they do not wish.
  
  [Why make things so complicated? Good is merely that which is beneficial. Nutrition is good. Lack of nutrition is bad. Sex is good. Unrestricted raping of the masses is bad. It has nothing to do with being weak, it has everything to do with the nature of truth.]
  
  The weak use this concept of 'good' to promote themselves as 'right', and all that are unlike them in any way to be 'wrong',
  
  [Promoting one self is not good... therefore if someone good is promoting themself, you know they are bad. The good should promote what is right, not promote themselves as right.]
  
  as if some supernatural deity would truly think in such primitive terms of opposing conceptual and contradictory forces,
  
  (as if) an infallible and omnipotent deity would create anything imperfect or be in any way restricted by one of their creations,
  
  and as if it is impossible for more than one perspective to be valid.
  
  [Think of an empty universe -- void -- blank -- nothing. Add a few inanimate objects. On the day objects were added to the universe, ultimate truth was born in the form of mathematics, physics, and concrete sciences which are, within the confines of this universe: immutable. Modern day scientists and mathematicians are unravelling, unveiling, and quantifying the physical composition of the universe. Ultimately, however, GOOD will be defined as that which provides the most reasonable amount of goods for the most amount of people. GOOD will encompass the physical and social systems which provide the closest approximation of a reasonable amount of goods for the most people. (GOOD does not support the MOST amount of goods for the MOST amount of people as the world WILL NOT be better if EVERYONE becomes a billionaire.)]
  
  The weak do this so as to strengthen their resolve in standing with a few other weak and like-minded individuals to stand steadfast against any way of life they fear due to the lack of a will to understand the other.
  
  [No, not at all. The righteous do this to strengthen the physical and social integrity of the species. Not every way of life contributes in positive manner to providing for all. Some people from the alternative lifestyle camp support systems and processes that are at odds with the ideal systems and processes of life. ]
  
  The weak, the 'good', and the 'right' then use these terms to spread intolerance, fear, and hatred, so as to reassure themselves by the support of their weak and like-minded peers of their own superiority in having chosen the easier path of exclusion of acts and people rather than the difficult and divine, universally reflective, all-inclusive path of acceptance and tolerance of all things.
  
  [At this juncture, the GOOD have little alternative but to educate the masses on the drawbacks of processes that LIBERTINES will unfailingly foist on the people in their own pursuit of hedonistic pleasure with little regard for society as a whole. That some less-educated do-gooders in the name of GOOD spread intolerance and fear is a statistical probability that can't be avoided. Not everyone has the capacity to understand the details and intricacies of living GOOD and the relatively few permutations of style choices that promote the healthiest and most vibrant form of society.]
  
  The 'sinners' save the 'saved' from themselves in not buying or selling "Heaven" or "Hell", and nonviolently living the better example of respect, tolerance, and enjoying one's self.
  
  [More aptly, the sinners (without qualifying quotes) delude themselves in buying into their own schemes of communal living, homosexual unions, and utopian pipe dreams. The bulk of people genuinely attempting to live the GOOD lifestyle realize that they are still prone to sin and selfishness and it is but a tiny minority who consider themselves good that militantly suppress or bring harm to people of differing lifestyles.]
  
  If a person is not truly enjoying their life, and are utilizing the resources that others are deprived of, and would not be missed if their license to live were revoked, and contribute nothing to society for the rest of the folks, or when all is weighed are but a burden on us, and we would all be better off without their presence, then we would be remiss in not taking their life and improving the whole at the cost of one life? Who is to say? Not I."
  
  [I say! I say that person still has a right to life. Society also has a right to shun that person, to disown them, if you will, until such time as they may see the light and decide pitching in isn't so bad after all. Indiscriminate killing of people perceived to be unhappy and perceived to not be contributing to society should never be condoned. It isn't GOOD.]
  

Online: 537

Moderators - add ticket
Cyber Artist

344 visitors

Profanity Filter