[Philosophy] Change in balance, karma and focus.
This is a point of view that I wish to share. Not a debate. If you don't agree make your own post. Otherwise I am likely to delete any such arguments.
[sep][sep][sep][sep]
[quote] [c=#000000]Change in balance, karma and focus.
For a few decades now I have been considering the differences between Occidental philosophy, Western philosophy and Oriental philosophy.
Yes there is a difference between Western and Occidental. Western is the predominant Abrahamic type of philosophy which is polarized or Good verses evil, right verses wrong.
Where Occidental includes the Greek, Roman, Egyptian and other pagan groups. As another example even Sumerian is apart of Occidental philosophy (†).
Few seem to wish to make those distinctions unfortunately.
This bit of ancient history is besides the point. The differences are obviously pronounced. between Western philosophy and Occidental philosophy simply because one is monotheistic and the others are polytheistic in all there approaches. Western being polar. Where in Egypt is based on a variable code. (‡) from which the Greeks refined the concept of evil as in the various underworld levels of hades.
This variable code of the Egyptians was based on two parts (‡). A code on how to live as well as a code in preparation to die with one supporting the other. You can see how the greeks came up with the concepts of good and evil from this point of view. Both greeks and Egyptians are polar is the essence living and death.
In Oriental philosophy the polarism is in balance. which avoids the concept of evil versus good and leaves the evil and good up to karma with good karma and bad karma. And leaving anything in between as bad karma.
This I find is contradictory. For balance is the middle point. Yet again you can see the polarism in this concept.
All these points of views are in support of societal values though, which is why I say religion is the source social values and has little to do with what actually is.
Going back to Egyptian beliefs and the separation codes for living and codes for an after life though brings up some interesting points. One is focused on society with the living, yet the other is focused on the individual. This not present in either Western philosophy nor on Oriental philosophy. Which possibly is why it didn't survive to modern times. A society with two such standards simply cannot exist when confronted with the simpler polar values.
Yet reality really isn't that simple. There is infinite variables in reality all dependent on the others.
This point of perspective why I feel a new concept of values is needed. Something more based on reality.
There is some common points in all these philosophies. This is my perspective on all of this:
Balance takes on the perspective of the group. Focus takes on the perspective of the individual. Karma takes on the perspective of the point between balance and focus. Yet change is the summation of all of three points.
Change happens in everything as I have often mentioned. Some have actually agreed to this not understanding what I meant by change.
I view change as a philosophy though which is not polar in any way. I view change as technically a good thing yet not necessarily as good itself. Change can vary even in the amount of change. So how can change be a force of good when it varies? 🤷🏻♂
In Christianity the concept of good is focused on one diety called God. Yet god by their concept simply cannot change. This actually violates the laws of the physical universe for everything changes. They will argue that God is not apart of the universe, yet at the same time consider him the universe itself. Again impossible for everything within the universe changes, from the very smallest particle to the whole universe itself.
Yet what is most contradictory all these beliefs have is there only being one universe, only one reality, only one of whatever they can conceive as the whole.
Science itself has gone far beyond this simple concept of only what we perceive as being real. The mathematics itself is impossible because the math offers other realities.
Yet the one thing common with this is change. Change is the one thing in common with even multiple universes and multiple dimensions. For even change can change itself where no deity can possibly change.️
[sep][sep][sep][sep]
References:
† https://www.arianuova.org/en/india-and-egypt
‡ https://library.acropolis.org/philosophy-in-ancient-egypt/
[/c] [/quote]
[sep][sep][sep][sep]
[quote] [c=#000000]Change in balance, karma and focus.
For a few decades now I have been considering the differences between Occidental philosophy, Western philosophy and Oriental philosophy.
Yes there is a difference between Western and Occidental. Western is the predominant Abrahamic type of philosophy which is polarized or Good verses evil, right verses wrong.
Where Occidental includes the Greek, Roman, Egyptian and other pagan groups. As another example even Sumerian is apart of Occidental philosophy (†).
Few seem to wish to make those distinctions unfortunately.
This bit of ancient history is besides the point. The differences are obviously pronounced. between Western philosophy and Occidental philosophy simply because one is monotheistic and the others are polytheistic in all there approaches. Western being polar. Where in Egypt is based on a variable code. (‡) from which the Greeks refined the concept of evil as in the various underworld levels of hades.
This variable code of the Egyptians was based on two parts (‡). A code on how to live as well as a code in preparation to die with one supporting the other. You can see how the greeks came up with the concepts of good and evil from this point of view. Both greeks and Egyptians are polar is the essence living and death.
In Oriental philosophy the polarism is in balance. which avoids the concept of evil versus good and leaves the evil and good up to karma with good karma and bad karma. And leaving anything in between as bad karma.
This I find is contradictory. For balance is the middle point. Yet again you can see the polarism in this concept.
All these points of views are in support of societal values though, which is why I say religion is the source social values and has little to do with what actually is.
Going back to Egyptian beliefs and the separation codes for living and codes for an after life though brings up some interesting points. One is focused on society with the living, yet the other is focused on the individual. This not present in either Western philosophy nor on Oriental philosophy. Which possibly is why it didn't survive to modern times. A society with two such standards simply cannot exist when confronted with the simpler polar values.
Yet reality really isn't that simple. There is infinite variables in reality all dependent on the others.
This point of perspective why I feel a new concept of values is needed. Something more based on reality.
There is some common points in all these philosophies. This is my perspective on all of this:
Balance takes on the perspective of the group. Focus takes on the perspective of the individual. Karma takes on the perspective of the point between balance and focus. Yet change is the summation of all of three points.
Change happens in everything as I have often mentioned. Some have actually agreed to this not understanding what I meant by change.
I view change as a philosophy though which is not polar in any way. I view change as technically a good thing yet not necessarily as good itself. Change can vary even in the amount of change. So how can change be a force of good when it varies? 🤷🏻♂
In Christianity the concept of good is focused on one diety called God. Yet god by their concept simply cannot change. This actually violates the laws of the physical universe for everything changes. They will argue that God is not apart of the universe, yet at the same time consider him the universe itself. Again impossible for everything within the universe changes, from the very smallest particle to the whole universe itself.
Yet what is most contradictory all these beliefs have is there only being one universe, only one reality, only one of whatever they can conceive as the whole.
Science itself has gone far beyond this simple concept of only what we perceive as being real. The mathematics itself is impossible because the math offers other realities.
Yet the one thing common with this is change. Change is the one thing in common with even multiple universes and multiple dimensions. For even change can change itself where no deity can possibly change.️
[sep][sep][sep][sep]
References:
† https://www.arianuova.org/en/india-and-egypt
‡ https://library.acropolis.org/philosophy-in-ancient-egypt/
[/c] [/quote]
61-69, M
