The Scariness of Evil

Does anyone here really believe that they are "above good and evil"? It is such a strange thing that people can be taken in by such a notion. Do you not notice yourself pursuing the objects that elicit good feelings? Don't we all prefer good feelings, or coherency - however complicated that may be computed?

I personally am afraid of evil - and my admitting so seems to be a fundamental tenet of a recursively ordered phenomenology. I know that whatever I become attached to is equivalent to anything I am enlivened by. My belief about the nature of that process is irrelevant: if you feel good i.e. become 'attached' to an object, then you will potentially feel a depression if the object is lost. This is the most basic way of thinking of how Yin and Yang exist in our feeling life: as we feel one pole (the expressed pole) there simultaneously exists a counterpole with potential energy.

Yet, as Martha Nussbaum notes, life is so good that were willing to accept a little evil - a little suffering - for the sake of enjoying the thrills of living. I am in very much agreement with this view - and hence, the project of human progress is primarily about reducing human suffering as much as possible. So far, given the world we live in today, we appear to have progressed relative to the religious fantasies that have existed over the last 4,000 or so years. That said, the majority of us still do not have any inkling of any inkling of a science of biosemiotics - mind and body - which promises to become a sort of scientific psychological alchemy - where the ingredients of our being are understood and manipulated for growth. Alchemy of course is a legitimate technology for the development of consciousness; on the other hand, the epistemology, or ontology, it bases itself upon can be wholly out of touch with actual reality. The simple truth is that love is everything, and love is expressed in the moment by how we represent the expressive needs of the other. If we feel love, and we are truly sensitive to other's needs, we grow. But this is not an easy situation, insomuch as it entails a mental acrobatics that is very cognitively subtle, and also, scientific in its categorization and 'naming' of things. Both Judaism and Buddhism have attempted a 'semiotics of consciousness', with relatively similar 'results' - albeit, one is profoundly theistic, the other, atheistic. Both nevertheless land on the same ethics, and pursue the same spiritual truth.

The problem lies in the pretense that the "human is the universe" - taken literally, even though the facts of living and being affected prohibit such an extreme interpretation. In any case, when the human imagines they are no longer affected by intrinsic social dynamics (an impossibility) by assuming an identity that identifies with, and as, the universe, this results in a copious growth in feeling an emotional and social power over others, with the predictable consequence of utterly obliterating a coherent psycholinguistic representation of reality. People with these beliefs evolve to become psychologically amnesiac: they forget what they did the day before because the psychoemotional direction of a subsequent self-state is incompatible with an earlier one; they were "different selves" expressing different truths within a mind that is unable to bridge their oppositeness through a coherent narrative. But of course, the intellectual maniacs have a narrative: the gnostic dualist narrative. Pythagoreanism and Hermeticism; "elite" narratives that have evolved elsewhere - in India, Persia, Babylon, Egypt. The synthetization of these beliefs in Pythagoreanism and then in Neoplatonism brought much of these elements together for a super-duper 'metanarrative'. All of this narrativizing happens within the context of a social asymmetry between haves and have-nots; the mind of each agent-actor is "pressurized" into accepting narratives that persuade the self; this results, or leads towards the creation of an 'overarching' "ruler" that regulates consciousness. For gnostic "amoral" Christians, Christ may "freely give" his grace to you regardless of how you treat other people, and so this narrative helps to quell the guilt of the people who subscribe to it i.e. Evangelicals. Or, if you preferred narrative is pagan, Wotan is the "state" of permanent alienation; akin to Cain in his 'wandering' - the wanderer is a nihilist who has been driven by life's traumas into a sadomasochistic warrior bent on satisfying his primal urges in whatever way he wants.

The narratives up for grabs are many, but they only work or succeed in their function if other people aren't criticizing how stupid and idiotic they are. "Magic" is about the unconscious biosemiotic relations that bind human minds into a single function - or state. Those who understand this are always working to 'create' a response by ceaselessly presenting what they call a 'talisman' or a 'sigil', but which is just a visual or audial or olfactory object which cues a certain emotional response; magic is far less 'mysterious' than its advertisers try to present it: it is simply about the subtleties which lie deep within the intersubjective semiotic matrix which bind human nervous systems into a single 'metamind'.

