evil

[Guest guest]

>--It might be helpful to think of evil as a kind of imaginary number which does not exist, but >when multiplied, has real effects.

Oh, I believe in evil actions and effects all right. It's just the personification of evil as an absolute that I can't buy into. IOW, I believe that people can do evil things, perform evil acts but I can't see evil as any sort of miasmic entity or anything like that.

>the concept of God itself becomes a source of evil when it turns into dogma. Buddhism gets it right, >but it's not always easy to explain Buddhism to Christians or Muslims who still see nothing of God in >their enemy.

I just this evening read an article by who said essentially the same thing, that naming God or calling It a him or a her or giving it any name anthropomorphized it and brought it down to humanity's level instead of raising humans up. Works for me in concept but it is awfully difficult to discuss the Universe or the All or the One without a common idea of just what that is.

Blissings,

Sam

If everyone is thinking alike, then someone isn't thinking. -- Denis WaitleyIt is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. -- AristotleThe goal of an argument should be progress, not victory. -- Author unknownAccept complete responsibility both for understanding and for being understood. -- He's a blockhead who wants a proof of what he can't perceive; And he's a fool who tries to make such a blockhead believe. -- Blake

[Guest guest]

>What is evil beyond something most humans don't like a really whole lot?

Essentially, this is my belief, too, though I think maybe we could go a bit more deeply into it and say it's something that unfairly and unnecessarily deprives another of his/her free will and/or causes another to experience harm or pain without due consideration as to whether or not it's necessary or at least unavoidable. IOW, it's vicious and/or it treats human beings as objects and not as creatures like oneself. Evil is not an absolute condition; it is a dearth of compassion.

By that definition, there's a lot of things that are called "evil" that are really merely inconvenient or uncomfortable no matter how intense those feelings might be. IOW, a lot of "evil" depends on whose ox is being gored. There are actions that appear truly evil from the perception of the one being harmed but not necessarily from the POV of the perpetrator. One that immediately comes to mind is sexual abuse of children. By almost any definition, this is an evil act and what makes it worse is that it's perpetrated on those who can least resist or stand up for themselves. Even the perpetrators understand that most of current society condemns such actions. Yet, it seems to me that many of those "evildoers" have what they perceive to be valid reasons for doing what they do, e.g., they "love" children. In some cases, it's perceived by them as an irresistible drive to express themselves and this "love."

I'm not trying to defend these sorts of actions or any others of such a nature, since they've had considerable impact on my personal life and relationships. I only want to suggest that even in these cases "evil," or the lack of it, is a perception that changes depending on which side of the action you're on.

Evil is such an emotionally loaded term that carries a lot of judgment with it so it's hard to discuss this concept as a concept since many or most of us have had personal experience with the receiving side of it and that pain can interfere with seeing the idea any way other than repugnant. Again, I'm not trying to say "evil" is OK because from certain POVs it appears that way but just to say that I believe evil is not a truly positive force (such as love or compassion) but is actually a negative state that, as such, does not really exist.

Blissings,

Sam

Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing, there is a field. I'll meet you there.~ Rumi

[Guest guest]

Re: evil

In a message dated 2/23/2006 6:15:54 P.M. Central Standard Time,

grailsnail@... writes:

>--It might be helpful to think of evil as a kind of imaginary number which

>does not exist, but >when multiplied, has real effects.

Oh, I believe in evil actions and effects all right. It's just the

personification of evil as an absolute that I can't buy into. IOW, I

believe that people can do evil things, perform evil acts but I can't see

evil as any sort of miasmic entity or anything like that.

N: What is evil beyond something most humans don't like a really whole lot?

bw,

>the concept of God itself becomes a source of evil when it turns into

>dogma. Buddhism gets it right, >but it's not always easy to explain

>Buddhism to Christians or Muslims who still see nothing of God in >their

>enemy.

I just this evening read an article by who said essentially the

same thing, that naming God or calling It a him or a her or giving it any

name anthropomorphized it and brought it down to humanity's level instead of

raising humans up. Works for me in concept but it is awfully difficult to

discuss the Universe or the All or the One without a common idea of just

what that is.

