I think it is obvious that I an not referring to music, odors etc, as reactive influences, Molly. This is over simplification aside from off track. I'm not stating that "because" there is an external influence, the influence is automatically evil. Besides I clearly identified the influences referred to in my earlier posts as being "Cosmic" in nature. I thought you were onto that with your first response to my earlier post in which you recognized my idea of evil energy but held reserve concerning intent. (Mar16) My wife's snoring is not a cosmic force/energy that I can identify as evil because my reaction to it is discordant. Are we on the same page yet? Tracing back through a blame game may indeed indicate that "all" involve play a role in a evil act, whereas a person innocent of the charge would have, out of the innate or learned goodness, rejected the request to follow through with one of the phases leading to the final outcome of the act. Do you think Ghandi would have delivered a packaged bomb to the British as the seventh role in the sequence of acts to carryout a evil act against the British? Isn't it possible that evil energy can/may effect evil outcome through several people in a sequence? This of course would have to have the intent factor as in your Karma suggestion. This is another area to discuss and display the existence of cosmic energies that have influence on people. Si?
On Mar 19, 8:28 am, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > that "forces/energies" beyond our physical space can have or attempt > influence upon our action. > > Loud music, strong odor, water and air pollutants, all effect my > action/reactions I suppose. But does it make them evil? Does evil > need intent? If so, can mere intention really harm us? Or is the > combination of intention and action that destroys necessary for evil? > I am not sure that a force or energy by itself is enough to qualify > evil, even on a scalar level (which some would say requires intent.) > But the effects of an atom bomb dropped in Detroit would ruin my day > and more. Is the bomb evil? The guy who pushed the drop button? > They folks who loaded the plane with the bomb? The inventor? This > example is a good one, I think, because many of us have heard and can > empathize with the story of Oppenheimer. I think the Japanese would > see the bombing of Hiroshima as evil. I am not sure everyone in the > world does. > > On Mar 19, 7:18 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > and then we > > truly start to believe that there must be some dark thing outside > > ourselves which forces us to want to do these things which are > > "evil". <<CJ > > > Nothing forces us to do anything. We still have choice, awareness, > > rationale. As much as we can accept the possibility that good and > > evil are innate qualities embedded in the psyche , we can't rule out > > that "forces/energies" beyond our physical space can have or attempt > > influence upon our action. There are no fixed perspectives or > > absolutes concerning good or evil other than those established by > > individual or group choice, for whatever reason. They still float > > about in the opinion pool. > > > On Mar 18, 11:30 pm, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Thank *insert deity* you're here, Michael. I was hoping someone was > > > going to point out that everyone seemed to be making the point that > > > Good and Evil were subjective ("Without cold there would be no > > > hot..."), and then turning right around and following that up with > > > something that seemed to imply they were somehow objective. > > > > The problem with fixed perspectives of moral absolutes of good and > > > evil, such as those handed out by a purportedly objectivist view, is > > > that they can't possibly be such, and fail in scenarios which require > > > moral relativism. Not every situation does, and some might argue few > > > situations truly do, but some situations certainly do, or we wouldn't > > > be able to sit up here and play "What would you do if a madman pulled > > > a gun and said bomb the tube or I kill your daughter?" Belief in a god > > > given moral set is the only possible justification humans can give for > > > moral absolutes, because it's the only explanation which over rides > > > the common sense which suggests that sometimes, it's ok to break the > > > rules. > > > > We further delude ourselves with this concept that our natural human > > > instincts to eat, and take, and fight and fuck are wrong, and then we > > > truly start to believe that there must be some dark thing outside > > > ourselves which forces us to want to do these things which are "evil". > > > We are not evil ourselves. There must be something outside ourselves > > > which is evil. QED, there must be something good, and that something > > > good can save us. > > > > The premise is based on a flawed assumption to begin with; that our > > > natural hungers and desires are themselves, not a normal, healthy > > > expression of us. That we should all be naturally, unassumingly > > > altrustic, and that to feel any other way is a sign of negative > > > outside influence. Once we dispel that myth, and recognize that our > > > conscious choices to become altruistic as a method for the improvement > > > of society, ONLY because better society provides better personal > > > quality of life, it all starts to make sense. We see how we still are > > > on the same biological evolutionary track, how sociological > > > progression has occurred, and how the long conversations over > > > seemingly minor twitches of semantics somehow seek to mystify > > > something as natural as grass growing, and chicks hatching in spring. > > > > Organisms all act in a fairly similar fashion. We do not spend much > > > time thinking about whether a