Take the Egregore concept. This is clearly what Michael Tomasello, a leading anthropological psychologist, calls "shared-intentionality". How do people come to share the same intentions? Through identifying with the same identity. Tomasello explores the psycholinguistic elements of this dynamic without addressing the affective or motivational dimensions. Magic, or people who talk about egregores, understand these entites as 'group' mind thought forms that are created by belief. In other words, they are worshiping an identity state, and wishing to make it appealing to other people. More or less, the people who "do magic" this way are concerned with manipulating other people, and do not much care about the technicalities of what a 'egregore' is. It feels "independent" of them insomuch as it exists between them. It is the same force anchoring each nervous system - it is "between" them, but it is embodied and expressive of a biological dynamic within the brain itself.

I see humans fundamentally in their motivational ways, and so should you. What else does it mean to be wrong, and not recognize why you're wrong? We can have bad motives; we can value the world in $hitty ways that express a selfishness that we are probably going to have to account for. To be responsible is to be "able to respond". To respond to information - to meaning - and change course, is what responsibility means.

To not be sadomasochistic, but to seek to understand why you are that way, is to "get beyond the feelings" and their truths, to the elements which created these feelings. Were talking about why and how pleasure and pain became synergized, and how, to get away from this social and relational toxicity, one has to look upon ones past with a fresh gaze, with a look of understanding and care. But where can such a perspective come from, one can well wonder, but from someone else looking upon your pain with a face, voice and attention that you've never personally experienced? Have you ever been called to account? Or does your guru always tell you the opposite - persuading you that he too isn't human, and isn't needing to regulate his incoherency with his own narratives.

The thing about being wrong, when your human..

is that you're so completely and utterly egotistical in your wanting to be right. We try to shove the very reality which creates us, out of the way, and romanticize our doing so as if it wont come to hurt us later on.

The scariest thing about evil is that it doesn't exist. Just another outdated superstition that tried to explain things that were impossible to explain when the sharpest tool you had was a hammer.

The problem lies in the pretense that the "human is the universe" - taken literally, even though the facts of living and being affected prohibit such an extreme interpretation.

You are mistaken. The human is not seen as the universe. The soul of a person is seen as part of the greater whole. Connected spiritually inasmuch as quantum entanglement interconnects the material world. Now I know new age spiritualism takes this to the umpteenth degree but Buddhism is not about destroying ones ego (resulting in mental collapse), but understanding its limitations. It uses nonduality as a means to develop altruism thus the practice of bodhicitta. That love and selfishness for one another is the true goal of enlightenment. With a come what may attitude to what follows enlightenment.

Thanks for time and effort you put in this. I should read this again.

Were talking about why and how pleasure and pain became synergized, and how, to get away from this social and relational toxicity,

Why didn't you just come out and say it. You want to see satanic principles adopted in society.
Being bad is fun etc etc.

a reply to: Astrocyte

I don't share your fear of evil. In fact, I don't really fear much. I live in Scotland so don't need to fear extreme weather (beyond heat in the mid 30's and hurricane Bawbag) , dangerous animals (we have Adders) or insects (I wouldn't want bitten by a Cleg [horsefly] again but not scared of them) , mass shooters (we had the first school shooting, laws changed, it never happened again).

I used to feel a kind of fear when I looked up into the night sky and realised how small and insignificant I really was but that was back when I was still relatively scared of the dark.

Anything can scare us if we dwell on it too long to be honest but I stopped letting fear be a part of my life a long time ago. It was a conscious decision that I only had the strength to make after the death of my Mum 17 years ago. Fear, like addiction, is a weekness and I don't have room in my life for weakness. There are some instances where fear is necessary (like times when it illicits a fight or flight response) but I have been lucky in that I haven't had to face such challenges
*touch wood*

Fear is the mind killer.

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
The scariest thing about evil is that it doesn't exist. Just another outdated superstition that tried to explain things that were impossible to explain when the sharpest tool you had was a hammer.

EVIL=Manipulation and causing suffering to people is very real.

Humans are not good at seeing how they their action affect the whole.

Then there are the souls both on this level and above that understand manipulation and karma backlash more than a 100 times more that the average soul here.

