Nature's Good.

[Phi for All]

 

I can think of a few reasons why using a simple explanation such as good can be useful; for one, not every human is science-literate, some people are, inter alia, religious (in this specific case they already have terms for good and evil); for two, people tend to use the creative parts of the brain and neglect the logical side, and some still seem to function fine; this is what I would call a 'pointless illness' or a 'pointless pain', that has uses of it's own, such as leaving people the space to be imaginative---rather than having a strict definition for everything, which may lead to less waste-output because they have less interest in harmful-to-the-species technology or productivity in non-beneficent areas, simply because they don't know about this stuff, and if we're talking on a mass-scale, success here would definitely ensue.

 

You really should stop making up new phraseology and just study what others have already pioneered. You'll find people communicating about their ideas in a more seamless fashion, because they're all on the same page with their definitions. You seem like a smart person with good ideas; you don't need a new alphabet to be taken seriously.

 

None of what you're saying is new, but the way you're saying it is, and I think you're mistakenly proud of that. Just saying something in a new way doesn't make you a visionary, it just makes you hard to understand.

 

Learn what's in the box before attempting to think outside it. The box is known as the box for a good reason; it holds our most valuable stuff, and it's completely awesome.

[s1eep]

I'm unsure whether anyone has noticed the pattern that I have (well, actually, I'm sure people would recognize it if told, but they don't understand it as a pattern; but to me it's simple) where, if there are two objectives, there will be a good and evil side to both of them (this is the factors concerning the 2 particular outcomes of each objective; success/failure).

Edited August 22, 2014 by s1eep