Good vs Evil, or neither?

I wonder at times, what of the one's who are born to tempt and corrupt? Are they the bankers? Wallstreet Pornographers? Disney? The Illuminati?

Most would come to the conclusion that its a hierarchy and these groups are merely minions of the 13 blood lines puppet mastering the world. Hmm okay.

Now ask yourself this, how many times in your life have you personally tempted or corrupted another human. Friend, family, some bloak for the heck of it? Oh snap, to hell you go evil one! Is it that we have free will, or is there no choice in the matter? Is it our "conditioning" in soicety?. Nope. It's neither. If you took a group of people, UN-influenced by today's soicety, there would be those who are both good and evil.

I promise you temptation and corruption and worse is abound within the dna of certain humans at birth. Furthermore, there is no such thing "freewill". I prefer "programmed will". Could one choose to be gay if they were not? Nope. Could one choose to believe or not believe in god? Nope. .

The thing is, a brain makes up a mind, which makes up a personality, which makes up character traits. One does not choose this, they are born this way. It's a program. It's called the brain, and it will forever dictate, through the illusion of free will, the life one lives. Do you think I'm wrong?

For those who believe in god, "choose" not to.
For whose who aren't gay, "choose" to be gay.
You get the drift, can't do it can you? If you accomplish these tasks let me know, they can also be done vice versa.

The ultimate point of all this is as follows, those born to be good have no choice in the matter, they will be good. Those who do evil have no choice in the matter, they will be evil. Hitler had no choice, he was who he was. Martin Luther King had no choice, he was who he was. You or I have no choice, we are who we are; by design.

How could one be punished if evil, a sinner, or whoever does wrong in the world, if ultimately they had no choice in the matter; they were designed this way by god himself, right? Also, how could one be rewarded for being good if they were also designed by god this way? I could keep going.. Any thoughts first?

reply to post by Hiasyouwant
Some Alan Watts on the core concept you are exploring.

"Didst thou eat the fruit of the tree whereof I told thee thou shouldst not eat?"

She said "Oh! But the serpent tempted me and I did eat."

And God looked at the serpent.

And the serpent didn't make any excuse; he probably winked. Because the serpent, being an angel, was wise enough to know where the present begins.

So you see: if you insist on being moved, on being determined by the past — that's your game. But the fact of the matter is it all starts right now.

"God/Tao/Infinity/Whatever name a person uses to describe Everything" and the Serpent were in cahoots (or more specifically two sides of the same being). God's job was to do the "blameless" thing of "invisibly tempting by offering a choice" but is the one who actually lied, the Serpent's job was to do the blameful thing openly, but tell the truth, so the Human could have the opportunity to either pass the buck or accept their own actions. That's what the test was really about, the "apple" was always meant to be eaten.

For if it hadn't, there never would have been any story to tell and experience!

We will be thanking TPTB for their incredible performance they've put on once this Act is over. We'll be thanking ourself.

reply to post by ErgoTheConfusion


Are you saying that something exists outside of 'everything'/god, like a serpent? How can such be?

reply to post by LeoVirgo


No not at all. That's why I was saying the "God" and "Serpent" character in the story are the same "being" playing two roles.

However while they were playing those two roles, they were not expressing themselves/experiencing themselves as the full manifestation of "God/Tao/Infinity", but taking on masks just as we as humans have masks that keep the drama going. It's our lies that keep our story dramatic, but the lies are "good" because without them there would be no opportunity for change.

The "God" in the garden is not "The God" or "The Tao" anymore than the word "Tao" is Tao. God/Tao/Infinity is the garden, the God character, the Serpent character, the Adam and Eve characters, the ground they were walking on, the air they were breathing or feeling, the warmth on their skin from the sun, the sounds they heard from the animals, the ideas they thought as they had the conversation. The total of all of that, along with everything else AND the "evil/black/negative" space in between.

It's all of that, and more that we can't perceive because of our limited perspective as an individual "way of God/Tao experiencing itself from a variety of perspectives". The complete perspective is only one. Thus why the "God" at the top is not actually more "valuable" than the "God" playing a blade of grass. They are both sides of the same coin. Just different vantage points.

reply to post by ErgoTheConfusion

Didst thou eatest the fruit of the tree...

‘Didst thou eatest’?

I very much doubt Alan Watts wrote that. He was an educated man, and would have known that the correct form is 'Didst thou eat’.

Dost thou often make up quotations and attribute them to famous people? Or didst thou just find and thoughtlessly quote a random comment on a YouTube video?

Do tell. I’m awfully curious.

Good and evil, wouldn't they both be considered just perspectives relative to the subjects current "outlook".

An evil person "can" feel good
An evil person "is only" evil in the eyes of good people and vice versa.

