Part III – ARE THESE TRUTHS UNIVERSAL?

Previous two posts have noted, 

1. There are negative concepts that would not exist except that there is an antecedent positive word.  For example, “misuse” requires “proper use.” 
2. The principle found in Number 1) is not without some valuing which is that “proper use” is positive or good and “misuse” is negative or bad. 
3. The values of “good” and “bad” are found to exist broadly and historically. 
4. Pushed out further one finds this is same difference in the notion of “good” and “evil” for without “good,” there would be no concept of “evil.” 
5. “Good” and “Evil” cannot be equivalent opposites since one is dependent upon the other for its existence.

Continuing the Discussion

If the previous points are accepted or at least assumed, then one faces another problem.  It is the chronology of the concepts.  If one concept is necessary to the other, then which came first? 

The logical answer is that the “proper use” preceded “misuse,” and “good” preceded “evil.” Of course if the order was reversed then “misuse” or “evil” would be without meaning.  Looking further then, one can plausibly argue that since “evil” has no meaning apart from there being “good” that “good” preceded “evil.” 

The Common Factor

Consideration has already been given to there being concepts such as “good” and such as “evil” in various truth paradigms.  The question then arises as to how it is that such concepts be so broadly accepted?

One could understand it in a revelation paradigm that relies upon some form of Scriptures, however what about the broad spectrum of other truth theories?  The seven truth paradigms referenced in the first article though radically different from one another and though they have different ways of valuing, still in all they accept that there is “good” and “bad” etc. 

If you think about it such paradigms have only two things in common.  First the notion of “good” and related antecedent terms are common to all.  Second, in order for there to be a paradigm there must be at least one person to postulate that paradigm, even if such an one does not develop a following.  More about that later.

The Good and the Normal

Another way to view these antecedent words and deviant words is in terms of normal and abnormal.  When one considers the notion of “abnormal” one then has to assume that there is an antecedent word, “normal.”  Therefore “good” and “normal” share the same position.

It then can be argued that with “good” as “normal” that “evil” then is the “abnormal.”  For those who might wish to argue against this one only need ask the question as to the last time they questioned “Why is it that ‘bad’ things happen to ‘good’ people?” 

Could it be that generally man’s internal compass is set toward “good?” In fact the notion of "good" is so prevalent that it would seem that such is "hard wired" into one's DNA.  If such is so that would mean that the just asked question points to “evil” in its various forms grating against one's moral sensitivities no matter his truth paradigm.

Push Forward:  Ever Degrading Perversion

Now, consider the word “chaos” along with other perverted words.  There is in the perverted words the decent toward chaos.  That is to say such words as abnormal, bad, evil, etc. are not homeostatic but degrading.   Eventually, as time goes forward, such chaos will further disorganize and degrade.  Carried to the logical ends, there comes a point that such chaos reaches a state of “entropy.” 

It might be worth thinking about that that eventually the prevalence of chaos will be of such magnitude that it will become so extreme that it will outstrip man’s capacities to intervene.  Thus, no matter how innovative and resourceful he might be there will be the descent into more chaos.

Push Back:  Antecedent Words

If one considers the chaotic outcomes of perverted words going forward in time, then it seems plausible that one should consider the antecedent words pushing back in time.  That is to say that if one could time travel to moments just after the “big bang” or “creation” or whatever fits into one’s truth paradigm, such antecedent words would be in a purer form.  Thus the concept of “good” would be a much more purer form of good than is known today.

 ~More to follow~