Random, unfounded, untested, testable, thought I had surrounding good (positive energy), evil (negative energy), morality, ethics, the laws of thermodynamics, and people/populations as a spectrum of energy from a WESTERN lens. I acknowledge that I am on indigenous lands, Canada.

[u/RavenReid666]

It’s really just me talking shit

[u/blackpeppersnakes]

Where would you place MLK on the curve? Despite a few flaws in his personal life, I would say he had very good energy, was pragmatic, and brought about change ethically

[u/RavenReid666 → u/blackpeppersnakes]

First, ones “soul energy” does not determine their impact on humanity. I am not saying MLK is a superior person because of where his “soul energy” May reside. I am simply stating that his “soul energy” is most likely 1.5 SD toward good(positive, moral, beneficent, anabolic energy etc etc) energy.

This is evidenced by his desire to create change via awareness and not violence for example. Had a version of MLK existed that DID condone violence, he may be 1.5 deviations to the left on the evil(negative energy, violence, aggression, confrontation, catabolic energy etc etc). Again, I am not saying this MLK is a better or worse person. I am simply saying that the reality of context in our dynamic world may require an individual who sits in general negative energy dominance to do something ethical and or permissible even if it is violent, catabolic, destructive, etc.

[u/blackpeppersnakes → u/RavenReid666]

Are you assuming that people are blinded by their soul energy, though? Like why wouldn't Jesus be able to think critically, or act pragmatically for the greater good?

If Jesus stopped a murder, and beat up the assailant to subdue them, would that lower Jesus' soul energy, or would it be because he is a bit evil?

[u/RavenReid666 → u/blackpeppersnakes]

Thank you for bringing this up, Jesus was probably 2 SD into the positive energy, however, he still had some negative energy. If the story in the bible about Jesus destroying the tables at the temple where people were making money is true, iy evidences that Jesus (someone who I believe was just a man) was someone with a outlier positive soul charge. It is my theory that Jesus played his role as THAT member of our society and human history. It isn’t that Jesus is better than you or me or anyone else. It’s that Jesus was who he was in a great way that made an impact and he just happened to be a positive soul charge dominant person. Someone with negative soul charge energy can also do just as much good or more good than Jesus if the right occupational/ecological/existential factors align. For example, while Tony Iomi is NOT Jesus, he is in tune with a darkness that has impacted the world by creating the genre of metal. The world is not the same and is now better because metal exists and people enjoy it. No one would ever say that metal heads are bad or immoral people, but it’s certainly obvious that they thrive in a negative, dark, hateful, violent energy as is evidenced by the band cannibal corpse.

[u/blackpeppersnakes → u/RavenReid666]

Do you have a different example other than a metalhead, and what is your definition of soul energy/charge? Most metal musicians that I know are super nice and wouldn't hurt a fly. There's nothing inherently violent, negative, or angry about metal. I'd describe it as intense, fast, and heavy rather than anything to do with a dark energy (if I'm using that term right).

And then, I'm curious why you'd use a bell curve. If you're trying to find an ideal politician, wouldn't you want to use a fixed graph instead?

[u/RavenReid666 → u/blackpeppersnakes]

I hope I’m clear here. I love metal. Metal heads have good and bad people amount them, that’s okay. But when Cannibal Corpse makes a song called “Followed Home Then Killed” it isn’t that the song or its contents are immoral. It simply means they have a negative charge. The concept of being followed home and brutally murdered is DARK and EVIL it is a negative energy. However, it is simply an expression in music, it does not mean that members of cannibal corpse are capable of such horrid acts. It simply means that for them, there is a kind of comfort in that particular charge/darkness/negativity.

However, I will indulge your request. A Navy seal is negatively charged. Many seals like Jocko Wilink talk about a “darkness” that they understand. The ability to kill an insurgent does NOT come from positive charge . It is a negative charge trait. It means that those in negative charges are those more easily capable of killing theoretically. Jocko interacts with this darkness/negativity, and doesnt lose his shit during a fight to the death because of it. Ilia Topurias desire to DOMINATE and destroy his opponents is a negative energy trait. However, neither of us would say that Jocko or Ilia is automatically a bad person simply because they can hurt others. Just because you can, doesn’t mean you will.

The bell curve is related to an EXTENSION of my theory which investigates thermodynamics, the universe of numbers, the concept of infinity, and free will. But to summarize, and in no thorough or great detail, the idea is that the universe is balanced. The problem of evil exists because for all actions there is an equal and opposite reaction. Your ability to experience EXTREME bliss and all others ability to attain this in extremes is what makes evil so extreme. The elation of scientific breakthroughs that fill a nation with happiness and joy, is counter acted by death in gaza. This theory about macro level energy, exists in micro level energy. PEOPLE would ALSO be balanced and distributed this way in a world where good is equal to evil. I admit, a limitation of this view is an assumption that there is an exact distribution. It could be that there is more negative than positive energy or vice versa and therefore the bell curve is skewed. But even if this was the case we would simply use different statistical tools to find the grey area

[u/blackpeppersnakes → u/RavenReid666]

I feel like this is a bit of an anthropocentric approach on the Law of Polarity. If energy is distributed throughout the universe, wouldn't a human's energy be relative to everything, and not just that of other humans?

