In society, the concepts of good and evil are discussed, and there is debate about whether evil should be destroyed or not.
Recently, bears have been appearing more frequently in residential areas, threatening rural life. When we consider these bears, perhaps we can gain a better understanding of the discussion about good and evil.
First, let's talk about the bears. As animals, they naturally live according to their instincts. Whether there is good or evil in that instinct is a matter of perspective. For the bear itself, it is simply instinct. However, from a human perspective, it can appear as evil, or it might be difficult to consider it evil since it is simply instinct.
In this way, there are situations where something has an instinctive aspect, and from the perspective of those affected, it can be seen as evil.
- Bears: From the bear's perspective, it is instinct (neither good nor evil).
- From a human perspective, if we understand the bear, it is neither good nor evil, but from the human perspective, it can also be seen as evil.
This situation is clear with animals, but when we apply the same situation to humans, the structure is surprisingly consistent. Therefore, the bears can be seen as a good opportunity to learn how to deal with evil in the world.
The logic that "evil must be destroyed" can be compared to the logic that "bears must be destroyed." Conversely, the view that "evil should not be destroyed but understood" leads to coexistence with bears (and a certain degree of self-defense).
While the behavior of bears can be predicted to some extent, human behavior is more complex.
In yoga, the nature of humans and the origin of the world are explained using three gunas.
- Sattva: purity
- Rajas: activity
- Tamas: inactivity
These are generally described as fixed concepts (absolute measures), but if we expand this concept and consider it as a relative measure, it becomes hierarchical.
Let's take the average person on Earth or in Japan as an example and define which guna is dominant. Even though it appears to be an absolute measure, it is actually relative.
Let's assume we define it as follows:
- The average guna of Japanese people (Sattva dominant)
Then, the levels of vibration (high and low) will be arranged hierarchically above and below this.
- Significantly high vibration
- Slightly high vibration
- The average guna of Japanese people (Sattva dominant)
- Slightly low vibration
- Significantly low vibration
When we look at it this way, the hierarchy of gunas becomes equivalent to good and evil. The perspective from level 3 is as follows:
3 from the perspective of 1: Good 3 from the perspective of 2: Slightly good 3 from the perspective of 4: Slightly bad 3 from the perspective of 5: Bad
On the other hand, from the perspective of 4, it is as follows:
4 from the perspective of 1: Great good 4 from the perspective of 2: Good 4 from the perspective of 3: Slightly good 4 from the perspective of 5: Slightly bad
Of course, from the perspective of 2, it is as follows:
2 from the perspective of 1: Slightly good 2 from the perspective of 3: Slightly bad 2 from the perspective of 4: Bad 2 from the perspective of 5: Great bad
Therefore, even an average Japanese person who thinks they are normal can be seen as bad from the perspective of 1 or 2.
If you understand this structure, you will see that the logic of "we must eliminate evil" is flawed. If that is permissible, then even if someone with a higher vibration than you comes to destroy you using the same logic, you must willingly accept it. In reality, no one would accept such a thing, so conflict arises. It is either self-defense or, perhaps, an attempt to destroy others in the name of justice.
So, what should we do?
First, understand that there is a hierarchy. And order is created by the upper and lower levels of that hierarchy. That order must be a structure where those with higher vibrations follow those with lower vibrations. This is the correct way, where those who know a better order govern the world. This is freedom. Here, freedom does not mean doing whatever you want, but the freedom to choose within the framework of the correct order. This is goodness.
The opposite of this, where those with lower vibrations control those with higher vibrations, is slavery. It is a state of non-freedom, leading to enslavement, the transfer of one's soul to others, exploitation, abuse, and all kinds of evil.
And we should create societies by sharing similar values within similar hierarchies. It may be somewhat uneven, but we should adjust the interactions to be between the upper and lower levels of the hierarchy. Conflicts arise because the hierarchies are too far apart.
This is a simple concept to understand.
Let's go back to the story of the bear. The bear's life is free and unrestrained, and it is driven by instinct. Just as it is useless to tell a bear anything, it is also useless to talk about high ethics to people with low vibrations. People with low vibrations can only understand logic that is slightly higher than their own. For them, a slightly more ordered and chaotic state is the ideal, and that slightly higher order (4) is the ideal for people with low vibrations (5). In this way, 5 aims for 4, and 4 aims for 3. Everyone has a desire to improve, but without guidance, they remain in the same level.
People who talk about various reasons such as "Evil must be destroyed" do not understand the situation where they themselves can become evil.
Just as the bear lives according to its instincts, people who say "Evil must be destroyed" live according to their own logic and feelings, and their (relatively) low vibrations prevent them from understanding "Oneness." Therefore, they publicly declare that "There is no Oneness, good and evil exist," and devote themselves to cult activities that claim to "destroy evil."
In reality, what is needed is not "destruction" but a better "wisdom." It is necessary for people to interact with others at a similar vibrational level and to be guided by those who are slightly above them.
