[April 1st, 2011] Do we always need Yang?

[winkio]

People have this idea that there are always two opposites in every situation: there is no good without bad, not happiness without sadness, no life without death.  This is simply not something that applies universally.  There is only positive temperature, we only move forward in time, entropy only increases.  

This came up again because some economics friend was talking about economic choices, and how they simply choose to maximize the total benefits, even if it produces some costs.  What if there was a different choice that could be made where there were zero costs, but less total benefit?  The economists would ignore it.  

Simply put, every decision does not have to involve costs, or pain, or the bad side of things.  In many cases, we can make decisions that only result in good consequences.  I think that this is what we should strive for.

EDIT: to clarify, the two questions are:
1.  Do opposites always have to exist?
2.  Maximize gain or minimize loss?

[Kagutsuchi]

People have this idea that there are always two opposites in every situation: there is no good without bad, not happiness without sadness, no life without death.  This is simply not something that applies universally.  There is only positive temperature, we only move forward in time, entropy only increases.  

This came up again because some economics friend was talking about economic choices, and how they simply choose to maximize the total benefits, even if it produces some costs.  What if there was a different choice that could be made where there were zero costs, but less total benefit?  The economists would ignore it.  

Simply put, every decision does not have to involve costs, or pain, or the bad side of things.  In many cases, we can make decisions that only result in good consequences.  I think that this is what we should strive for.

EDIT: to clarify, the two questions are:
1.  Do opposites always have to exist?
2.  Maximize gain or minimize loss?

1. There is no "anti-mass" as far as we know, though I guess it could exist theoretically.

Without sadness, you wont know what happiness is now will you? You can have happiness without sadness, but you won't know it. And I guess we could equally say we know we are alive because there is death. Without death it would just be a steam of experience (watch Code Geass).

There is only positive temperature because it is pointless to talk of negative temperature. Temperature is a result of the v_rms of the atoms, which is always positive. Time is not a vector, and therefore has no direction.

2. Maximize gain, why would you minimize loss if your total gain is less?

EDIT: By "as far as we know" I mean empirical knowledge.

[winkio]

A few weeks ago, I would have agreed with your answer, but not any more.  Think about it:

Maximizing gain is the strategy of war (kill some to save more) and corporations (reduce costs to make more money).
Minimizing loss is the strategy of medicine (spend a ton of money and many people's time and effort in order to extend the life of a single person) and of community service (prevent poverty and tragedy)

Now think about any evil robot movie ever made.  The robots revolt and enslave the human race because they are maximizing gain.  Take I Robot for example.  In order to protect the humans, they tried to take over their society.  That is an obvious inhuman error in judgement. 

I think humans actually try to minimize loss.  That's why we save someone who is in danger of dying even if it means injuring ourselves (reasonably assuming two injuries are less loss than one death).

[Blizzard]

Wow, I never looked at it this way. O_o I agree, minimizing loss seems to be the more natural choice.
As for opposites, I think they are necessary in some cases, not always. Just like Kagutsuchi said, if we didn't know about sadness in the first place, we wouldn't be able to appreciate happiness. That is why people who have experienced pain are much kinder to others because they know how bad it is and they don't want others to feel the same pain. On the opposite side a spoiler person will always be spoiled because they never had to work for anything. They only know happiness and getting what they want. It's the default mindset, there is no alternative.

[winkio]

So by your logic, the people that live life to the fullest are only those that have been to the brink of death?  The people that are the most generous are the people who have had nothing?

I'm still trying to wrap my head around my opinion on this, but I think that there doesn't actually need to be the opposite to have a strong presence of something.  Of course, your statements are correct in many cases Blizz, but there are enough exceptions to warrant an alternate explanation.  I think understanding is the key to strength.  Usually, experiencing the opposite of something increases your understanding, but there can be some cases where people completely understand something like kindness without experiencing a large amount of pain.

[Blizzard]

Well, if you are taught to be kind, you will be kind. I'm not saying that you exclusively have to had to go through hell to appreciate something good. But yeah, only those people who have faced death probably know the true value of life. Only those who have had nothing once know how much their generosity will help.

[winkio]

I'm saying that in some cases, other people can understand the true value of life without going to the brink of death, and those that have everything can understand how much their generosity will help.  Maybe it's through interaction, maybe it's through a dream, maybe it's through careful study, but I think people have the ability to actually understand these things in the same way as someone who has experienced the opposite.

[AliveDrive]

Someone's been reading Sun Tzu

Good book, I have yet to finish it.

I think that minimal loss is generally the best solution though for the sake of argument, I know there are cases where "Go big or Go home applies".

I think it has a lot to do with one's personality.