lion is evil when it brings down a young > > > gazelle, and tears it limb from limb. Yet the same act in a human is > > > "beastly!" > > > > Of course it is. We're beasts. Some of us are better adjusted than > > > others. This is not the influence of outside radio waves of dark > > > malice. This is straight up old school Maslovian progression, with all > > > the standard textbook pathologies, and we understand it a million > > > times better than we did a hundred years ago. > > > > Debate the definition of evil if you like, but the fact is, there's a > > > pill for that. > > > > On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 12:33 PM, Michael Berkovits > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > True, cold could exist only if hot exists. "Hot" and "cold" are > > > > cognitive constructs referring to the subjective response we all feel > > > > with respect to being in the presence of molecules whose average > > > > kinetic energy is higher or lower than a baseline number we feel as > > > > mild. > > > > > What transcends humanity is the fact that molecules have kinetic > > > > energies. What does not transcend humanity (arguably) is "hot" and > > > > "cold." You can make arguments for "hot" and "cold" on the basis of > > > > other organisms that arguably feel. But "good" and "evil" are way too > > > > abstract, and those I think purely depend on human definition. > > > > > re: Archy's post: In what sense do we contain evil and need a cure? > > > > From whose perspective? There's a reason some philosophers posited > > > > that humans are fundamentally good, and others posited humans are > > > > fundamentally bad. It's a definitional matter. (Unless, say, you > > > > believe in God and define good as "that of which God approves"). > > > > > Needless to say, I agree with Pat 100%. Sure, I'm a normal human > > > > being so on a visceral / colloquial level, I "feel" and "know" Mr. > > > > Fritzl is "evil." But we're not having a colloquial discussion right > > > > now. If I were talking to a friend I might say something like "Dude, > > > > that Austrian guy is so frickin eeevil." But we're having high- > > > > minded debate right now, and that won't cut it. > > > > > Pat's key point, from my perspective, is: "Now, even I tend to coldly > > > > lump Mr. Fritzl into the category of > > > > evil, but I do so knowing that my declaration doesn't make it so." > > > > > I join ornamental in asking someone to expand on why it is so obvious > > > > that good and evil precede and transcend humanity. > > > > > I also posit this further view: Where does viewing things as "good and > > > > evil" help us, as opposed to the reductionist view that hey, people > > > > have visceral reactions borne out of a combination of brain structure, > > > > personal experience, and cultural absorption (part of experience, of > > > > course, but I'm breaking it out because it's important), and most > > > > people happen to have the same positive or negative visceral reactions > > > > to a wide array of things (e.g., everyone reacts viscerally negatively > > > > to the idea of killing a helpless baby). > > > > > On Mar 17, 7:34 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Evil exists if and only if good exists. Both good and evil exist if > > > >> and only if a morality exists.<<MB > > > > >> Does Cold exist only if Hot exists? > > > > >> Cold and Hot exist only because we exist? > > > > >> Good and Evil transcend that of humanity, that of human morality. > > > > >> Good and Evil existed long before the presence of humanity and > > > >> humanity's sense of morality. > > > > >> On Mar 17, 7:33 pm, Michael Berkovits <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >> > Evil exists if and only if good exists. > > > > >> > Whether or not a morality exists depends purely on what one means by > > > >> > a > > > >> > "morality." It's a definitional question, no? Clearly, people have > > > >> > moral intuitions, reflected in emotional preferences between options > > > >> > - > > > >> > certain options feel "right," certain options feel "wrong." > > > > >> > There are at least two possible preliminary definitions of evil. > > > >> > First, is it having an incorrect or backwards moral map, such that > > > >> > actions that the large majority of people view as "wrong" are instead > > > >> > viewed as right? Second, is it the ability or tendency to act > > > >> > contrary to one's moral map - i.e., to choose and actually carry out > > > >> > options that "feel" wrong? > > > > >> > I would suggest that this discussion is best carried out by focusing > > > >> > in on which question is being asked. Does the question "Does evil > > > >> > exist" refer to the first question, or to the second, or to either? > > > > >> > Secondarily - and this is something I will have less agreement on - I > > > >> > will suggest that the topic basically turns entirely on definitions > > > >> > and hence not much headway can be made in thinking about it. Are > > > >> > there people who consistently choose actions, a much larger > > > >> > percentage > > > >> > of the time than do ordinary people, that are viewed by the large > > > >> > majority of people as being wrong? Yes, of course there are such > > > >> > individuals. Are such actions evil? That depends entirely on > > > >> > whether > > > >> > you assign blame to them. One can feel viscerally angry with such > > > >> > people yet, from a purely logical standpoint, assign no "blame" to > > > >> > them. > > > > >> > Of course, generally in society we do assign blame. My personal > > > >> > tendency is not to do so - I don't find it very helpful. Actions > > > >> > exist in the world, I have visceral reactions and judgments of those > > > >> > actions, but I choose not to > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