Just because you do not have the exact formula for karma creation and backlash do not meant the formula is unknowable. Objective morality is quantifiable and can be very well defined. But the matrix the people on the top of the power pyramid have created do everything it can to brainwash others that objective morality is not something real but a subjective thing so that people will corrupt themselves for cheap spoils.

a reply to: Astrocyte

How do you define evil?

Just trying to follow the conversation..

well according to sharia law we are all pure evil & must be killed immediately. None of us will be allowed to live. We are pure evil in their eyes.

And Jews also think they are above everyone else & judge us as inferiors.

Both religions say Jesus is not God. So they can both be judged as abominably evil in that case.

So it is Hellfire for all of them it seems

We All Have One Thing Common... And It Is Good We Know It. Life.

Evil or not, its of no importance. Just live.

a reply to: SourcePage

Cool post

We pick one to win.....winner is actually inside me....stops me from worldly ways

Evil does not exist. It is a human concept. What you call evil, is a branch of experience. How can you experience, if you do not know what experience is? To know positive, you must also know negative. If you transcend your thoughts above humanity, and think as your true self, the one, you may understand these principles.

You are here to experience. The good, the bad, the joyous, the sad.

If you wish to understand the "World", it may help to take an objective point of view (meditation).

There are those who are here to experience, and those that are here to transcend.

Ultimately, you will reascend to the prime creator, yourself - all along.

a reply to: Astrocyte

Not that Confucius is my guru, but he had wise words.

Yin and yang, male and female, strong and weak, rigid and tender, heaven and earth, light and darkness, thunder and lightning, cold and warmth, good and evil...the interplay of opposite principles constitutes the universe.

We all are learning how to balance ourselves on unsteady ground.

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
The scariest thing about evil is that it doesn't exist. Just another outdated superstition that tried to explain things that were impossible to explain when the sharpest tool you had was a hammer.

originally posted by: Alkei
Evil does not exist. It is a human concept.

Both scared of evil

Even if evil is a human concept doesn't mean it only belongs to humans, or that it didn't already exist.

There are lots and lots of "concepts" that people saw, observed, and realized, but they already existed. The human mind is able to recognize things like good and evil, and time. The concept of space, volume, emotions, etc.

These things don't exist just because human beings can understand and visualize them. They have always existed.

If evil doesn't exist, that must mean that every action in the universe is a survival mechanism.

I tend to believe many peoples survival mechanisms are broken, which would define evil in my mind. Evil is anything contrary to what's best for life. Unnatural selection is evil. And it only exists amongst humans. Which has apparently led to the flawed concept that evil is a manmade concept.

a reply to: Astrocyte

I don't want to be disrespectful, but your points might be better taken, if you spoke in simple concise language. I tried to read your post but, to me it was unreadable which is too bad because I would have liked to participate in the discussion. You can be intelligent and speak simply.

a reply to: pointessa

Where did I confuse you? I get what you're saying, but from my perspective, maybe 'intelligence' also entails complexity?

And maybe from your perspective, not being aware of the terms or concepts I use is a source of frustration for you - which is simply a function of ignorance - or "not knowing".

I've spent a good chunk of my life packing this brain of mine with knowledge, giving me in the process a sense that "things are simple", and yet, "enormously complex!".

Too many people turn away from knowledge and reflection because they seem to be uncomfortable with the process; I wonder whether it is being on the 'receiving' end from a person who has spent a large chunk of their lifetime involved in study, and not liking that 'everything' is not known to them (or can be explained in simple terms without losing some crucial meaning), that there really is "new stuff" under the sun - regardless of what the depressive Solomon had to say on the subject.

As Einstein said - quite well in my opinion; things need to be made simple, but not too simple. If you go "too simple", Einstein's interpretation would appear to suggest that the intended meaning is not properly communicated. Conversely, if you're too complex or employing unnecessary concepts, you can go in the other direction, and just be pretentious.

I have gone in both directions before - not liking the pretentious of unnecessary language; and also being too simple, and noticing how my simple words were misinterpreted.

Ultimately, and I know this isn't something many people agree with, but you need to realize the usefulness of knowledge. As a person who enjoys the process (usually) I know that ignorance carries with it more problems than knowledge does.