Blissings,

Sam

If everyone is thinking alike, then someone isn't thinking. -- Denis Waitley

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without

accepting it. -- Aristotle

The goal of an argument should be progress, not victory. -- Author unknown

Accept complete responsibility both for understanding and for being

understood. --

He's a blockhead who wants a proof of what he can't perceive;

And he's a fool who tries to make such a blockhead believe. -- Blake

" Our highest duty as human beings is to search out a means whereby beings

may be freed from all kinds of unsatisfactory experience and suffering. "

H.H. Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th. Dalai Lama

[Guest guest]

/Sam: >>What is evil beyond something most humans don't like a really whole lot?<< --Or more commonly, what is evil but what harms one's own family, tribe, religious or political group? If we were as sensitive to evil when it falls on strangers, we'd probably undermine the whole paradigm of evil. I believe that's what religion attempts to do, to make the perception of evil more consistent and to apply it outside the instinctual zone of loyalty to those who share one's genes or goals. It takes no religion to be moral toward those who are in one's inner circle. It takes religion, or something like it, to be equally moral toward one's enemy, or to a stranger.>>Essentially, this is my belief, too, though I think maybe we could go a bit more deeply into it and say it's something that unfairly and unnecessarily deprives another of his/her free will and/or causes another

to experience harm or pain without due consideration as to whether or not it's necessary or at least unavoidable.<< --That's a good working definition. It boils down to freedom from coercion or abuse. >> IOW, it's vicious and/or it treats human beings as objects and not as creatures like oneself.<< --Agreed. Objectification is the basic problem, and those who are objectified long enough and severely enough eventually lose the ability to see others as subjects. Or at least the ability is driven into the unconscious. Those who objectify others the most seem the most sensitive to being objectified by others, as well. >>IOW, a lot of "evil" depends on whose ox is being gored.<< --Agreed. Lack of consistency is one of the roots, and a continuing problem. I've been having a discussion

with a Palestinian Christian who says "Why do you condemn suicide bombings but not Israeli oppression." I tell him I DO condemn human rights abuses by Israel's government, and that I also condemn suicide bombings as a human rights violation. He says, "But look how many people Israel has killed, and how few Israelis have been killed." Apart from the fact that he's not counting Palestinian fighters separately from civilians but lumping all Israelis together as potential soldiers, I asked him if he'd fail to condemn a child molester who has "only" molested one child, next to one who has molested ten. I'm hoping if I repeat the point enough without demonizing him as a person, he'll get the message. For a Christian to let nationalism and his own suffering blind him to the suffering of those on the other side seems somewhat unchristian to me. And it illustrates one of the major problems of evil, namely the contrast principle. My own evil seems smaller than my enemy's evil, when put side

by side. But is God fooled by that kind of scale-tipping? >>There are actions that appear truly evil from the perception of the one being harmed but not necessarily from the POV of the perpetrator.<< --Perpetrators cannot make that perspective shift, and I believe they actively deny it in themselves, as opposed to not having the ability. Consciousness may depend on the ability to see multiple perspectives, and it takes some work to shut off one's ability to put himself in another's shoes. Several of the school shooters and terrorist groups have actively and repeatedly warned each other of the dangers of empathy, actively cutting out what they see as a weakness. The Nazis were warned not to feel empathy for Jews. "We must do what is difficult, and resist pity". Not a lack of empathy at all, but a boot camp for extinguishing it. >>One that immediately comes to mind is