[Blizzard]

I'm saying that in some cases, other people can understand the true value of life without going to the brink of death, and those that have everything can understand how much their generosity will help.  Maybe it's through interaction, maybe it's through a dream, maybe it's through careful study, but I think people have the ability to actually understand these things in the same way as someone who has experienced the opposite.

I just agreed with you, why are you telling me this?

[winkio]

But yeah, only those people who have faced death probably know the true value of life. Only those who have had nothing once know how much their generosity will help.

Because I disagree with that statement.

[Blizzard]

I understand that one can value something a lot, I agree with that. But you can't value something as much as a person who has lost or almost lost that same something. Somebody who was never poor can be generous and compassionate, but if they were never poor, they will never be able to value their money as much as a person who once was. If you lost or almost lost something, this experience is simply way more powerful. If you have never experienced one extreme, you can never truly experience or appreciate the other extreme fully.

[The Niche]

I almost sterilized myself and almost lost the use of my leg when I tried to jump a spike fence. So now, I don't jump spike fences from my full height.

That's kind of relevant...ANYway, what I meant to say was, that I've gone between believing in both ideas involved. At the end of the day though, I've realised that the only absolute is the lack of absolutes. So nothing can apply to everything. The classic question, "if everybody else jumped off a cliff, would you?" is of course, based on the idea that you apply the same standard to everything. And is therefore completely wrong.

[winkio]

@Blizz: Experience is not the only method of learning.  I have yet to come up with a great example on this, but people can and do learn the true value of things through other means than experience.

@Niche: your idea that "the only absolute is the lack of absolutes. So nothing can apply to everything." is itself both an absolute and an idea that applies to everything.  Your own argument is irrational and invalid.  Please no more trolling.

[AliveDrive]

Einstein theory defeats Einstein theory.

[The Niche]

@Niche: your idea that "the only absolute is the lack of absolutes. So nothing can apply to everything." is itself both an absolute and an idea that applies to everything.  Your own argument is irrational and invalid.  Please no more trolling.

Hence why it's the only absolute. My point is that a theory will apply to some things and not to others. For example:

@Blizz: Experience is not the only method of learning.  I have yet to come up with a great example on this, but people can and do learn the true value of things through other means than experience.

You can learn the true value of things through means other than experience. But not all things. And then some things you can only learn through means other than experience.

[ForeverZer0]

I don't think Niche was trolling, in fact I agree with him. You own argument supports what he said. There is no singular rule that will be true in every context, and in every situation in live. It may be a paradox to say that the only absolute is that there are none, but it is very true, and I challenge  anyone to find any realistic situation where that doesn't hold true. There will always be at at least one exception or probability, no matter how small the odds, that will defeat your argument.

That is absolute, even though there is no such thing.

[winkio]

There will always be at at least one exception or probability, no matter how small the odds, that will defeat your argument.

Then there are exceptions to the exception rule, showing that there are actually theories with no exceptions.

My point on the matter is that yeah, we can't take everything as absolute, but then again, we aren't trying to, because none of us knows what absolute is.  The whole absolute discussion is irrelevant because we are making conscious generalizations.  So what I'm trying to say is that none of the nitpicking little arguments matter because we simply do not care about them at all.

[ForeverZer0]

I'm trying to decipher exactly what we are debating here. This is a circular argument when it comes to absolutes. By stating there is, you contradict yourself, by saying there isn't, your argument is defeated by "no absolutes" absolute.

We could debate this for 1,000 years and not have really any gotten anywhere. I agree with both arguments if that makes sense.

[winkio]

you are missing the point that the entire discussion Niche started is irrelevant to the rest of this thread.

[ForeverZer0]

What is the point then?

"Absolutes" is entirely relevant to what the original post was about, you are counter-pointing the existence of opposites to everything (I assume "everything" since this was not clarified). I realize the second part of your edited post may be not align as much with this argument, but I still fail to see the "debate" factor in any of this.

This is basically the same as someone asking you if the glass is half full or half empty, and you answer "it doesn't exist".

Again I ask, what exactly are we debating?

[winkio]

Do things always have to exist with their opposites?  Does the creation of wealth also create poverty?  Does the happiness of one person cause the sadness of another?

[ForeverZer0]

In that case, I believe the answer is entirely your perspective.  For instance, what you or I think of wealth or happiness can be two entirely different things, same as one person being happy does not cause another to be sad. These are all things that each person as their own unique definition for, and only they can judge. I cannot tell someone that they are happy because in my mind their sadness is less than my own. How does one measure such things? There is no gauge that I can hold up to determine interpreted viewpoints on things, nor even put them on level playing field.

