On a certain day of so-and-so month, so-and-so year, a sweat-ridden man dribbles the ball frantically as he runs against the flow of time itself towards the goalpost. Surrounding him were other men desperately running to seize the ball, though at the heat of the moment they seemed to the sweaty man more like bulls, cleverly disguised as players.
With what remained of his burning legs, he kicked the ball. Whoosh.
"GOAL!!!"
At the timer's beep, the crowd erupts. The sweaty man's team gains a 3rd point, narrowly surpassing the opponents' 2-point score by a hair's breadth. A slurry of confetti, popcorn crumbs, sausage pieces, and sticky cola flew from the bleachers. (this is where that extra change of clothes comes in handy!)
A variety of words can be pieced together from within the crowd's kerfuffle:
"YESSSS! LET'S GO!"
...exclaims the student, 14 years of age, rocking a full set of merchandise for the sweaty man's team. She'd been one of their biggest supporters ever since she met them on that fateful field near her house.
"AAAGH! STUPID! STUPID! STUPID!"
...wails the schoolteacher who had wagered two thirds of his savings on the losing team. Sobbing, a mixture of snot and tears runs down his chin.
"Huh. Would ya look at that..."
...states the elder, secretly knowing that his sweaty son's team was previously set up by the higher-ups to lose the match. The match was supposed to be fixed, in other words.
He knew deep down that the shared stubbornness, the shared fire in the hearts of the team wouldn't let such an outcome slide (just like in those sports animes). Truth be told, he was relieved, and more than that, proud of his son's valor.
"...Hello? Yes, this is Diaz speaking,"
...says the woman on her phone with an indescribably flat expression on her face. Things hadn't gone as planned. A sludgy circumstance now rests in her hands.
image: association football players (source: wikipedia)
Three types of goals have been observed in the story.
The first type refers to the physical posts placed on two ends of the field.
The second refers to the phenomena of scoring a point, where some guy with a distinct voice yells "goal!!!"
The third refers to the intrinsic force that has driven the people to be involved in the game in the first place.
I wouldn't call myself an association football fan, nor am i that knowledgeable on the processes involved in match fixing, but nonetheless, i enjoyed writing that dramatized parable (if you can call it that).
***
the existence of "good" and "bad" are entirely dependent on the presence of a goal
That's one way of thinking i've learned so far from the information i've gotten on being a living, breathing, and believing human. To put it simply:
If something hinders the accomplishment of a goal, it is labelled as “bad”.
Conversely, if something supports its accomplishment, it is labelled as “good”.
If not a single being capable of forming an goal exists, these labels therefore would not exist.
If your goal is to get the ball into the opponent's goalpost, anything that gets the ball closer to the post would be "good", while anything that would bring it further away would be "bad"
If your goal is to sustain life as long as possible, anything that increases the likeliness of a long life would be “good”, while anything that would cut it short would be “bad”.
If your goal is to have as many happy people on earth as possible, then anything that contributes to this collective happiness would be “good”, while anything that instead diminishes it would be “bad”.
If your goal is to wholly express yourself, anything that allows for the successful display of your character and intentions would be “good”, while anything that prevents it would be “bad”.
...so on, so forth. You can fill in your own example.
In these terms, things aren't simply "good" or "bad", rather they are "good/bad for the achievement a certain condition". Okay, that logic does simplify a number of things i've been pondering about.
Differences in what is viewed as "good" and "bad" thus spawn from different goals. What i've inferred is that the goals of a person may be shaped by their understanding of this plane of existence called "the universe" and how the systems within it work.
A person who views the world as a battlefield to defend against may form goals that differ from those of a person who views the world as a place full of people to be helped.
People's knowledge impacts not only the composition of the goals they aim for, but also what methods they'd accept when trying to achieve them (which, when i think about it, simply implies the addition of extra goals/conditions to be met alongside a dominant goal).
These differences in goals are found between groups, between individuals, heck, even within a person's own mind. The last one is called cognitive dissonance, i think.
***
The words "good" and "bad" (and its cousins, e.g., "right" and "wrong", "useful" and "useless") are used generously in my everyday life, both by myself and by the people who surround me. I assume it's because it's easy to articulate these words, plus they can be used in many different contexts. Yet, from what i've observed so far, the specific context behind people's "good"s and "bad"s -- what triggers a person to call something "good" or "bad" -- is more often than not omitted from conversation.
As one person speaks of their idea of "good", another may have a totally different idea of what is "good" in their head. Then it'd be hard for them to find common ground to connect and build understanding on, as they've got two totally different situations mapped out in their minds.
In a discussion about a certain insect species, an agriculturist, who i worried about a food supply which is often subjected to infestation by said species, clashes with an ecologist, who is worried about the stability of an ecosystem which the species plays an important role in. They could debate, giving reason after reason as to why one is "good" while the other is "bad" until one of them yields. They could also spend more time focus on understanding each other's point, then building new ideas upon the newly formed common ground. The former may be done if the goal is to get to a conclusion as soon as possible, or if one truthfully cannot see an alternate conclusion that would suffice. The latter may be done if at least one of the parties would want a solution that benefits everyone involved, as much as possible.
More often than not the words just... don't... come out... spill... how one would think they would. And so we use the "good" and "bad" shortcuts to finish the job, because who has the time to strain their synapses when there are words to be said and business to be done!? I can understand that, and i want to continue understanding that. I've noticed how often i misdirect and waste my energy on correcting one's means of communication, preparing a truckload of "well, techincally"s and "don't you mean"s under my tongue when actually listening and making the effort to understand what they're trying to communicate is so much more useful in achieving what i desire when interacting with people -- wholehearted understanding, at the very least on my part.
In other words, if i were to apply this frame of reference to my interactions with other people, i should stay focused on listening and connecting my understanding to theirs. What the other says or how they say shouldn't matter in this case. Though, to be frank, if they resort to physical violence, i'd prefer to take defensive measures and flee to minimize bodily harm. :]
Much easier said than done, but i'll try it anyway. I'd like to try making it a habit because it seems useful for the overarching goal i'm currently eyeing.