It's also kind of a depressing thought, that if we do something good, something terrible happens. It would be paralyzing.

[u/RavenReid666 → u/blackpeppersnakes]

It IS relative to EVERYTHING else. Animals have energy, positive and negative, environments have energy positive and negative, the entire universe and all its animate and inanimate matter has some distribution of positive and negative energy. Now, while a rocks energy may be neutral let’s say, that neautrality is the combination of positive and negative energy.

Again, if you put your positive energy toward INTENTIONALLY doing evil, you may not be paralyzed by anything because you are getting what you want, evil. However if you ATTEMPT to do good with positive OR negative energy and it ends terribly, this does not mean you acted unethically. It simply is. Bad things happen, people with good intentions create harm accidentally sometimes. However, in this instance tou would not be paralyzed or fail to accept yourself because you, if you ARE an ethical thinker irrespective of your energy charge, you are critical, reflective , reflexive, introspective, etc etc. therefore you KNOW you did the best you could to achieve what is right. If that effort fails, even if you are sad, you simply dust yourself off and continue going. Moral action does NOT always make you feel good. Sometimes you have to order the killing of innocents if you are a general or politician at war for example. None of this brings you great pleasure, it simply is. You MUST enact some degree of negative and positive energy in making a decision but this does not necessitate your happiness or satisfaction with that decision. It simply means you are trying to reason morally in a situation where ALL options sort of suck

[u/Philosopher83]

Welp, that happened 😂, I think this belongs in the r/funny sub.

I dont really know where to start.

there is a lot of false equivalence going on, like quantity of “negative energy” equating with capacity for moral reasoning.

I feel like you need more moral philosophy and psychology as well as physics since negative energy is not something people produce. They relate to others in a manner that causes negative experiences/consequences. A whole lot more clarity would be good, right now the vibe ain’t vibing on the energetics of your energy lol 😂

Odd 🙃

[u/RavenReid666 → u/Philosopher83]

I suggest you read the conversation on the post, you may form a different opinion, or not, it’s inconsequential which opinion you form. However, at the very least, can you recount my theory, its perspective, and ACCURATELY apply it to a morally ambiguous/obvious situation? If you cannot, you do not understand what it is you agree or disagree with. Either way, you’ve missed something in that case.

[u/Over-Ad-6159]

I think you believe in utilitarianism if you think things are permissible. A lot of leaders are motivated by pride and greed not their people. I dont beleive in morality so I think everyone is but especially them. The people in power don't follow utilitarianism because they will keep thier people in bad situations just to make a little more money. I think utilitarianism can't work because people need to be unequal socially.

[u/RavenReid666 → u/Over-Ad-6159]

It’s not utilitarian.

[u/Over-Ad-6159 → u/RavenReid666]

I thought it was because if things are permissible like saving two people instead of one then the majority is valued.

[u/RavenReid666 → u/Over-Ad-6159]

No, it’s that if we have a team of 5 people in a situation and 3 vote based on “negative soul charge dominance” to kill fewer or lesser people for whatever reason, it doesn’t mean that the 2 that voted with “positive soul charge dominance” who opposed this action were wrong. If the team collectively made a decision democratically and while weighing the moral principles that made sense to them, the decision is permissible despite its outcome whatever the outcome is. It is not that it is good, or bad, it’s both, and this numerous outcomes are allowed, some negative, some positive, some more so on one way than the other and in extreme or mild ways.

[u/Over-Ad-6159 → u/RavenReid666]

If saving the most people and outcomes don't matter, then why does being democratic matter. This is what I meant by people need to be unequal. If the focus isn't on outcomes, then nothing would work. Is being positive trying to save and help others why wouldnt it be more positive to help more people. Motivation is important but if outcomes don't matter then theres no need to learn.

[u/RavenReid666 → u/Over-Ad-6159]

Democracy matters because we are political, therefore morals involve our politics, it is not that the outcome doesn’t matter. It’s simply that the MOST correct decision would come from a TEAM of diverse energy perspectives. Many decisions are okay, but if only one can be chosen we have systems, democracy, courts, advocacy groups, etc that promote what they deem the MOST okay decision based on available ethical principles and thought.

[u/Over-Ad-6159 → u/RavenReid666]

Does authoritarianism matter because a different place uses that system.

