I like William Peter Blatty's The Exorcist. Unlike the movie, the book never commits to supernatural forces. The telekinesis part of the story is a little freaky but a smart girl could have figured out how to fool a terrified mom. It's more about a priest's doubt and a neuritic mom then anything else. And fear of the unknown, of course. All in all, a quick, interesting read.
dj On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 6:00 AM, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > Lack of exhibition does not substantiate the claim. Evil does not > imply that a newborn should immediately do a 360 headspin, hiss and > spit blood out at you. This in no way indicates that evil does not > exist within a person or that it may manifest at a later date and > time, especially if there is intent, such as may be the case with > little Tim Kretschmer and Thomas Sullivan Jr (link). > http://www.nytimes.com/1988/01/11/nyregion/boy-kills-mother-and-himself.html?sec=health > There are numerous other examples of course and whether or not they > are attributed to evil is speculation without any means of > establishing factual evidence. > The argument of evil, or the evil argument, remains problematic in > that we can only deduce from a set premise only to reach a fallible > conclusion. We cannot prove or disprove the existence of evil but > only present assertions laden with ambiguity and perplexities and > there are no uniform opinions on the matter other than those of > segmented groups within society that deem evil existence as a > necessity to their function. Maybe we can simply eradicate evil > entirely by ruling out its existence through euphemistic tactic and > rid ourselves of it for good and the world can live in peace, and find > closure, of course. lol :-) > > > > On Mar 21, 7:04 pm, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: >> Because they exhibit zero evidence of such. They exhibit only evidence >> that they are hungry, tired, or uncomfortable, and when the >> appropriate stimulus is applied, they become peaceful. Have you ever >> seen behaviour from an infant that you consider to be truly mean >> spirited that could not be more accurately attributed to another more >> common infantile behaviour? >> >> On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 5:24 PM, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > Infants aren't mean spirited.<<<CJ >> >> > How do you know this? >> >> > On Mar 21, 10:34 am, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> "Mean Spirited" typically goes hand in hand with either "spoiled", >> >> "neglected", or "abused". >> >> >> Infants aren't mean spirited. >> >> >> On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 9:29 AM, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> > She boiled her baby because a series of >> >> > childhood traumas and negative adult life events led her to a crystal >> >> > meth addiction which so impaired her judgement that she quite >> >> > literally lost her mind. Neither of these hypothetical examples is in >> >> > any way supportive of the concept of innate evil. <<<CJ >> >> >> > Actually she was a mean spirited little girl whose parents sent her >> >> > off to live in a convent under the loving care of nuns who nurtured >> >> > her into a tender loving woman, so kind and sweet she was, until that >> >> > day came, the day that no one understands, the day that she killed her >> >> > husband and boiled her baby.................but the scientific >> >> > community said it was just postpartum disorder, a simple hormonal mood >> >> > swing, not to worry. >> >> >> > On Mar 20, 11:39 pm, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 7:04 PM, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> > How can something be both innate, and learned?<<CJ >> >> >> >> > I see a problem here on the interpretive level. >> >> >> >> > I said clearly......... "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. >> >> >> >> > The content is clearly not a statement of absolutes. What is >> >> >> > unrecognized are the variable aspects of innateness, ie; the degree >> >> >> > of >> >> >> > the good/evil personae. Take for example a crime witness quote "I >> >> >> > new >> >> >> > he was bad but I didn't think he was capable of such a heinous act". >> >> >> > OR "I know she was a bad mother but don't understand what possessed >> >> >> > her to boil her baby". >> >> >> >> ...and I opened with a reference to Russell's Teapot. "Not ruling out" >> >> >> leaves a wide swath for speculation. I recognized that you >> >> >> specifically weren't making an absolute statement. I'm referring to >> >> >> the concepts of good and evil, which are themselves statements of >> >> >> absolute judgment. The crime witness statements you are talking about >> >> >> are not some recognition of any real quality, but an example of >> >> >> cognitive bias on the part of the witness. >> >> >> >> > So there is a "degree" of innate good/evil but in reiteration, we >> >> >> > can't rule out the forces/energies can have or attempt influence on a >> >> >> > person. >> >> >> >> You've moved now into a QED follow up without ever having supported >> >> >> your initial statement. I see nowhere where you have demonstrated from >> >> >> the hypothetical witness statements how that supports an idea of an >> >> >> innate good or evil. >> >> >> >> He was capable of such a heinous act because he was a progressively >> >> >> degenerative schizophrenic. She boiled her baby because a series of >> >> >> childhood traumas and negative adult life events led her to a crystal >> >> >> meth addiction which so impaired her judgement that she quite >> >> >> literally lost her mind. Neither of these hypothetical examples is in >> >> >> any way supportive of the concept of innate evil. >> >> >> >> Also as had been discussed early in the thread, the >> >> >> >> > interpretation of good/evil is in how it is defined. So what I'm >> >> >> > trying to get at here is that a person can have qualities that are >> >> >> > innate and yet be influenced by said other. Might hatred be innate >> >> >> > but not murder? >> >> >> >> innate >> >> >> Adjective >> >> >> existing from birth, rather than acquired; inborn >> >> >> >> Where would hatred be stored in an infant? Have you seen some research >> >> >> somewhere that suggests a "Hatred Gene"? >> >> >> >> > You state factually "We are taught what good and evil are, not born >> >> >> > with it." <<CJ >> >> >> >> > That is a matter of opinion, one that I disagree with. >> >> >> >> Actually, no. That is a matter of the preponderance of scientific >> >> >> thought in the psychological, sociological, and anthropological fields >> >> >> based on clinical and field study. You are free to disagree with the >> >> >> conclusions drawn, but understand that the reason I state it factually >> >> >> is because it is accepted as fact. >> >> >> >> I look at >> >> >> >> > people like Dahmer who, during early childhood without parental >> >> >> > knowledge, already exhibited patterns of morbid interests, defined by >> >> >> > society as evil. You think he was "taught" this but I think he was >> >> >> > born that way and so are many other children that display similar >> >> >> > (evil) tendencies. The same goes for the "good". >> >> >> >> Interesting speculation, but without the facts, it's nothing more. For >> >> >> the vast majority of sociopaths and psychopaths, there is a clear >> >> >> pathology, typically schizophrenia of some sort, aggravated by >> >> >> childhood trauma. Minus the trauma which triggers the maladjustment, >> >> >> the vast majority of schizophrenics can live a fairly functional or >> >> >> even high functioning life...I'd hope that mental illness isn't the >> >> >> "innate evil" quality that you're referring to. >> >> >> >> > If you spend some time in a room with a large group of one year old >> >> >> > children, you can easily see the good/bad, which at that age is >> >> >> > hardly >> >> >> > learned. What children "learn" is what aspects of their (innate) >> >> >> > behavior is unacceptable in our/their society and which aspects are >> >> >> > perceived by our/their society as good and evil. >> >> >> >> I wonder what "good/bad" you are referring to? Being a father of two, >> >> >> and part of a large family, I've certainly had many opportunities to >> >> >> witness large groups of small children at play. One year olds are a >> >> >> perfect example of humans in their natural form...selfish, not >> >> >> understanding of the group dynamic, eager to play and learn and fit >> >> >> in, but also wanting every toy for themselves. I've never seen a one >> >> >> year old child I thought was a "bad" child. I've certainly, however, >> >> >> seen all of us acting as parents, teaching them what is "right and >> >> >> wrong", and imprinting our social mores upon them. We subvert the >> >> >> basic animal instinct that all living things are born with, the >> >> >> Darwinian imperative, which is to horde resources, and procreate as >> >> >> frequently as possible, and replace them with whichever social mores >> >> >> reflect the social system we are born into...and thus our concept of >> >> >> good and evil are born. >> >> >> >> > There was a thread not long ago, chris, in which a new member >> >> >> > misinterpreted your post about how children break their toys. While >> >> >> > you were intending to make another point the member took it as a >> >> >> > declaration that negativity was a good thing. You do remember? >> >> >> > This is typical of internet discussion dynamics. Sometimes we need >> >> >> > to >> >> >> > slow down to understand each other and clarify content. >> >> >> >> Indeed...in fact, you also misunderstood me in an earlier post, when I >> >> >> sought to delineate fact knowledge from faith knowledge. I suggested >> >> >> that in a dialectic pursuit, it was important to separate what you >> >> >> know, from what you know. I'm comfortable with the fact that I will be >> >> >> sometimes misunderstood in intent or tone. That's the nature of the >> >> >> beast. I don't let it distract my focus from the conversation at hand. >> >> >> >> > Slip >> >> >> >> > On Mar 19, 10:44 am, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> >> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> Nor can we rule out that Russell's Teapot is orbiting Saturn, but >> >> >> >> we don't entertain serious conversation about it. What's intersting >> >> >> >> to me is that you don't note the contradictory nature of your >> >> >> >> paragraph. How can something be both innate, and learned? You >> >> >> >> recognize in your post that concepts of good and evil are fluid, >> >> >> >> and I'm sure you've experienced shifts in your moral compass even >> >> >> >> in your own lifetime. Something which was truly innate would not be >> >> >> >> so infinitely flexible, no? We are taught what good and evil are, >> >> >> >> not born with it, and what's more, can be "un-taught" it, >> >> >> >> converted, deprogrammed, brainwashed, or have that tenuous >> >> >> >> understanding shifted in countless ways. >> >> >> >> >> The concept of Universal Good and Evil was one even Kant kouldn't >> >> >> >> make stick. ;-) It still relies on subjective interpretation, and >> >> >> >> has never been shown to have manifested sans social mores. >> >> >> >> >> [ Attached Message ]From:Slip Disc <[email protected]>To:"\"Minds >> >> >> >> Eye\"" <[email protected]>Date:Thu, 19 Mar 2009 04:18:19 >> >> >> >> -0700 (PDT)Local:Thurs, Mar 19 2009 6:18 amSubject:[Mind's Eye] Re: >> >> >> >> Does evil exist? >> >> >> >> >> 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 >> >> ... >> >> 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