A person's state of mind determines these things, and are entirely unique to each person. While one man may judge happiness by the amount of things he owns, another may judge his by the depth of his relationships with others. While I personally don't believe that objects can grant true happiness, who am I to determine this for another? The point is that I cannot, so how can I proceed to compare or say that his happiness with his "things" can be gauged against anothers happiness with people? Although the same, they are not even comparable.

[winkio]

*facepalm* whatever, I don't care any more.  Feel free to discuss what you want in this topic.

[ForeverZer0]

Fine then. Let's talk about kittens.

You act as if my last post was not relevant to your question before it. You criticize every post as if its is just that we are not enlightened enough to understand the higher thought of the question. I understand it your question entirely, and I think its absurd. Why the hell would the happiness of one person effect the sadness in another? They are not comparable, tangible objects for one to determine.

Does your amusement level affect by level of boredom?
How does this make sense? That is the same as the question you asked. I would love for you to come down to my lower-level of intelligence and explain that, since I am apparently unable to understand such high-level logic.

[winkio]

I know you really want to play this game with me right now, but it's really not worth it on this occasion.  Let's just say that I am a complete idiot and you all are super-geniuses and leave it at that, alright?  Allow me to bow out gracefully.

[AliveDrive]

Does your amusement level affect by level of boredom?

I had a theory once.

That this type of thing is true.

And that one person may experience great joy while the other suffers.

What a sadist thought process no?

[WhiteRose]

Does your amusement level affect by level of boredom?

I had a theory once.

That this type of thing is true.

And that one person may experience great joy while the other suffers.

What a sadist thought process no?

The spacing of your post made me think for a minute that it was a poem.

</completely off topic>

[Ryex]

Wait just a minute. your completely missing the point of the first post. I understand it but if I'm wrong please correct me winko.

Ying and Yang is about balance there is good in the bad and bad in the good and it all balances out.  however we as humans seem to strive for the Ying and for the most part shun Yang and try to avoid it in our lives.  Ying and Yang claim that we need both. but as Winko has observed we seem to survive and thrive quite well on only small amounts of Yang.

[Blizzard]

Yin*

I don't think that something can really exist without its opposite. Sure, there are things like time, mass and absolute temperature that don't really have an opposite. But then again those aren't concrete things. Time itself is past and future, it is a word for two opposites where present is a turnpoint, the zero value between past and future. Same for mass. You can have less mass or more mass.
Or maybe I am wrong and there are opposites of those. Maybe this is why we still don't understand time and mass so well yet. We haven't discovered their opposites.

[winkio]

Oh awesome, so as soon as I leave the thread, we go right back on topic.  I'll just chalk it up to discrimination and leave it at that.

@Blizz: Opposites aren't always as clean as you make them out to be, especially when dealing with squared values like temperature.  To make something have negative temperature, it would need to have a complex velocity, which is completely meaningless in the real world.  It's not as simple as saying "oh, there's temperature, so there must be anti-temperature".  The implications of opposites can cause some really dumb things in some cases.

Also, the idea that everything must have an opposite is a childish way of trying to understand something.  Instead, you should think "what are the implications of this thing having an opposite."

Finally, going back to this:

Do things always have to exist with their opposites?  Does the creation of wealth also create poverty?  Does the happiness of one person cause the sadness of another?

I disagree with these assumptions.  Mutual benefits can and do occur where both parties are wealthier or happier at no cost to either.  The point of this is that some people try to justify their actions by their results, or their results by their actions.  This is wrong - both the actions and the results are important, not just one or the other.

[Blizzard]

I agree, both process and the result are important. I would never go for a result if in the process I would have to turn my back on my principles.

I was talking about something not being able to exist without its opposite. One thing defines its opposite. I'm not saying that two people can't be happier together without somebody having to live a bad life, I am saying that opposites have to exist in some form in order to be even recognizable. If everything was white and all you have ever seen in your life was white, how would you know it is white? There has never been anything else than white, you don't even realize white exists. Of course, we humans probably did notice some things that we don't know the opposite of. But people tend to keep looking for the opposite. IMO anti-mass is kind of stupid. It does make sense if there is anti-matter with normal mass, but anti-mass sounds just stupid.

[The Niche]

I remember hearing a story about a fish asking another fish what the water was like in his position. The other fish replied with: "What's water?"

But I'm still not sure about this. Because, how do we know what air is? Is it because we live at the bottom of it where there's two examples of not-air?

[winkio]

How did we discover gravity if we had never experienced anything else?

[The Niche]

Because of the apple...so...it takes a different kind of logic, combined with an unusual event to make these things apparent.

Note: I use the word unusual for lack of a more appropriate one. By nature of the thing, the event cannot be unusual.

[Blizzard]

How did we discover gravity if we had never experienced anything else?

