I'd just like to get something straight in my mind from a theoretical/intellectual point of view. Would it be fair to say that there are two kinds of "evil" described in MBT?

1. Intents that raise the entropy of the system
2. Intents that lower the entropy of the system through control and force

The second is a more limiting form of entropy reduction when compared with Intents that lower the entropy of the system through love.

Both types are the result of fear.

For the first, what would you append to the end of the sentence if I was to add the word "through"? Chaos? Also control and force?

My usage of the word "evil" is only a metaphor. Bad and immoral might be two synonyms, to give you an idea of what I'm getting at.

I remember that in my previous reads of MBT I was unclear as to whether the "anti-rats" were doing 1, 2, or both.

These are just my thoughts on the subject as of now. I would appreciate any expansion on the topic.

_________________
Mike

Without control and force, intent is just dreaming and wishful thinking.

By feeding your cat, you are providing control to the environment, because it prevents a number of things from happening, and opens other possibilities. The same thing with forcing medicin down its throat.

Evil is the result of wishful thinking and giving up responsibility. The whip as opposed to the carrot.

Evil is the time-bomb of unintended consequences.

_________________
Johan

Also, we can't know in advance whether an intent "raises entropy". We have to test it, and it's not for us to judge the result.

If the system works as Tom proposes, we help it best by following our hearts.

_________________
Johan

Negative, there are no types of evil. There are many types of confusion though.

_________________
I eat ego's for breakfast!
Sincerely, Ego.

I think evil is too un-TOEish a word to be working with in the first place, too much baggage. TOE-wise, I think you only get to something like evil if you think in terms of all bump, and no sheet. Evil is merely the absence of sheet-ness, or empathy, such that the PMR rule set of dominance and control, for selfish intent, completely dominates.

you seem to presume that control and force itself is somehow "evil" or bad

like a gun, control and force is dangerous, but it is a tool, a necessary tool

Ted skillfully uses control and force to optimize efficiency on this forum.

AUM creates controlling rulesets by force, with good intent.

As in Moral Code, one may constrain the decision space of another, for their benefit and the benefit of the community

the key is what is the intention of the control or force.

_________________
Does this PMR make my butt look big?

Would it be more sortable to ask

"How many kinds of justice or injustice are there?"

Mike, have you considered that while a negative being can lower its entropy (within limits) by control and force, it will always come at a cost, the being may very well lower its entropy, but that does not mean the system does. I would claim that the negative being would raise the entropy of the system by it's interactions with other beings, no matter how low entropy it would be able to get "locally". The lower the entropy of the negative being, the more potential there is for destruction and high entropy in the wake of its actions. Which of these two do you think outweighs each other, in terms of the whole system?

Some people may ask "What about the opportunity for growth caused by evil? Doesn't that make it equal out in the big picture?" No, it does not. It is only a mitigating factor, an fortunate side-effect that a few individuals of the total, grows from the experience, instead of devolves. Higher entropy in the system will still be the overall result of the destructive behaviour from negative beings.

I hope this have been of use to you.

Man,
I didn't mean to say that all control and force is bad. I was talking more about the kind of control and force that imposes on someone else's free will, in a non-caring way. Perhaps I should have made that more clear.

As for your second post, I agree for the most part. But I do think we should judge the result, or in other words, assess the feedback so that we can make better choices later.

Lumpy,
I am using evil as a metaphor so it exists in that sense.

Randy,
Similar to what I said to Man. The Intent is an "evil" one, and that is typically through control and force is it not? I didn't mean to say all control and force is bad. Constraints provide structure and can be beneficial, yes.

Montana,
I'm not sure? What do you mean? Isn't it just another metaphor?

s_s,
Thank you, this is more along the lines of what I was getting at, so yes it is useful. I hadn't considered that at the time I posted this thread, but it makes sense to me now.

To answer your question I would think that more damage is done to the system as a whole. The control and force is limiting because it limits free will and thus the overall possible states of being/bit configuration/entropy. I would add that an "evil" being might use control and force to also try lowering the entropy of not only itself (locally) but also of others who let themselves become manipulated through fear. But again this is limiting free will and the rest of the system pays an even higher cost.

Basically, I wasn't looking at the bigger picture with #2 and I don't think it is logically possible. The two possible "evils" I had in mind are just different perspectives of the whole picture.

_________________
Mike

Very intrusting! And I think evil is appropriate, when you organize the data to be used in a more profitable negative controlling way, I don't think it goes anywhere in lowering the entropy of the system, Seems like more of a deep dark black hole that the players fall into. However I think it can be useful as a model to evolve away from, thus causing positive growth Fred searching for truth

Mike...

When I read the question, it just immediately seemed more tangible, for me, if instead of asking what are the different kinds of evil, to ask, "What are the different kinds of injustice?" ... it seems like I can't conceive of evil without supposing that there is some sort of injustice involved, and that the presence of injustice seems necessary for me to perceive the idea of evil at all. So, for me, the question simply morphed that way. Can anyone here conceive of some sort of 'evil' that does not involve some sort of injustice?

And then it felt lopsided to suppose that a thing like a typology of injustice could exist without reference to a typology of justice, so I figured I should include the idea of 'justice' in the question as well: How many kinds are there? What are their nuances, etc.

I didn't notice till I was asleep last night that my remark probably seemed obtuse and non-sequiter. Thanks for asking.

Correction!! I meant very interesting! not intrusting Fred

I took it to mean could organizing the data in a negative way help the system. I think directly no, indirectly yes as a point of reference to evolve away from. Fred searching for truth

Rather than going into a detailed definition, analysis and taxonomy of 'evil', why not just stick with Tom's statement that the purpose of our functioning and interactions here in PMR is to maintain the free will of all other participants as best that we may. As I put it, to optimize the free will of all. This ties directly into the model of Consciousness Space and our whole reality as Tom has described free will as being a necessary aspect of reality as a meta reality within CS in order for consciousness to arise at all. It seems much simpler to analyzed interactions on the basis of free will and its optimization as opposed to considering things as evil. Approaching things as evil or not evil and in some kind of hierarchy of evilness requires a great deal of complication, new vocabulary and all of the problems of definition of terminology. Besides, it is difficult to obtain consensus as to what is evil and relative degrees while violation of free will is much more clear cut and easy to get at, at least in my opinion.

Ted

Ted,
I guess I was trying to get a clearer picture of how the entropy of the system is affected by someone purposely manipulating free will (self and others) in the anti-rat sort of way (evil).

How does an anti-rat manipulate free will to lower it's own entropy? Is it purely through the control and force of others? The model I used to have is that love lowers entropy and fear raises entropy, but this seems to be different. But an anti-rat is lowering its own entropy without love.

Montana,
Whichever metaphor works for you.

_________________
Mike

Seems to me it depends on your interpretation of love. Fred searching for truth