[u/RavenReid666 → u/Over-Ad-6159]

I’m glad you asked this. Perhaps it would be a net negative for a sample of the universe to be forced to live under authoritarian regime. Say Canada falls victim to a dictator who removes freedoms people otherwise have a right to or enjoy. This dictator has a high negative charge as they are capable of harm on a grand scale. Sadly, because the dictators environment did not sufficiently challenge them such that they would self-actualize continuously and consider the ethical violation of say the principle of autonomy, he does BAD things with NEGATIVE energy. However, if this dictator through training and ethical teaching was MOLDED he could use that same energy to be a part of a government which operates democratically. His competence allowed him to be a dictator, that competence does not go anywhere and neither does the negative energy. The dependent variable changed is ethical action and the independent variable which influences it is critical reflection, reflexivity, and introspection as well as dissolving portions of one’s ego and the egos of others. In this way, the SAME person with the SAME soul charge can do “good” and “bad” things in a moral sense . It is not that those who are positive are good, and that those who are negative are bad. It is that those energies must be cultivated such that they produce moral action. Think, Darth Vader fighting the empire.

[u/Over-Ad-6159 → u/RavenReid666]

Does bad and negative mean wanting to do harm to people. If it does mean wanting to harm others does wanting to harm more people, make someone more bad and negative.

[u/RavenReid666 → u/Over-Ad-6159]

I love this question. I’ll provide myself as an example. I reside in a MORE negative portion of the soul spectrum. This does not mean I do not want to help others, be beneficent, contribute, build positive relationships, etc. However, I love violence and aggression. This is fact. I train in martial arts and genuinely enjoy hurting others BUT only in a specific context. I do NOT want to hurt those who do not consent, who are not a fair match up with me, are small, weak, defenceless etc etc. this does not mean I do not enjoy violence, or that I do not enjoy the suffering of those I do not like, it means I do not like these things impulsively and devoid of context. I would never stab an innocent old women to death, I simply could not bring myself to do it. However, if someone was trying to stab and old woman to death, I am capable of stopping them by killing them. I may not enjoy killing in the way that I enjoy Jiu Jitsu and MMA or knocking someone out. However, my negative charge makes the act of killing more easy for me than someone with a positive charge. This does not make me better or worse, it simply means I reside deeper into the negative soul energy spectrum than someone else and vice versa. The main point is, context matters. Do you like to hurt people? Yeah? That doesn’t mean you’re a bad person so long as you hurt people ethically, say, in the octagon of a UFC card

[u/kick_nazis_more → u/Over-Ad-6159]

I dont beleive in morality

You thought you should write that. You believe in morality.

[u/Over-Ad-6159 → u/kick_nazis_more]

I meant objectively. I think the topic is interesting but the more I look into it theres no way to beleive in objective morality.

[u/kick_nazis_more → u/Over-Ad-6159]

"objectively" ah who even knows what that means.

Idk I studied philosophy of science, "the view from nowhere does not exist", and yet truth still does.

[u/Over-Ad-6159 → u/kick_nazis_more]

I think objectively and truth applies to everyone while subjective doesn't. Morality is subjective.

[u/kick_nazis_more → u/Over-Ad-6159]

That works for a definition, pretty much. (How do you explain people being wrong?)

Re it being relative: Well that's not true, the Nazis were wrong - morally and any other framing of rationality.

Mary Midgley's "testing out ones new sword" was the first year lesson we got to counter the general folk idea that relativism is correct.

[u/Over-Ad-6159 → u/kick_nazis_more]

The Nzis were wrong based on our beliefs. Why were they wrong. They think were wrong. Why is hurting people wrong and why should we not try to hurt others. From what I read testing out ones new sword being wrong is just a opinion.

[u/kick_nazis_more → u/Over-Ad-6159]

The Nzis were wrong based on our beliefs.

Ah nup that's trash. You need to grow enough of a spine to not reject your own humanitu.

I'm not going to talk to someone who thinks raping a child to death is good from some meaningful perspectives.

[u/Over-Ad-6159 → u/kick_nazis_more]

I'm sorry if I sound mean. An abser might say that there desires matter more than anyone elses. Objectivly they are not wrong. Some people dont care about others. Things are not simple and wont fit into your world veiw which is why we have conversations. I dont like harming others but theres nothing objectivly wrong about it. Theres no argument accept personal opinion.

[u/kick_nazis_more → u/Over-Ad-6159]

You don't sound "mean"*, I am deliberately being mean, because I think thats the correct response.

You sound "clueless" but also "normal". Standard capitalist ideology.

Objectivly they are not wrong.

Real quick just rest that for me, go do what's bad about genocide to yourself, then come back, righto?