sexual abuse of children. By almost any definition, this is an evil act and what makes it worse is that it's perpetrated on those who can least resist or stand up for themselves.<< --And likelier than not, he experienced it himself, and felt it for the evil it was, when he was a child. Then, forced to repress the pain in order to survive, he loses the ability as an adult to put himself in the child's shoes. Identifying with the abuser provides a kind of closure, but one that keeps the cycle moving forward and affecting more victims, until someone stops the cycle by dealing with his own trauma before going on to traumatize others. Repression can help someone survive an inhuman environment, but if it's not dealt with later on, it becomes toxic. >>Even the perpetrators understand that most of current society condemns such actions.<< --Knowing what others see as evil does not equal the ability to feel what the victim feels. Especially if one feels permanently separated from the rest of humanity, seeing society as an enemy rather than identifying with its norms. To make it worse, what happens if one's first example of moral authority, most likely a parent, is hypocritical or abusive? What if one believes that everyone is hypocritical, paying lip service to morality but doing in secret the same things done by the outcasts? Every thief is convinced everyone else is a thief, and it takes a lot of counterexamples to prove him wrong to himself. A thief may also be more likely to be stolen from, as others feel he deserves to be put in his place. >>Yet,it seems to me that many of those "evildoers" have what they perceive to be valid reasons for doing what they do, e.g., they "love" children. In some cases, it's perceived by them as an

irresistible drive to express themselves and this "love."<< --It may even be genuine love, expressed without appropriate boundaries. Society hasn't dealt with the more complex issues between perpetrators and victims, assuming it does justice to the victim to see the perpetrator as a monster rather than as a human being with some monstrous habits. A lot of "political correctness" prevents victims from expressing a wish for reconciliation as well, which may hurt them further. The notion of victims' rights is only extended to victims who wish to punish the offender more than usual, not to those who wish to find some other way. It may be decades, if not centuries, for the subtler aspects of crime and punishment to come into societal consciousness. >>I'm not trying to defend these sorts of actions or any others of such a nature, since they've had considerable impact on my personal life

and relationships.<< --You shouldn't even have to make that disclaimer. People should be able to discuss such things wtihout fear of being labeled an "enabler", just as one should be able to criticize US policy in the Islamic world without being labeled a terrorist. But it's still prudent to make clear that the act is condemned, if not the perpetrator as an identity. "Love the sinner and hate the sin" is a very wise sentiment, but we pay more lip service to Christ than actual service to Christ. >>I only want to suggest that even in these cases "evil," or the lack of it, is a perception that changes depending on which side of the action you're on.<< --Have you read Evil: Inside Human Violence and Cruelty? It goes into that difference in perspective. Along with T. Beck's Prisoners of Hate, it's one of the best books on evil I've read.

I think I have both linked to my website, in the links section: www.soulaquarium.net >>Evil is such an emotionally loaded term that carries a lot of judgment with it so it's hard to discuss this concept as a concept since many or most of us have had personal experience with the receiving side of it and that pain can interfere with seeing the idea any way other than repugnant.<< --True, and I believe that causes guilt for the victim as well as preventing the resolution of cycles of suffering in the long term. Evil is a pattern, human beings are only vehicles for it (not to make it into a spiritual concept) and must somehow find a way to see the pattern for what it is, if they want to reduce suffering. Ultimately, if a perception of evil makes it harder to stop evil, that perception is evil in itself. "Victim pride", the

belief that suffering makes one moral in contrast to the perpetrator's immorality, is a serious problem. Nazis and Islamic fundamentalists do suffer. They just can't see that their own suffering doesn't justify inflicting more suffering. It would help greatly if more children had a fair witness, someone to stand by them when other adults are abusing them. That would prevent a slippery, hypocritical standard of morality from taking hold as they grow into adulthood. The same idea could be applied to conflicts in which the suffering of a religous or national group is represented by terrorists or a corrupt regime, rather than by the actual voices of the suffering. I've been asking Palestinians and Israelis to make video tapes describing their own suffering without politicizing, and send the tapes across the wall. I don't know if any of them will do it, but I think it would help. C.

Lockhartwww.soulaquarium.netYahoo! Messenger: grailsnailBlog: http://shallowreflections.blogspot.com/

Brings words and photos together (easily) with PhotoMail - it's free and works with Yahoo! Mail.