Because we are sentient beings and sometimes we figure out some stuff without having to know the opposite.

[The Niche]

It's the absolutes again...

[Ryex]

there it is again. the black and white analogy. why are people so insistent in seeing the world in black and white? or even shades of gray? just because the ideas of Good and evil exist dose not mean that everything is somewhere in that spectrum. We exist in a colorful world and there is an infinite number of colors between the 390nm and 750nm wavelengths that make up the visible spectrum. there are not just two absolute opposites to everything, the white and black argument is a false dichotomy.

[Blizzard]

I thought we already made that clear. They are NOT absolutes! They are EXTREMES! An extreme is different than an absolute. Geez! Seriously, man. Read before you post.

[Aqua]

-posts before I read all of thread-

The original concept of Yin and Yang was not about opposites forces fighting to overcome they other, but rather complementary forces that work together to make a whole.

And also, you guys have the concept of which part "us humans" tend to strive to achieve.
For the West, people tend to go for Yang, which is the more aggressive, powerful, and firm one.
While the people of the East tend to go for Yin, which is the more passive, gentle, and fluid one.

Another point I saw and would like to clarify.
From a total Taoist perspective, there really is no "good" and "bad."
Who knows what is good and who knows what is bad?
It is relative.

[G_G]

I agree with Blizzard. Basically you are all fags.

[The Niche]

Ah, but who knows what a fag is?

[Ryex]

WHOA! What is this!? the Great Blizzard, and even G_G, resorting to personal attacks!?

perhaps you feel threatened by my argument.  Either way, We are not arguing about absolutes or extremes. we are talking about weather or not something can exist without a direct opposite for comparison. Or at least that is the question I'm reading. feel free to correct me Winko, it's your topic originally after all.

[Aqua]

Wow...
G_G, I had more respect for you.

[winkio]

I love how fucking everyone is making this more complicated than it needs to be.  It's like I asked a grocery store if they had any orange juice, and they asked me what country the juice came from, if I knew its sugar content, and its mass percent of water.  Seriously people, it's not hard at all to act philosophical and go off on random tangents, it just makes you sound stupid.  Now answer the original question and stop trolling my thread.

[ForeverZer0]

There is nothing to debate here, so quit crying like a little baby.

You're the one who is going off trying to be all philosophical over some dumb shit. The entire "argument" that you offered for debate is all under the assumption that most people follow and believe some Yin-Yang mumbo-jumbo belief. Last I checked the vast majority of the members of this forum and even the world are not Taoist. I don't know why you insist on putting on this attitude like you are somehow enlightened and all of us mere morons just don't get you because we lack the mental capacity. These are all just OPINIONS, which everyone is entitled to. This is a public forum last I checked where people can post there thoughts, so your little comments telling people to quit posting their thoughts just because they don't align with your own. Don't let the little bit of power that you're allowed to have go to your little closed-minded head, Mr. Big-Bad-Administrator.

[G_G]

Your question is as pointless as redundant and pointless as the 0 in ForeverZer0's name. Honestly, its like saying zero twice. Change your name fag.

[ForeverZer0]

You don't like the name? I was going for the whole yin-and-yang thing when I made it, thought maybe you and winkio would appreciate it, but apparently you missed it with your head buried in his lap.

I'm done with this stupid topic.

[G_G]

Of course we need Yang. For every action, theres always a consequence. FOR EVERYTHING THERE IS A CONSEQUENCE! Everything. Everything. So of course there is yang as yang is the opposite or reaction of Yin.

Read up on your stuff boi. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yin_and_yang

[ForeverZer0]

Maybe you should.
Were not discussing the Theory of Relativity. I never said every action doesn't produce a reaction. Try to keep up, would you?

[Starrodkirby86]

If we don't have Yin, then look at what happens to Yang. D:



He becomes a poor, lonely soul, only able to pleasure itself. :C

Also, this discussion is just going in circles. Can't you guys just read the previous arguments listed and realize it's pointless to keep going into this? -_-

[G_G]

I am disappoint.

[AliveDrive]

Do opposites always have to exist?

Suffice it to say:

there is no left without right.

Everything connects.



Stop fighting you guys this is INTELLIGENT debate. :/

[Blizzard]

Jesus Christ, what a topic fuck-up. I'm locking this.

EDIT: Fuck you, winkio. If you don't like the discussion, why don't you leave it?

[GAX]

If we don't have Yin, then look at what happens to Yang. D:



He becomes a poor, lonely soul, only able to pleasure itself. :C

Also, this discussion is just going in circles. Can't you guys just read the previous arguments listed and realize it's pointless to keep going into this? -_-

Way ahead of you...

[tSwitch]

you're all racist.