At some point in history. Something defined, good and evil, and categorically labeled them.

From which side of the viewpoint was this label made ? who knows? The bible says good... but who knows.

We can assume to know nothing about these things that are beyond our scope of human comprehension or understanding, we can only sympathize with the concept of good and evil, but again, only relatively to ourselves.

hmmm, IMO.. anyway..

reply to post by Hiasyouwant

The ultimate point of all this is as follows, those born to be good have no choice in the matter, they will be good. Those who do evil have no choice in the matter, they will be evil. Hitler had no choice, he was who he was. Martin Luther King had no choice, he was who he was. You or I have no choice, we are who we are; by design.

Instead of looking at this from perspective of the individuals, look at it from what people of the past has offered to those around them and in the future. No one persons actions were meant, for a soul purpose. All one actions, hold opportunities to others around them. Hitler would not of been what he was without the past that also influenced him and help mold ideas around his own personal desires and fears> martin Luther king would not of been who he was without the past that influenced him and help mold ideas around his own personal desires and fears>

neither would of been what they were without those around them< the past that influenced them

there is always the individuals perspective and why that perspective formed in them>>>>but then more then that< there is the perspective that all things are done< to the influence of others< that the things of the past are not so much for those individuals as they are for the now< for us< to weigh< measure< and learn

point being< no one is what they are all on their own accord< it takes the all to make what one becomes

reply to post by Astyanax
Didst thou watchest the videost?

He states it *almost* exactly as it is written, so the comment being attributed to him is accurate. The YouTube comment contains a link that will take you right to it.

I will correct the spelling.

Namaste

reply to post by ErgoTheConfusion


i see where you were going with that now _thanks for the clarity!

Define "GOOD" and "Evil"

Then I'll answer your question.

I think it was Nietzsche who explained it
that good and evil is a misnomer, or a miss match.

It's good vs. bad, not good vs. evil.
Evil is opposed by righteousness.

It should be good vs. bad, and evil vs. right.

By miss pairing them, or inverting one side, one creates the two class

culture with the upper class doing good, and if they fail they only

failed to do well, not so bad really. But the lower class can ever

_only_ do it right, if they fail it is evil and must be dealt with, by

the uppers of course!



And speaking of the elite...



The idea that God planned for man to fall just to combine good and evil into one entity is a bit off the mark. That entity already exists. It's called the fruit of good and evil.

God works six days straight,
hires a gardener and takes a day off to rest.
When he gets back he finds they've gotten into the hard stuff
and he has to let them go, because they don't take responsiblity but
invent the blame game instead.

So the question remains. Who's tending the garden. That's not a plan. That's a disaster.



David Grouchy

reply to post by davidgrouchy
You're describing a God character.

The "complete" God/Tao can't ever take a day off. There is no day... it is eternally and always exactly what it is and from the highest vantage point of itself, never changes.

This is why it uses characters to explore and experience On/Off and change.

The garden is always tended, however what's the point of a garden if you can't play? And when you play, grass gets stepped on, people sometimes fall. But if you couldn't fall, there would be no play.

This is why Good/Evil are "necessary evils" in order to have any experience at all. It's not Good or Evil, it's Black/White On/Off Left/Right. It's preference. Death/Birth is also not good or bad. They create and sustain each other.

More Alan Watts:

For the person, from the Latin persona, was originally the megaphone-mouthed mask used by actors in the open-air theaters of ancient Greece and Rome, the mask through (per-) which the sound (-sonus) came. In death we doff the persona, as actors take off their masks and costumes in the green room behind the scenes. And just as their friends come behind the stage to congratulate them on the performance, so one's own friends should gather at the death-bed to help one out of one's mortal role, to applaud the show, and, even more, to celebrate with champagne or sacraments (according to taste) the great awakening of death.

Good is to help your neighbor. Good is harmony. Bad or SO sorry for the term "Evil" is harm your neighbor. Bad is chaos. And I mean that metaphorically and in every which way possibl?. Define what it is for yourself, and aren't you both good and evil, aren't we both the tempted and tempter? Not through any real choice but through what is supposedly by design; our god given brain. You were written, it's called your DNA. It's the story that's already been written within yourself before you act it out. It's every choice you've ever made. Wasn't eve going to eat the apple through design? Didn't god know she would eat the apple, why not have created a more righteous Eve, God did so perfectly with Jesus didn't he?

reply to post by ErgoTheConfusion

Didst thou watchest the videost?

Nay, I watched it not. Video is for illiterates.

He states it *almost* exactly as it is written

Almost isn’t exactly. But I am no defender of acid-fried navel-gazers, so I am quite willing to accept that Watts was given to mangling archaic English verbs just as he mangled and misrepresented the religions of Asia.