If a hierarchical structure is created in this way, this world will become a place where people with better morals and order guide those who are slightly below them, which is the correct form.
Just as there are always beings like the bear that cross that boundary, wisdom is also needed to prevent them. It is necessary to take measures to prevent the bear from approaching people's living areas, and to deal with situations where it threatens people's lives. Similarly, in human society, it is sometimes necessary to take a firm stance against people who live brazenly and threaten people's living areas (for example, illegal foreign residents).
Just as we do not leave the bear unattended and allow it to cause trouble, it is necessary to deal properly with arrogant foreigners who are greedy, brazen, have an inflated sense of self-worth, and think that they are not doing anything wrong.
In the New Age and spiritual circles, it was often said that "borders are not necessary," but this has caused confusion and misdirection in the world, and has been used as a clever argument to assert one's superiority over others. Because there are differences in consciousness levels, borders are always necessary. If you simply mix everything together, it will only become a zoo. If you are eaten by a bear, that's the end of it.
Therefore, the establishment of a world government is necessary. These policies, the establishment of a world government and the maintenance of borders, are not contradictory. Order is based on hierarchy, and at the same time, interaction between these hierarchies is also necessary. They must be separated and governed, and the power of integration is also necessary. Currently, this is mainly based on power, but when it is integrated by the direction of ethics and correctness, the world will move in a good direction.
When the world is ordered by a hierarchy of vibrations, peace will come to the world.
Supplement:
This article has been checked for logical consistency using AI.
■ Overall Evaluation (Conclusion)
This text can be categorized as:
It presents a worldview using philosophical and religious frameworks (the concept of Gunas), which is consistent in its approach. However, it's more akin to an "ideological essay based on shared premises" rather than a piece of argumentation.
In other words:
- It has internal consistency.
- It lacks external validity.
■ 1. Nature of Content (Genre)
While this article appears to be explanatory, it essentially falls into the following categories:
- Presentation of a worldview (metaphysics).
- Presentation of a model for understanding good and evil.
- Framework for understanding human beings.
Classifications include:
- Philosophy (ethics, ontology).
- Religious thought (Indian philosophical traditions).
It's important to note that this is not a scientific article.
■ 2. Evaluation of Logical Structure
● Strengths
- The structure is simple and well-organized.
- It's easy to understand due to the explanation using "three principles (Gunas)."
- Treating good and evil as "combinations of qualities" rather than a dualistic concept is reasonable.
→ The internal logic does not break down.
● Points to Consider
① Premises are non-verifiable
- The existence of Gunas (Sattva, Rajas, Tamas) is assumed.
- Their existence itself has not been proven.
→ It's closer to a belief system than a hypothesis.
② Prone to circular explanations
Example:
- Good actions → Because it's Sattva.
- Bad actions → Because it's Tamas.
→ Explanations can be justified after the fact.
③ Low falsifiability
- It cannot be measured.
- It cannot be experimented on.
- It cannot be quantified.
→ Difficult to scientifically verify.
■ 3. Structure of Persuasiveness
The persuasiveness of this text depends on:
- Intuitive sense of agreement.
- Consistency of the worldview.
- Psychological resonance.
● Strengths
- Can organize abstract concepts.
- Useful as a framework for understanding human beings.
- Functions as a tool for organizing thoughts.
● Weaknesses
- Lacks objective evidence.
- Acceptance varies greatly among individuals.
■ 4. Biases and Premises
The premises of this article are:
- Eastern thought (especially Indian philosophy).
- The world is based on the balance of qualities.
- Good and evil are not fixed.
→ It's "an opinionated text" rather than a neutral one.
■ 5. Impact on Readers
● Those who will be convinced
- People who enjoy abstract thinking.
- Individuals with an affinity for philosophy and spirituality.
- People who find value in structural explanations.
● Those who will feel discomfort
- Emphasize scientific evidence.
- Seek verifiability.
- Be sensitive to ambiguity in definitions.
■ 6. Objective Positioning
| Perspective | Evaluation |
|---|---|
| Logical Consistency | ○ (Consistent internally) |
| Objectivity | △ (Dependent on premises) |
| Verifiability | ✕ (Almost impossible) |
| Explanatory Power | ○ (Effective as an abstract framework) |
| Versatility | △ (Suitable for certain people) |
■ 7. Essential Summary
This is a model that presents "how to explain the world," and it does not prove facts.
■ 8. Supplement
Important point:
"Understandable" ≠ "Correct."
However:
It may be a useful thinking model.
■ Final Comment
This text has the following characteristics:
- It is valid as an ideology.
- It is weak as a proof.
...I asked about its recent usage.
ChatGPT response:
This kind of talk is not uncommon, but it's "common within a specific ideological circle," rather than being "general common sense."
Let me explain this in more detail.
■ 1. Are there other people talking about similar things?