[Guest guest]

Lockhart writes:

>It's a process (let's call it interconnectedness or transcendent

>unity or something along those lines) which has become identified

>with an object, with a name or a book. The same process that

>inspired Moses also inspired Jesus, Mohammad and Buddha, but

>their followers seem to have lost the ability to recognize the

>underlying spark in each other, convinced the names and books

>are all that matter. It's insane to think that mouthing the words,

> " Jesus is Lord " makes a person a Christian, or that saying,

> " There is only one God and Mohammad is his prophet " makes one

>a Muslim. But when it's all about sorting humanity into piles,

>the us against them game, words are used as statements of loyalty

>and affiliation. I like to tell some people, " I am a Christian,

>I am a Buddhist, I'm a Muslim, an atheist and a Jew. " Their

>reaction is either " I like that " , or " How can you be more than

>one? Decide! " I have a lot of fun with the latter reaction, and

>usually I get to point out that their demeanor does not reflect

>the peace they claim their religion gives them, if they get so

>agitated that they end up shouting or demanding I make some

>statement of allegiance. As far as I'm concerned, it's all about

>body language, not words.

Yes, you've caught the underlying problem that makes so many 'educated'

modern people hate religion. It has been almost totally corrupted into mere

political parties. Most of the loudest voices for 'religion' -- both now and

in the past -- are just politicians grasping for power but using a slightly

different 'gimmick' than the mainstream sort. Genuine prophets make little

impression in their own time because they speak to individuals not masses.

It usually takes generations for large numbers of people to start to 'catch

on' to a new message. But then it comes into the awareness of the

politicians and they sieze control of it. (viz. Constantine and the

hijacking of Christianity...)

That's almost amusing that some people are so unable to deal with a

non-exclusive statement that they will get excited and demand a definitive

legalistic stand. But then that's how completely the political corruption

has taken hold, and so it's not amusing if you realize the implications.

This 'ridiculous' attitude is the source of much of the world's strife.

[Guest guest]

>--Have you read Evil: Inside Human Violence and Cruelty? It goes into that >difference in perspective. Along with T. Beck's Prisoners of Hate, it's one of >the best books on evil I've read.

Hi ,

No, I haven't read these books but I'll check them out. Thanks for the referral.

>I've been asking Palestinians and Israelis to make video tapes describing their own suffering >without politicizing, and send the tapes across the wall. I don't know if any of them will do it, >but I think it would help.

I've heard of small groups here and there that have brought the two sides together, especially in the form of children's groups, and they seem to have had some hopeful results. I think the same thing was done in Ireland, too. The immediate impact of these sorts of things may seem minimal but just because we can't do everything doesn't mean that we shouldn't do something, yes?

Blissings,

Sam

Don't believe everything you think. ~ Bumper StickerMany of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our point of view. ~ Obi-Wan Kenobi Choose your illusion carefully. ~ UnknownWho looks outside, dreams; who looks inside, awakes. ~ C.G. Jung

[Guest guest]

> I've heard of small groups here and there that have brought the two

> sides together, especially in the form of children's groups, and they

> seem to have had

> some hopeful results. I think the same thing was done in Ireland,

> too.

Yes Sam, Quakers have been bringing the Cath's and Prot's parents and children together in a centre up in the hills over Belfast for years- and transporting C & P parents to visit their own vis common waiting rooms ...

F.

[Guest guest]

Hi, -

Having a bit of a history with Quakers, this post of yours intrigued

and delighted me. Do you live near Belfast?

marte

[Guest guest]

Marte,

No! Right down S. In mid Cork County- have a look on the map- Mallow on the

Cork-

Limerick route.

We continue to collect for the centre and have done for the past 20 years (come

to

think of it!)

Don't shout about it thing but Quakers were one of the few 'religions' who where

able to

negosiate with both sides o the fence. One suggestion back there was

knee-capping

instead of back o the head job.... But don't shout this one out too loud as

anything is an

improvement on killing....(well some people think so... I guess)

I intended to move up there and work as a Therapist but clinical work took me up

down

here. Not sure which would have been the more difficult...

F.

> Hi, -

>

> Having a bit of a history with Quakers, this post of yours intrigued

> and delighted me. Do you live near Belfast?

>

> marte

>

>

>

>

>

>

> " Our highest duty as human beings is to search out a means whereby

> beings may be freed from all kinds of unsatisfactory experience and

> suffering. "

>

> H.H. Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th. Dalai Lama

>

>

>