Anyway like i said, I don't talk to people who think it's not wrong to rape children to death. Freak.

[u/blackpeppersnakes → u/kick_nazis_more]

That's such a cowardly approach, to force them to defend nazis. Who are you to define a universal morality? Just because we agree that a raping nazi is immoral, doesn't mean that morality isn't subjective.

And Midgley has a terrible understanding of what relativism is. It has absolutely nothing to do with respect. It's about being aware of differences. Ignoring those differences is just lazy simplification, and it blinds us from reality

[u/kick_nazis_more]

Stoned?

[u/kick_nazis_more]

So a problem is that "positive energy" isn't really defined.

But ok so let's say we rank people. So what? (Not in an insulting way but like actually, why should I as someone who does care about ethical theory, care?)

Then maybe it's a normal distribution - ok maybe but so what?

Then you're saying that one linear ranking is also about who can "see things in greys instead of absolutes" and at that point there's three different ideas I'm supposed to be entertaining at once, and I lose interest.

So the lesson is: try to just make one claim. Focus on why that claim matters.

[u/RavenReid666 → u/kick_nazis_more]

I can define positive energy easily. The video is 8 minutes , I can’t explain every aspect of the concept in theory in that time. If you wanna know what I think read the comments, if not, thank you for engaging

[u/kick_nazis_more → u/RavenReid666]

Define it now.

Also my point still stands, ignore if if you don't want to learn how to do this better idc.

[u/RavenReid666 → u/kick_nazis_more]

Negative energy is the essential portion of all energy which cannot be destroyed, but can be transformed and changed, and that also lends itself to a more catabolic nature. This means it is more destructive and creates less order than more order. As such it is the energy that allows harm in all senses. The ability to digest protein and the fact that the digestion of protein even happens is because of the negative energy and it’s essential role in balancing positive energy which is anabolic, positive energy is like the ability for RNA to create proteins from DNA sequences.

On a larger scale negative energy is playfully calling your friend a pussy or slapping your girlfriend’s ass. There is an aggressive or destructive energy being applied in an ethical way.

[u/kick_nazis_more → u/RavenReid666]

Hey mate that was gibberish.

Say what you want to say without appropriating established scientific terms

Can go through explaing how it's wrong if you want but it'll take an investment from me you know?

[u/kick_nazis_more → u/RavenReid666]

Also it was "positive energy" that you said you were going to define.

[u/RavenReid666 → u/kick_nazis_more]

Oops, it’s just the opposite of negative energy. Positive energy is the essential portion of all energy which cannot be destroyed, but can be transformed and changed and that also lends itself to a more anabolic nature. This means it is more constructive and creates more order than less order. As such it is energy that allows benefit in all senses. The ability to do muscle protein synthesis is fueled by positive energy. I do not expect you to agree with me, or state that I am 💯 correct. I simple expect you to grapple with the idea and see that it is 1. Consistent, and 2. It makes sense if it IS real. However. I understand it is a big IF

[u/kick_nazis_more]

But yeah study some actual ethics and philosophy, it's amazing, and it's amazing how much it sharpens you up, and inspires etc.

[u/kick_nazis_more]

Obviously it's a theory I don't have to take as being true, etc etc etc just go.

[u/blackpeppersnakes → u/kick_nazis_more]

As in conjecture. No need to be a dick

[u/RavenReid666 → u/blackpeppersnakes]

Thank you

[u/kick_nazis_more → u/blackpeppersnakes]

Telling someone how to not to be a terrible communicator is not "being a dick".

As it happens it's also complete gibberish. And you're an idiot.

[u/blackpeppersnakes → u/kick_nazis_more]

You're just spamming the guy with comments, and then you have the nerve to tell them to, "just go."

Your other reply to me was removed, so I'm guessing you were insulting me, too. Seems to be a theme

[u/RavenReid666 → u/blackpeppersnakes]

Thank you for calling this behaviour out. I know you don’t necessarily agree with my theory, I know my theory is complete speculation and based on 0 evidence. However, despite this, you have respectfully and consistently deployed the principle of charity and humanity generally. I respect your approach.

Within the context of my theory, this guy you’re talking to who is being so rude, he is using negative energy in a way that we might term to be unethical. He is using his negative energy to hurt others for no reason. This does not mean he is a dichotomous good or bad person. It means he is still in a phase of his life in which he has not yet come to TAME his energies (negative and positive) and temper them such that he can interact with others ethically (have a respectful discussion without insulting people for no reason). His behaviour is a form of intellectual violence. He does not see or care about this because he has not self-actualized, thought reflectively or reflexively, etc etc. HOWEVER, he is CAPABLE of that ethical behaviour, but he must do so in a long painful process that Plato described as “crawling out of a cave in which pictures are casted onto a wall with fire and shadows”.