In fact, I apologize for calling him educated. It was a foolish assumption on my part, because he wasn’t.

Though he was frequently at the top of his classes scholastically, and was given responsibilities at school, he botched an opportunity for a scholarship to Oxford by styling a crucial examination essay in a way that was read as presumptuous and capricious. Hence, when he graduated from secondary school, Watts was thrust into the world of employment, working in a printing house and later a bank. He spent his spare time involved with the Buddhist Lodge and also under the tutelage of a "rascal guru" named Dimitrije Mitrinović. Watts also read widely in philosophy, history, psychology, psychiatry and Eastern wisdom. By his own reckoning, and also by that of his biographer Monica Furlong, Watts was primarily an autodidact. Source

On topic: well, of course good and evil do not exist, except in human perception. The universe certainly doesn't recognize such concepts. But good and evil are very real from a human perspective. Where people get confused is in thinking the universe has moral character. Only human beings have moral character, but that is a very personal matter, unconnected even with the consequences of their actions.

Originally posted by Astyanax
Almost isn’t exactly. But I am no defender of acid-fried navel-gazers, so I am quite willing to accept that Watts was given to mangling archaic English verbs just as he mangled and misunderstood the religions of Asia.

He said it correctly. I copied/pasted from the comment which did have it spelled incorrectly. I corrected the post I made to now be *exactly* what he said. So can we stop fussing over two letters? I perceive you don't want to accept you jumped the gun in your accusation.

Originally posted by Astyanax
Of course good and evil do not exist, except in human perception. The universe certainly doesn't recognize such concepts.

Did he mangle, or do you simply perceive mangling?

Originally posted by Astyanax
In fact, I apologize for calling him educated. It was a foolish assumption on my part, because he wasn’t.

... By his own reckoning, and also by that of his biographer Monica Furlong, Watts was primarily an autodidact.

List of Famous Autodidacts

Yeah, official education vs Self Learning is clearly a mark of whether a person is capable of becoming educated enough to understand something.

reply to post by davidgrouchy


finally someone else say it, yeah good vs bad u know bad and good
evil as it is already clear, evil vs live so yea if u want right present

reply to post by absolutely


it is so disgusting end that the least of truth in concept is rejected directly in objective absolute act

how do u speak and mean any to justify when the reference is creations for u?

how it is inadmissible to state smthg existing really before saying any about it?

how truth become speculations about becomes possibilities to never become real

merde, any is first true before being any wether u accept it or not or ur god reject it or not doesnt change that fact

Originally posted by ErgoTheConfusion
That's why I was saying the "God" and "Serpent" character in the story are the same "being" playing two roles.

Sort of like real life, hey?

Most often in conflicts, it's evil vs evil. But because we are presented with one side as evil, we tend to automatically assume the other is good.

Since my first post I've had some time to consider your point while I mowed the lawn.

I agree with the Programmed will comment, in regards to homosexuality... however I think it's a choice with god or religion.

The mind does come to it's own conclusions, however only based on the input.

I've always considered humans just complex biological robots, AI at it's best, but still completely flawed.

We have input system, which feeds a central processing unit which controls the external peripherals to achieve a desired outcome. (In a broad sense)

From our very first input, we are engaging in processing the information.

What I see as your "good" and "evil" are just character traits, (ghosts in the machine) that create open pathways of lesser resistance for input signals to be transferred.

Think of good and bad like grooves..... grooves etched by experience.... if our experiences in life create a GOOD groove then your input pathways (paths of least resistance to your cpu) will run these good grooves... and the same for bad (evil) .....

Now, if a persons most early experiences are BAD.. then I believe this is a trigger for those initial pathways to develop.

These pathways, can be etched very deep, but I think...(propose) that the groove can be over come and re-programmed, through positive or negative re enforcement.

I guess also, this may be what "a life changing experience is"
We are going along in our "groove" BANG... something ... a catalyst... starts a change... a rapid new etching is created... but it's shallow, a new life change requires adhering to the new groove and running with it for it to become "permanent"

you see this kind of thing everyday... an easy example... not entirely OT but, think about people who exercise... they begin.. some struggle.. some don't... some continue.. some don't... this would be because those who succeeded managed to etch a new groove.

I can't find a link... but a book called "BRAIN MECHANISMS" from the 60's Hypothesized that, the brain takes around 21days to form a habit (new etch) and continuing

How do my grooves relate to good and evil and the MIND... think of your brain as a HDD and the conscious as the WRITING HEAD for your HDD, it takes commands from your Sub Concious which the conscious has to make a "choice" to imprint as a new etch... if the new etch is written to over and over again it becomes a part of our "personality matrix"...

Well thats just another Idea..