I seem to remember prominent people railng against "evil-doers" recently. Fortunately I think the world is coming back to a middle ground on this stuff. Pure good and pure evil only exist in a very rare set of circumstances and thats the way the word should be treated.
On Jun 25, 9:06 am, Lonlaz <[email protected]> wrote: > I stare at the dictionary definition, and I can't help that it seems > to be missing something. I don't think we can get a clear bead on > what evil is without differentiating it from just bad, or > inconvenient. We use the word because it means something that is not > succinctly conveyed by another word. > > I hold the word bad in my mind, and note its feelings and > associations. They are painful, but impersonal, sometimes even if a > person with bad intent is involved. Then I meditate on evil, the > difference seems to be in a quality of meanace, almost a > personification of bad. Not a personification of a bad event, but of > badness itself. It is personal, it inspires fear. > > I think evil is a perception of force, or an intent, but it's a > quality that can only be given to it be the perciever, Evil is the > fear belonging to one who is prey. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
