Off-Topic Thread vol. 2

I … am … not sure what you mean by that, sir.

Either way I’m getting pretty strongly that “balance” is a matter of faith for you. There are definitely worse things to structure a worldview around.

What I mean is this.

Generosity can take any number of forms, dependent upon and dictated by the circumstances in which the opportunity for generosity presents itself.

the -balance- of that in simplest form… would be something like Selfishness or Greed (two words for a similarly entangled concept.

For every opportunity someone has to be Generous (within their realistic means), at the exact same time they have an opportunity for Greed. The exact specifics of the scenario irrelevant to the fact that a person has two equal but opposite actions that can be taken.

I use the term “entropy field” in this sense, and specifically state it’s limitlessness intentionally.

Just as an infinite number of opportunities to be generous will present themselves over the course of one’s life. So too will there be an infinite number of opportunities to be greedy.

Take a basic example of you choosing whether or not to give a beggar a coin. (I say you purely hypothetically)

The Positive entropy field that would result from a generous action, only begins with the coin, but does not end. With that coin, this beggar is able to survive another day in the indifferent innocence of the universe. Perhaps he is able to feed himself and his family of four for a week or more. Perhaps one day, because of that single act of generosity, not only does he feed his family, but his make sure that his family is thankful to the mysterious stranger that facilitated their food. Perhaps the beggar not long after, makes something of himself, and pulls his family out of poverty forever. One day the past beggar comes across a present beggar and is given the exact same choice to make. He makes the same choice that someone else once made for him, his family sees this, and the children grow up from the same humble beginnings, with an appreciation for generosity.

Thus the cycle repeats, and the limitless positive entropy field continues.

The Negative entropy field resulting from a greedy action, also only begins with the coin. Knowing full well your wealth is such that a simple coin is easily afforded, yet you still reject the beggar. Perhaps even ridicule them for being homeless. Spit on them, any manner of vile treatment. That beggar -probably- already feels worthless for being there begging in the first place, and just received a psychological assault that further degrades their self-worth. Perhaps they even become permanently bitter, and start becoming more aggressive and selfishly begin mugging people in dark alleys. Eventually this leads to teaching his own family and children much the same way, as it quickly becomes the only one he knows.

Also thus the cycle repeats, and the limitless negative entropy field continues it’s endless fight against the positive.

In such example, a single opportunity to choose one or the other has fundamentally altered the flow in whatever direction is chosen.

Even a star is nothing more than a delicate balance between exploding and imploding forces.

Sounds like a load of nonsense. That somehow the indifferent universe is affected by us.

Take your star for example. If one were to do generous things then the positive forces of the universe would cause the star to explode. But If one would happen to do negative things, then the star would implode.

If the universe was truly indifferent to the positive and negative forces of entropy, they it would have to remain indifferent and no amount of acting positive or negative would ever change it.

I call, cult. Maybe not as awful and evil as Naups, but just as ridiculous.

Everything is varying degrees of cult Ax’l and every bit at ridiculous.
The truth is humanity is blind, describing a fragment of the beast they have managed to grasp. In describing what we hold on to to each other a discordance of most profound humour occurs.

1 Like

I don’t think he means a star is in balance between the ‘positive entropy field’ and ‘negative entropy field’ he’s talking about here, or even that those fields are at work on the inert matter of the universe.

Rather, I think he’s just using positive and negative ‘entropy fields’ to describe feedback loops: a generous act alleviates misery, putting the recipient in a frame of mind more likely to be generous and kind, himself. An act of cruelty or callousness engenders a negative emotional state, so the victim is more likely to take that out on others in their path, and so perpetuate the harm.

It’s pretty standard sociology stuff. Positive and negative behavioral reinforcement’s been a thing… forever. It’s baked right into axioms from most cultures. Carrots and sticks. Catching more flies with honey. What goes around, comes around, Etc etc. The idea that if you do good things for people, those people are more likely to do good for others, and so, however circuitously, good things will come around to happen to you. And it works in the other direction, too.

His use of the star there is a metaphor.

1 Like

I agree, mostly, Arrendis, but I also think he’s getting a bit mystical about it. It’s a dualistic outlook, and he’s been a little more overtly magic-y about the “balance” elsewhere.

(I’d describe the opportunities to be generous over the course of even a capsuleer’s lifespan as “large but finite.”)

So, basically be nice, and your niceness might make another persons day a bit better.

That makes more sense.

Why all the mystical mumbo-jumbo tho?

Obviously, which is why his metaphor wasn’t taken as such. :slight_smile:

Because some people believe that morality can only be understood from a ‘spiritual’ framework, maybe? I dunno. It’s like the people who insist atheists can’t have morality because we don’t feel like there’s some supernatural parental figure threatening to punish us if we aren’t good.

Morality’s simple: Do what you’d want others to do. Because you’d want them to do that, too.

1 Like

I do not think morality is simple but do you need to rephrase that, is that what you meant to say?

Nope. You just need to stop being wrong. :wink:

Well, I would certainly like to violently reclaim the cluster, and certainly would like others to do it too. That is morality?

I mean I think it is right and not wrong, I am suspecting you will disagree. But it would fit the definition you provided.

Ah! I get your point, rhetorically, but should any of us find ourselves in any kind of bind where you need to figure out the radius of the body we find ourselves on, 100 meters is probably going to be a bit… short for anything that’s bigger than a very modest asteroid. Local terrain variations and measurement imprecision would dominate.

You’ll want a good number of kilometers, like a few hundred, even though you have to make observations on the same day, so it helps if your civilisation has also figured out things like calendars, couriers, letters, and scientifically-minded friends.

In the two thousand years since the Imperial Navy Explorator Corps began surveying the stars of New Eden, there has been exactly one group of people encountered to whom the concept of a spherical planet came as a surprise. One.

Those were the Ealurians, and to be fair, they were surprised by a great many things, including ideas such as art, literature, machines, and the whole vast apparatus of civilisation.

Every other culture was aware of the concept of planets.

Indeed, in Amarr, because of the Scriptures, we always knew of the concept of travelling to different worlds, even though the technological means to do so were yet to be rediscovered.

Ah. The bit that might not have been clear, ma’am …

She means, “to you.”

(In your case, ma’am, maybe assume that the “other” is from a rival faith, not from the same one. Otherwise, you know, “violent reclaiming” lands a bit odd, though if you were both Amarr maybe each of you thinks the other’s beliefs are heretical or something?)

You’d like specific others to do that. Now widen it. Would you like everyone to conquer the cluster to force their beliefs on you?

If not, then that’s not what you want ‘others’, as in ‘all others’ to do.

Except you’ll notice I didn’t say it was possible to easily calculate the planet’s radius, only that it is, in fact, curved. Here’s another fun way to do it that doesn’t even need the ‘I broke a stick in half’ level of technology:

There’s a horizon.

If the world was flat, you could see the whole thing. Sure, you’d lose details and be unable to make out what things are at a distance, but there wouldn’t be a consistent distance beyond which, you just can’t see things anymore. Only beyond which, you can’t discern useful information about what you’re seeing.

Yes, everyone, lets get this party started.

Somehow, I doubt your sincerity.

It’s either a limitation of your teachings… or a limitation of your God, that can’t make a truth so obvious even ‘stupid’ Minmatar can understand. Which is it?