Good and Evil

[Eodnhoj7]

There is no value as mix of good and evil.

Neutral is both good and evil, like grey is black and white.

Nah, neutral is a value between good and evil. Colors are not good or evil.

It is a value between positive and negative as well. A color between white and black are grey.

[Immanuel Can]

But there is still visual clarity, a windshield with a chip in it can still be used regardless of its deficiency. The windshield is lacking in integrity but portions of it are still clear.

IIIII'm gonna say you're mistaking an analogy for the reality itself.

Can't help you there.

But a windshield can be damaged and still useful.

IIIII'm gonna say you're still mistaking an analogy for the reality itself.

[henry quirk]

Neutral is both good and evil, like grey is black and white.

Nah, neutral is a value between good and evil. Colors are not good or evil.

It is a value between positive and negative as well. A color between white and black are grey.

Metaphors and figuratives aside: there is good intent/action and evil intent/action. There's no neutral midpoint between them.

[Immanuel Can]

Nah, neutral is a value between good and evil. Colors are not good or evil.

It is a value between positive and negative as well. A color between white and black are grey.

Metaphors and figuratives aside: there is good intent/action and evil intent/action. There's no neutral midpoint between them.

Right. One can pick apart an action, and show good and bad elements within it, without being able to decide whether the action overall was good or evil. Take the action of stealing bread to feed one's family. Feeding one's family is good. Stealing is bad. And that doesn't make the action neutral...it makes it a discrete composite of good and bad elements.

And overall, the action of stealing bread could be warranted or unwarranted, depending not the circumstance and weighting of the stealing and feeding -- how necessary was the theft, and how needy was the family, for example. Nevertheless, the stealing will never itself be made good, or the feeding itself made bad, by the composite of those two actions.

[Eodnhoj7]

Nah, neutral is a value between good and evil. Colors are not good or evil.

It is a value between positive and negative as well. A color between white and black are grey.

Metaphors and figuratives aside: there is good intent/action and evil intent/action. There's no neutral midpoint between them.

A neutral moral action, such as eating noodles instead of bread, can be neither good nor bad or both good and bad (such as eating pizza over vegetables/meat for dinner, ie it is good to eat but bad to each poorly.)

[Eodnhoj7]

IIIII'm gonna say you're mistaking an analogy for the reality itself.

Can't help you there.

But a windshield can be damaged and still useful.

IIIII'm gonna say you're still mistaking an analogy for the reality itself.

All forms of reality are descriptive by nature, as descriptive both real life and analogies have a common bond.

[henry quirk]

It is a value between positive and negative as well. A color between white and black are grey.

Metaphors and figuratives aside: there is good intent/action and evil intent/action. There's no neutral midpoint between them.

A neutral moral action, such as eating noodles instead of bread, can be neither good nor bad or both good and bad (such as eating pizza over vegetables/meat for dinner, ie it is good to eat but bad to each poorly.)

I think we can dicker over where diet sits, but diet ain't neutral either.

[Immanuel Can]

...real life and analogies have a common bond.

"A common bond," but never "total identity."

An analogy is no good if it's too far away from being connected with its subject, but also no good if it's so identical to its subject that it's the same as what it attempts to analogize. So with an analogy, we've always got to be content that it's comparable well to one aspect of its subject, and not ask that it be exactly the same as its subject in all respects.

[Eodnhoj7]

Metaphors and figuratives aside: there is good intent/action and evil intent/action. There's no neutral midpoint between them.

A neutral moral action, such as eating noodles instead of bread, can be neither good nor bad or both good and bad (such as eating pizza over vegetables/meat for dinner, ie it is good to eat but bad to each poorly.)

I think we can dicker over where diet sits, but diet ain't neutral either.

Yes it can be.

[Eodnhoj7]

...real life and analogies have a common bond.

"A common bond," but never "total identity."

An analogy is no good if it's too far away from being connected with its subject, but also no good if it's so identical to its subject that it's the same as what it attempts to analogize. So with an analogy, we've always got to be content that it's comparable well to one aspect of its subject, and not ask that it be exactly the same as its subject in all respects.

All phenomenon can exist through analogies as certain qualities have a common bond with other qualities through a medial quality.

Along an infinite continuum all qualities are center points, and as center points one quality is always directed to another.

[Immanuel Can]

All phenomenon can exist through analogies...

This isn't coherent English.

A singular noun is linked to a plural and intransitive verb, with another noun used as the object of an ambiguous preposition.

That doesn't work. No sense can be made from it.

So, naturally, I can't respond.

[Eodnhoj7]

All phenomenon can exist through analogies...

This isn't coherent English.

A singular noun is linked to a plural and intransitive verb, with another noun used as the object of an ambiguous preposition.

That doesn't work. No sense can be made from it.

So, naturally, I can't respond.

All phenomena may possibly exist through analogies.

[Immanuel Can]

All phenomenon can exist through analogies...

This isn't coherent English.

A singular noun is linked to a plural and intransitive verb, with another noun used as the object of an ambiguous preposition.

That doesn't work. No sense can be made from it.

So, naturally, I can't respond.

All phenomena may possibly exist through analogies.

Yeah, that's the sentence. You fixed the agreement problem, but nothing else.

[Eodnhoj7]

This isn't coherent English.

A singular noun is linked to a plural and intransitive verb, with another noun used as the object of an ambiguous preposition.

That doesn't work. No sense can be made from it.

So, naturally, I can't respond.

All phenomena may possibly exist through analogies.

Yeah, that's the sentence. You fixed the agreement problem, but nothing else.

Along an infinite continuum all phenomenon are center points to further phenomenon.

[Immanuel Can]

All phenomena may possibly exist through analogies.

Yeah, that's the sentence. You fixed the agreement problem, but nothing else.

Along an infinite continuum all phenomenon are center points to further phenomenon.

????

What happened to "analogies"? Where did this "continuum" suddenly appear from?

I'm not getting any sense of thought flow here.