Why does negativity exist?

[plornive]

If there were no negative there could exist no positive.

What if we suddenly removed all of the negative? The lack of positive would still exist, but things would only be able to get better, because only positive things would exist.

 

[plornive]

All the opposites shite is the cop out answer.

vixen you just proved my point. the negativity is what gives you the motivation to change. if the negativity wasn't there there would be nothing to change and therefore no motivation

I would venture to say the all the great accomplishments and people of the world were created by a reaction against negativity. The Great Wall of China was erected to keep the barbarians out. Most great people are motivated by a desire to change how things are. That means in their minds something is wrong with the way things are and therefore something must be changed.

You are speaking of negative reinforcement. What about pure positive reinforcement?

One rationalization is that if there was only positive, there would be no elimination of less useful positives. It could be an elimination process to keep things in balance.

 

[Silent Method]

What if we suddenly removed all of the negative? The lack of positive would still exist, but things would only be able to get better, because only positive things would exist.

The point is that you cannot remove all of the negativity and still have positive. Because negativity does exist we have a reference for positivity. Remove negative (or "bad") and the concept of positive (or "good") cannot exist.

I understand full well the concept of "better positives" in relation to "lesser positives." However, consider the continuum of energy and nature of energy.

The discrete interval where negative meets positive is neutrality - the fulcrum between the polar opposites. Shorten the lever extending from one side of the fulcrum and the lever extending from the other side must be shortened equally. One side cannot be erased without erasing the other side as well - leaving only neutrality.

 

[Lumberg]

You are speaking of negative reinforcement. What about pure positive reinforcement?

IS there such a thing?

One rationalization is that if there was only positive, there would be no elimination of less useful positives. It could be an elimination process to keep things in balance.

Good point. But how long does this process continue? I think this explanation implies that eventually all the less useful positives woudl be eliminated and we would be "pure."

I think impurity is what makes us human and this impurity will never cease to exist. Or on the flip side if it ever ceases to exist we sill cease to be human.

NB said it is easier to be nagative than positive. This will always be true. This is also something Hitler knew very well and he was able to exploit hatred to rise to power. We all know how that turned out.

It's a confusing issue but negativity is not something you can avoid or eliminate. To believe you can is to live in a dream world.

 

[c-sharp minor]

it's usually a result of underlying anxiety or depression.

I agree with this statement.

I believe a person's emotional state and state of mind have everything to do with someone being negative.

For me personally, I find I can consciously make the choice whether or not to be positive or negative.

Then again, I know for a fact, I have a very strong constitution. I just don't feel it very much right now.

 

[plornive]

The point is that you cannot remove all of the negativity and still have positive. Because negativity does exist we have a reference for positivity. Remove negative (or "bad") and the concept of positive (or "good") cannot exist.

I understand full well the concept of "better positives" in relation to "lesser positives." However, consider the continuum of energy and nature of energy.

The discrete interval where negative meets positive is neutrality - the fulcrum between the polar opposites. Shorten the lever extending from one side of the fulcrum and the lever extending from the other side must be shortened equally. One side cannot be erased without erasing the other side as well - leaving only neutrality.

I agree with you in the sense that you are arguing. Our current definition of 'positive' was made in the presence of the concept and manifestation of 'negative'. Remove 'negative', and positive ceases to be a valid concept based on that new reality.

However, Lumberg didn't ask why the concept 'negative' exists. He asked why negative exists. I think you might argue that the fulcrum would simply change and a level of positive would be redifined as negative. I wonder if this is immaterial for Lumberg. He should specify.

 

[plornive]

Good point. But how long does this process continue? I think this explanation implies that eventually all the less useful positives woudl be eliminated and we would be "pure."

I think impurity is what makes us human and this impurity will never cease to exist. Or on the flip side if it ever ceases to exist we sill cease to be human.

NB said it is easier to be nagative than positive. This will always be true. This is also something Hitler knew very well and he was able to exploit hatred to rise to power. We all know how that turned out.

It's a confusing issue but negativity is not something you can avoid or eliminate. To believe you can is to live in a dream world.

For humans, I doubt there is a such thing as pure positive reinforcement. But positive and negative do not only apply to humans. I'll stop right here and say that I think humans inherently have positives and negatives such as pleasure and pain. But I assume your question was more universal and more purely metaphysical.

I don't think we need to go towards purity. I think we could go towards infinite goodness, whatever that is.

The word positive and negative could be redefined. But then they wouldn't be the same words.

Negative is a concept that exists in the context of the reality surrounding humans. Reality, in the context of humans, contains negatives. Change reality to exist without negatives, and the concepts of 'negative' and 'positive' are no longer valid.

But there could be a new kind of positive, defined in a purely non-negative reality. "Super-Posi"

 

[justyxxxx]

It's because I'm a bitch, and everyone likes me this way. Prisoners have a special interest in me . . .

 

[Silent Method]

However, Lumberg didn't ask why the concept 'negative' exists. He asked why negative exists. I think you might argue that the fulcrum would simply change and a level of positive would be redifined as negative.

True enough, but it's a conceptual question. Again, positive could not exist without negative, regardless of the anthropomorphized attributions we associate with the terms. Without both negative and positive there would only be neutrality.

Short answer - universal neutrality (by that I mean neutrality that is manifest in everything at all times) would imply a uniformly static nature.

Is nature uniformly static throughout all of it's aspects? Absolutely not.



To question the reason for the existence of negativity is to question existence itself.

 

[Lumberg]

I like that.