Let me just say first of all that I think this is a great thread and I thank all the participants.
Shin'Ar, I think most of our disagreement has been caused by our talking past each other. I see in your thinking an emphasis primarily on linear time and soul-evolution, and in mine an emphasis on timeless completeness.
If you consider the linear perspective, it does appear that the Creator seems to prefer all the classically beautiful and good things to the classically dark and ugly ones. The path of souls appears to involve a complete abandonment of such darkness, and for good reason. Nobody wants an infinite future that looks like hell in any way.
So when you address my earlier post by writing off the significant minority of negative entities as just being wrong about what's good and beautiful to pursue, you may be right. I totally see where you're coming from and while I still think beauty is in the eye of the beholder in the moment, and that those in-the-moment perceptions of beauty are as real as the judgments of ugliness looking back, I think you're right about how beings in general would feel looking back on an ugly moral atrocity from a more advanced point of view.
But as a balance to that, consider my emphasis on the eternalistic completeness of time-space as a counterbalance to your linear perspective. Time-space sounds to me like it operates on the principle of maximal completeness and relativistic definition of what's possible - and that it realizes all possibilities as actual, not hypothetical, parallel universes with as much reality as this one when laid out in space-time. (I could be wrong in these assumptions.)
It seems to me that there has to be an equally-horrible negative phenomenon for every positive one in time-space or else that relativity and openness of possibility couldn't exist. And if relativity and openness couldn't exist, I think there could be no creation.
Because of this relativity and completeness, I think it's philosophically problematic ever to treat beauty as a thing in itself, as there are no things in themselves. To draw a boundary around a beautiful act or thing or event and single it out as existing independently from, and not in some way containing, ugliness, is to create a fiction. The boundary exists only in people's heads. This perspective doesn't account for the inseparability of things in time-space or space-time seen when you analyze deeply. This contention is the basis of the earlier arguments I made which you didn't address.
But of course, there are goal lines, and if you run a football across one your team gets six points. Consensus reality counts for something.
In the end, it seems that for intelligent infinity to be infinite, it has to include all darkness and all light side by side without restriction in time-space, where they are fundamentally inseparable from one another. But for it to be intelligent, I think Shin'Ar is right; it has to winnow out the darkness in space-time from the perspective of linear minds which employ boundaries in their thinking.
As a final note, Shin'Ar, the existence of time-space is why I take linguistic issue with your statement that "The All" could look back and generate an opinion about its past. The All, to my mind, is visible only in time-space. Time-space as a whole couldn't possibly have an opinion about the past, since the past doesn't exist there, and also since it isn't a sentient being with faculties of judgment, no matter how advanced. It just Is. In its totality it can't "double over" on itself to see and evaluate itself.
I think when you construe The All to be a judging mind with faculties of recollection, you would be better off referring instead to a vast and powerful logos of some sort. I just think The All can't possibly have preference for the stated reasons.
Shin'Ar, I think most of our disagreement has been caused by our talking past each other. I see in your thinking an emphasis primarily on linear time and soul-evolution, and in mine an emphasis on timeless completeness.
If you consider the linear perspective, it does appear that the Creator seems to prefer all the classically beautiful and good things to the classically dark and ugly ones. The path of souls appears to involve a complete abandonment of such darkness, and for good reason. Nobody wants an infinite future that looks like hell in any way.
So when you address my earlier post by writing off the significant minority of negative entities as just being wrong about what's good and beautiful to pursue, you may be right. I totally see where you're coming from and while I still think beauty is in the eye of the beholder in the moment, and that those in-the-moment perceptions of beauty are as real as the judgments of ugliness looking back, I think you're right about how beings in general would feel looking back on an ugly moral atrocity from a more advanced point of view.
But as a balance to that, consider my emphasis on the eternalistic completeness of time-space as a counterbalance to your linear perspective. Time-space sounds to me like it operates on the principle of maximal completeness and relativistic definition of what's possible - and that it realizes all possibilities as actual, not hypothetical, parallel universes with as much reality as this one when laid out in space-time. (I could be wrong in these assumptions.)
It seems to me that there has to be an equally-horrible negative phenomenon for every positive one in time-space or else that relativity and openness of possibility couldn't exist. And if relativity and openness couldn't exist, I think there could be no creation.
Because of this relativity and completeness, I think it's philosophically problematic ever to treat beauty as a thing in itself, as there are no things in themselves. To draw a boundary around a beautiful act or thing or event and single it out as existing independently from, and not in some way containing, ugliness, is to create a fiction. The boundary exists only in people's heads. This perspective doesn't account for the inseparability of things in time-space or space-time seen when you analyze deeply. This contention is the basis of the earlier arguments I made which you didn't address.
But of course, there are goal lines, and if you run a football across one your team gets six points. Consensus reality counts for something.
In the end, it seems that for intelligent infinity to be infinite, it has to include all darkness and all light side by side without restriction in time-space, where they are fundamentally inseparable from one another. But for it to be intelligent, I think Shin'Ar is right; it has to winnow out the darkness in space-time from the perspective of linear minds which employ boundaries in their thinking.
As a final note, Shin'Ar, the existence of time-space is why I take linguistic issue with your statement that "The All" could look back and generate an opinion about its past. The All, to my mind, is visible only in time-space. Time-space as a whole couldn't possibly have an opinion about the past, since the past doesn't exist there, and also since it isn't a sentient being with faculties of judgment, no matter how advanced. It just Is. In its totality it can't "double over" on itself to see and evaluate itself.
I think when you construe The All to be a judging mind with faculties of recollection, you would be better off referring instead to a vast and powerful logos of some sort. I just think The All can't possibly have preference for the stated reasons.