 Positivity Found A Dilemma
Some positive properties may appear to be just as positive as their negations. Consider such a predicate as "x is extremely polite". Now, "extremely" may be taken two ways, "superbly well mannered" or "extremely rude or offensive". Either may at some time be positive, as thanking or loving your enemies may be consequent of virtue, as well as also during times of war, doing something "permanently impolite".
Then that predicate causes some upset in "all possible worlds" as its negation may be also positive for the two properties:
A = "superbly well mannered"
B = "extremely offensive"
These are, in some sense, consequent of the "X" in "is extremely polite", so that X => A&B-1. Then I may exercise the virtue p "exercises self control" in p&X-1=>C, where C = "does not offend despite being ready to".
Then there is liberty found in relaxing A to some B or vice versa, by redefining the rules, i.e. what is to be "good manners" or to exercise an entirely different virtue!
Similarly, on a somewhat more serious scale, "preparing to offend despite having no wartime enemy" could, as an equivalent to p, conceivably permit such a positive "Y=>A-1&B" with the disjunction p&Y-1=>"remaining neutral" where there is a violent argument of the "permanently impolite" brewing in A-1&B. (Again, virtue is in scope as if defining what is acceptable preparation or agression or what is treaty.)
So, some predicates are "invertible" remaining positive.
It is also the case that a disjunction Pos(r)&p-1 v Pos(p&r-1)=>Pos(s) may be inverted to ¬Pos(r-1)&p v ¬Pos(s-1), and the very same virtue is consistent with the free choice of negative acts in r-1 and s-1.
Is it any wonder that at the very start of the covenant mediated through Moses, that God very nearly destroyed all the camp of Israel to start over through a line descended from Moses, rather than deeply invest Himself in what was seemingly becoming a lost cause? (It was His own Son Jesus Christ's life on the line also.)
To God, the outcome was 50/50 on the outcome of the exercise of virtue, given that starting over again would yet assure Him of a positive outcome as well. To Moses, the love for his people was more important to assure him a line in the "promised land" rather than by starting over, and God went with Moses' choice for good reason: that covenant was already being "mediated", not only dictated as from the start.
Exo 32:7 And the LORD said unto Moses, Go, get thee down; for thy people, which thou broughtest out of the land of Egypt, have corrupted themselves:
Exo 32:8 They have turned aside quickly out of the way which I commanded them: they have made them a molten calf, and have worshipped it, and have sacrificed thereunto, and said, These be thy gods, O Israel, which have brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.
Exo 32:9 And the LORD said unto Moses, I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiffnecked people:
Exo 32:10 Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation.
(KJV)
Then God is no ogre, He most assuredly is not. God, already knowing the outcome both ways is split: but the mediated choice was always Moses' own.
Any sense of "slow to anger" being contradicted or not being present is here not indicated. With Christ's life to be placed on the line this anger returns all the way back to the fall in Eden and God also having sent the flood and made a covenant through Noah as well. That took close to 13.8 billion years of careful repentance through the mechanism of evolution that God had initially made man before the flood. Then, the insult, to have the whole positive work of all those dinosaurs etc. negated because of some foolish slaves worshipping the non-gods of their own former taskmasters would inflame any true God's (or even anyone's) displeasure.
Getting it right first time is surely positive, there was yet room for repentance and a better start, a better foundation for Christ. (It was still 50/50.)
So, as to some predicates being exampled both positive and negative, to exercise virtue is positive; but God will delight in entailing the positive rather than their negation(s) as from the same virtue. It is reconcilable that God was steering Moses, rather than simply educating Him on the God He in fact is (a jealous one to be sure). However, that is not indicated in the text, for Moses was actually doing the steering, he having a real say in what was to be judged positive overall. But God was not ignorant of it, and repented on the outward appearance of consistency (though His words would surely have been preserved).
Continue To Next Page
Return To Section Start
Return To Previous Page |
