Good and Evil

[Eodnhoj7]

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.

Analogies are a subset of phenomenon, thus in a continuum of phenomenon one phenomenon (analogy) can be directed towards another phenomenon (analogy or non-analogy).

If it exists in thought word or deed it is connected to some other phenomenon.

[Immanuel Can]

Analogies are a subset of phenomenon, thus in a continuum of phenomenon one phenomenon (analogy) can be directed towards another phenomenon (analogy or non-analogy).

You're completely opaque here. Just say what you mean. No passive-voice, make the verbs and nouns agree, and be specific. Maybe you want to use an example. But do something, because you're making no sense at all.

[Eodnhoj7]

Analogies are a subset of phenomenon, thus in a continuum of phenomenon one phenomenon (analogy) can be directed towards another phenomenon (analogy or non-analogy).

You're completely opaque here. Just say what you mean. No passive-voice, make the verbs and nouns agree, and be specific. Maybe you want to use an example. But do something, because you're making no sense at all.

Analogies are phenomenon.

All phenomenon, including analogies, exist as part of a continuum of phenomenon.

This continuum is the change of one phenomenon into another.

All phenomenon, including analogies, lead to further phenomenon.

All phenomenon exist as parts of a continuum because one phenomenon changes into another.

This includes analogies. Analogies exist as part of this continuum. Why? Because phenomenon are mental, physical and emotional as different dimensions of the same thing. This "same thing" is "being" itself.

[henry quirk]

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.

I thought on this a bit...

Seems to me food, unless you get in a rotten way, is probably amoral, that is, food sits outside good and evil.

Incidentally, amorality is not synonymous with neutrality.

[Eodnhoj7]

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

Yes it can be.

I thought on this a bit...

Seems to me food, unless you get in a rotten way, is probably amoral, that is, food sits outside good and evil.

Incidentally, amorality is not synonymous with neutrality.

Neutral morality is neither good or bad or both good and bad. Food, barring gluttony, falls along the neutral moral system.

[bahman]

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.

Again, colors are not good or evil. You need to provide an example of good and evil.

[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.

Again, colors are not good or evil. You need to provide an example of good and evil.

Eating relative to health.

Eating healthy is good, eating bad is evil. Eating bad every once in awhile is neutral.

[bahman]

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

Again, colors are not good or evil. You need to provide an example of good and evil.

Eating relative to health.

Eating healthy is good, eating bad is evil. Eating bad every once in awhile is neutral.

No, eating bad is always evil.

[Immanuel Can]

Analogies are phenomenon.

Phenomena.

Well, I read what you said, and can't follow it a bit. Whether it's the grammar, the vagueness or the ideas, I can't tell.

Three tries. No go.

Okee dokee.

[henry quirk]

Yes it can be.

I thought on this a bit...

Seems to me food, unless you get in a rotten way, is probably amoral, that is, food sits outside good and evil.

Incidentally, amorality is not synonymous with neutrality.

Neutral morality is neither good or bad or both good and bad. Food, barring gluttony, falls along the neutral moral system.

amorality is not neutral morality

food, itself, is amoral

how you get it, that's where notions of good or evil come into play

[Immanuel Can]

amorality is not neutral morality

food, itself, is amoral

how you get it, that's where notions of good or evil come into play

Yeah...note the proviso, "barring gluttony." Apparently, E. senses you're right about that.

[Eodnhoj7]

Again, colors are not good or evil. You need to provide an example of good and evil.

Eating relative to health.

Eating healthy is good, eating bad is evil. Eating bad every once in awhile is neutral.

No, eating bad is always evil.

Not if it does not effect the health. Smoking 1 cigarette every few days compared to a pack a day is greatly different.

[commonsense]

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

I know what you mean, Eodnhoj, but I just can’t think of anything that shares a bond. Could you help me out with a few examples?

[commonsense]

Analogies are a subset of phenomenon, thus in a continuum of phenomenon one phenomenon (analogy) can be directed towards another phenomenon (analogy or non-analogy).

You're completely opaque here. Just say what you mean. No passive-voice, make the verbs and nouns agree, and be specific. Maybe you want to use an example. But do something, because you're making no sense at all.

Also, please use the correct plural of ‘phenomenon’.

[commonsense]

Analogies are a subset of phenomenon, thus in a continuum of phenomenon one phenomenon (analogy) can be directed towards another phenomenon (analogy or non-analogy).

You're completely opaque here. Just say what you mean. No passive-voice, make the verbs and nouns agree, and be specific. Maybe you want to use an example. But do something, because you're making no sense at all.

Analogies are phenomenon.

All phenomenon, including analogies, exist as part of a continuum of phenomenon.

This continuum is the change of one phenomenon into another.

All phenomenon, including analogies, lead to further phenomenon.

All phenomenon exist as parts of a continuum because one phenomenon changes into another.

This includes analogies. Analogies exist as part of this continuum. Why? Because phenomenon are mental, physical and emotional as different dimensions of the same thing. This "same thing" is "being" itself.

OK.

But now you’ve gone and pushed me off the rails. If this continuum is the change of one phenomenon into another, please take me through the steps included in the change.

Use the phenomena of dog and cat or a pairing of your choosing.