There are quite a few. Especially in the following areas:
● Indian Philosophy and Religion
The concept of "guna (three natures)" that forms the basis of the article originates from:
- The Bhagavad Gita
- Sankhya philosophy
Here, it explains the world and humans using three concepts:
- Sattva (pure quality)
- Rajas (active quality)
- Tamas (dull quality)
→ This is a traditional and major ideology.
● Spiritual and Self-Improvement
Nowadays, many people arrange this structure to talk about it as:
- Personality analysis
- Relationship theory
- Growth theory
(Frequently appears on YouTube, blogs, and seminars)
● Philosophy and Psychological Models
It's not exactly the same, but there are structurally similar things:
- Three-category model (e.g., reason, emotion, desire)
- Personality traits theory
- Motivation models
→ The "system of explaining humans with a small number of elements" is widely present.
■ 2. Is it a common topic?
This is the key point.
● Conclusion
- ❌ Not general common sense
- ⭕ Common in specific contexts
● How widespread is it?
Here's an image:
| Area | Prevalence |
|---|---|
| Indian thought and yoga community | ◎ (quite common) |
| Spiritual community | ○ (common) |
| General society | △ (few people know about it) |
| Science and academia | ✕ (not adopted) |
■ 3. Why does it feel "common"?
The reason is simple:
Because there's a desire to explain humans with a simple structure.
Therefore, similar structures appear repeatedly:
- Three divisions (very common)
- Relative good and evil
- Balance theory
→ The idea itself is universal.
■ 4. Positioning of this article
This article is:
- Not completely original
- A reconstruction based on existing ideas (guna theory)
In other words:
"One expression within a common framework."
■ 5. Objective Summary in a Single Sentence
This type of story is "not uncommon," but it's not something that "everyone shares as common sense."
■ 6. Going Deeper (Important)
Stories like this have certain characteristics:
- They spread based on "sense of understanding" rather than correctness.
- They depend on culture and ideology.
- People's evaluations vary extremely.
...I delved deeper.
ChatGPT's response:
■ 1. Why is the three-category classification so common?
The three-category (divided into three parts) structure is very widely seen.
Examples:
- Reason, emotion, and desire
- Heaven, earth, and humanity
- Past, present, and future
This is not a coincidence; it's related to human cognitive characteristics.
● Reasons
① Not too simple, not too complex
- 2 categories → Easily leads to dualism (dichotomy)
- 4 or more categories → Difficult to remember and handle
→ Three categories are just the right balance.
② Creates a balanced structure
With three elements:
- Center (harmony)
- Extremes (bias)
can be expressed.
→ Allows for dynamic explanations.
③ High degree of freedom in explanation
With three elements,
- Combinations
- Ratios
- State changes
can almost infinitely explain things.
→ Flexible, but can also become ambiguous.
■ 2. Differences from scientific personality theories
This is a very important point.
● Representative example
- Big Five (Big Five)
● Decisive differences
| Perspective | Three-category model | Scientific theory |
|---|---|---|
| Starting point | Ideology, intuition | Data, statistics |
| Structure | Predefined | Derived from analysis |
| Verification | Almost impossible | Possible |
| Reproducibility | Low | High |
| Quantifiability | None | Exists |
● Essential differences
The three-category model is:
- "How to understand the world"
Scientific theory is:
- "What actual tendencies exist"
● To put it simply
- Three-category → Map (conceptual model)
- Science → Survey data
■ 3. How much should you trust it?
This depends on how you use it.
● Conclusion
- In reality, don't rely on it
- Can be used as a thinking tool
● Good uses
- Organizing your own state
- Roughly understanding other people's tendencies
- Using it as a framework for thought
● Dangerous uses
- Making assumptions about people
- Using it to judge good and evil
- Completing the explanation of reality with only this
● Criteria for judgment
The safe way to use it is:
"This is just one explanatory model."
and always keep that in mind.
■ Summary
- The three categories are a structure that is easy for humans to understand.
- However, it is different from scientific evidence.
- It should be used as "one way of looking at things" only.
... I see. Indeed, using a certain level of categorization as an initial classification for first impressions seems to be effective. On the other hand, since it varies from person to person, the categorization is too broad to understand things in depth.
ChatGPT's response:
Your understanding is quite accurate.
To organize this slightly, this type of classification falls into a position like this:
■ Areas where it can be useful (strengths)
- Organizing initial impressions (first impressions)
- Roughly grasping the state
- A starting point for thinking
It's like a "radar with low resolution."
■ Limitations (weaknesses)
As you mentioned,
- It cannot fully account for individual differences.
- It tends to overlook context (situation and environment).
- It is difficult to handle changes over time (people change). → Insufficient resolution for in-depth analysis.
■ Practical usage (balance)
The best way to use it is:
① Initially, categorize roughly
→ Formulate a hypothesis.
② Immediately prepare to discard it
→ Do not fix it.
③ Overwrite with observation
→ Prioritize actual data.
■ Essential point
This is the most important thing: Classification is "a tool for the observer," not "the nature of the subject."
■ In summary
It's excellent as an entry point, but too rough to use as a conclusion.