Originally Posted by Chris_Stretten
Greed: Greed is called a selfish
desire to obtain money, wealth, food, material possessions or any other entity more than one legitimately needs.
Lust: Lust is any intense desire or craving for self
gratification. Lust can
mean strictly sexual lust, although it is also common to speak of a "lust for life", "lust for blood (bloodlust for short)", or a "lust for power" or other goals.
I'm not putting these definitions here to start a "definition war" but it illustrates my point about point of view. You say that "lust" and "greed" denote being a slave to those desires, or out of control. Is it that way for everyone? And... these definitions, of themselves, do not connote any specific "goodness" or "badness", they seem to offer a more subjective view. They simply point to ones self
as a beneficiary of the desire... is that wrong?
Why is it negative to "attach" oneself to another person only as long as it is beneficial? In business would you consider staying attached to someone - say a supplier - if they were no longer beneficial to you? That wouldn't be "good" business anymore... In a undesirable relationship, any relationship... is staying attached to the people involved of any benefit? People who stay in bad relationships tend to only because they are still receiving something they feel they need... whether they want to admit it or not. Could be fear of being alone, so they stay for companionship as an example.
Judgments of a society in which you agree to live and be held accountable by, are not wrong to make. We (our society) as a whole have agreed that some things are to be considered undesirable.
But our personal judgments on what is considered "good" and "evil" are simply our own perspectives in the end. Our own subjective views on things. Some might consider a desire of greed to be a bad thing, and others not. I don't think a person can help but judge a thing... it happens instantly, inside our heads, based on our previous ideals and beliefs. But why is it you have those ideals in your head in the first place? They didn't grow there themselves... they were simply taught to you. Is it possible to begin to ignore that teaching and gut reaction and begin to view things in a non-judgmental way? I think it can be done, and is the main purpose of some teachings I think.
Steve is telling us here are two elements/alignments/sides/polarities of a force. One does one thing, the other does the opposite. If you want to achieve your intentions... then take a look at the basis for the intention and see which polarity it aligns to, and focus your energy along that polarity, rather than against it. He is saying that this is a way to help manifest the intention quickly. Any moral judgments we make and labels we call them are simply our own point of view. The polarities are tools... in and of themselves without moral. Like a hammer. Or a saw. Choose the tool that agrees with who you feel you are, and use it! They will both exact their costs from you in their own ways, and if used correctly, both can bring you your intentions.
I hope that makes some sense... And of course... all of this is simply MY point of view
A) Wikipedia is not a viable source. It is put together by anybody that wants to contribute. Do not ever use it on any other website if you get into a serious debate. They will rip you to shreds. Especially political or science forums. Shreds. Really.
B) "But our personal judgments on what is considered "good" and "evil" are simply our own perspectives in the end. Our own subjective views on things. " "Any moral judgments we make and labels we call them are simply our own point of view."
So, since Jeffrey Dahmer thought it was okey-dokey fine to kidnap young men, chop them up, stick them in the fridge and save them for snacks the rest of us shouldn't apply our limited viewpoints by determining this to be undesirable behavior? I understand that cannabalism is a little bit down the 'ick' road from greed, but is life THAT subjective? "If I think its fine, it is"...is that really going to work for the human race?
All those 'hammer' and 'saw' analogies are mere sophistry. Essentially, you are saying that if it is your inclination to walk over the top of other people to get what you want because you are driven by lust and greed...no problem as long as that agrees with your basic nature and YOU don't have a problem with your behavior. This is a 'It's not how you play the game, it's whether you win or lose" mentality.
In the end, I think the polarity concept is too simplistic. It sounds slick, but doesn't really work once you start picking it apart. There are plenty of people manifesting plenty of stuff who do not fall into one of two categories. I don't have a problem with the basic motivators for most behaviors being based in either love or fear (except I think that 'ego' works better than 'fear'). I can see that might be the case. I have a problem assuming that to be effective a person has to be one or the other all the time. In other words, I think you might be fear(ego) based in business and love based in relationships. I know plenty of hard nosed businessmen who love their families and are kind and giving at home. And I don't think they look at their family members for what they can get out of them. I also think that you might start off fear(ego) based and grow to being love based. I also think single events can be polarized, I don't think a whole person has to be. You might find yourself in competition and become an aggressive, ego based competitor and as soon as the game is over, head off to the homeless shelter to offer loving, selfless, ego-less aid.