Positive Vs Negative &/or Negative Vs Positive & the concepts of projective philisophical ideologies this is not a good vs evil religous debate idea ! theology opinions and associations are welcome, however this is not a theological question of god or belief in god, though it may find its self closely tied into your/peoples perceptions and actions. i found myself pondering the concept of positive projection of reality. There are probably some OCD content triggers amongst what posters may post and related topics (possible obssesive compulsory disorder triggers amongst this topic so please be aware). The are philisophical inks in this topic to "dualism" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualistic_cosmology you may wish to have a quick read if you are unfamilair with the phillosophy While i am not soo focussed on the discussion of Cosmological Dualism, i am more focussed on the concept of the state of mental disposition. (Warning for Depresion(bi & uni polar disorder) triggers for anyone who suffers from this including anxiety & BPD etc) this links to associated issues (see waiver notice above) so i feel obliged to warn those who may start reading deeply into the topic or in heated sicussion etc now some of that is out of the way this is my question do negative people influence positive people ? or do positive people influence negative people ? is one a neutral state ? is being positive a neutral state ? is being negative a neutral state ? is the default disposition of one state a force on the other simply by it being ? (for those who have not read on philosophy this is a very over simplified example : if a person engages with you, should you apply force to alter their reality in return, or should you be inert, non influential ? keeping in mind the simple fact that a person has engaged with you means you are already engaged and so any action intentional or un-intentional will influence the other person. you are unable to NOT influence the other person by implied and direct means because they are reacting to their action of interaction with you. if you do nothing, you are actively ignoring them and influenchng them by ignoring them. if you give them what you percieve they are wanting(what ever that may be) you are actively choosing to engage and create action/new action/interaction/reaction etc (generically superfically)philisophically you can choose to be positive or negative though... you cant choose to not interact because the interaction has been innitiated from another person(outside entity[yes this also has some physics related mathamatical probability discussions around it but im not going into that stuff as thats not psudoscience and is more soo statistical mathamatics and quantum mechanics etc) [try hard psychotherapist trolls need not apply] if you can only perceive a state of good vs evil as your own perception of positive Vs negative then by all means please share your thoughts. though keep in mind the nature of that is not fundermentaly absolute for the discussion.
Since positive / negative are arbitrary subjective opinions with no fixed position within any positive / negative scale I'm out Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
being in to be out whos opinions dont count binary scales of opposing sides abide... your on your own ride a-side ! a-side ! he cried pick a side to count all your not being fair so i refuse to not care so im in to be out with it all (i hope you like the poem you inspired me to write) Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! you will need to apply some of your own philsophical license to illicit a balance point. an example for the answer to the question you are asking would be survival of the people as a species at a point of current or perceptable generic modern civilisation. though, as you now may be aware, drawing into this definition of terms begins to remove the nature of the concept from the actual point. this is a redactive modality of cognitive process normalcy. some may just call it a "thought trap" of sorts.
