81 replies to this topic

[Lazarus Long]

This is a subject that will keep coming back to haunt us so I suggest we in turn try to address it head on. Like so many things we must cope with, it is important to remember that "When Life hands you lemons, it is better to make lemonade".

The following article by Christopher Hitchens should get us started.

LL/kxs

fighting words A wartime lexicon

"Evil"
Scoff if you must, but you can't avoid it.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Tuesday, December 31, 2002, at 10:12 AM PT


There is probably no easier way to beckon a smirk to the lips of a liberal intellectual than to mention President Bush's invocation of the notion of "evil." Such simple-mindedness! What better proof of a "cowboy" presidency than this crass resort to the language of good guys and bad guys, white hats and black hats? Doesn't everybody know that there are shades and nuances and subtleties to be considered, in which moral absolutism is of no help?

Apparently everybody does know that, since at election times the same liberal intellectual will, after much agonizing, usually cast his vote for whichever shabby nominee the Democratic Party throws up. And he will do so, in his own words, because this is "the lesser evil." So, it seems that we cannot quite do without the word, even though it's worth noticing that some people only employ it in an ironic or relativist sense, as a quality that must be negotiated with, accommodated, or assimilated.

Though the word is often heard on the lips of preachers and moralists, it does also figure in the reflections of modern moral philosophers. Faced with the evidence of genocidal politics in 20th-century Europe, Hannah Arendt, for example, posed the existence of something she termed "radical evil" and suggested that intellectuals were failing to allow for its existence as a self-determining force. Her phrase "the banality of evil" also enjoys wide currency, serving to help us understand the ways in which "ordinary men" can be mobilized or conscripted to do exceptionally ghastly things. If she had said "radical sinning" or "the banality of sin" she might have seemed sermonizing or naive, but then President Bush did not refer to an "axis of sin," did he?

It may not be of much help, in propaganda terms, to describe an enemy as "evil." Time spent in understanding and studying a foe is always time well spent, and absolutist categories may easily blunt this rigorous undertaking. But how far can certain analyses be taken without running up against a recurrence of Arendt's dilemma?

Everybody knows that morality is indissoluble from the idea of conscience and that something innate in us will condemn murder and theft without having to have the lesson pedantically inculcated. Finding a full wallet on the back seat of a cab and deciding to hang onto it, most people would have to subject themselves to at least some rationalization and justification, even if they were sure that nobody had detected them. I myself can't decide if this inherent conscience is conferred upon us by evolutionary biology—in other words, whether it selects well for socialization and survival and thus comes to us as something possessing evident utility. That thought might be merely as comforting a reflection as a belief in altruism. However, I do know for sure that a certain number of people manage to be born, or perhaps raised, without this constraint. When confronted with the unblinking, conscienceless person we now say that he is a "psychopath," incapable of conceiving an interest other than his own and perhaps genuinely indifferent to the well-being of others.


This diagnosis is certainly an advance on the idea of demonic possession or original sin. But not all psychopaths are the same. Some, rather than being simply indifferent to the well-being of others, have an urgent need to make others feel agony and humiliation. Still others will press this need to the point where it endangers their own self-interest—just as a pathological liar is one who utters apparently motiveless falsehoods even when they can do him no possible good. Thus, we have to postulate the existence of human behavior that is simultaneously sadistic and self-destructive. We would not have much difficulty in describing the consequences of such behavior as evil. "It was an evil day when …" "The evil outcome of this conduct was ..." Why, then, is there any problem about ascribing these qualities to the perpetrator?

For example, many countries maintain secret police forces and inflict torture on those who disagree. And some countries inflict torture or murder at random, since the pedagogic effect on the population is even greater if there is no known way of avoiding the terror. Caprice, also, lends an element of relish to what might otherwise be the boring and routine task of repression. However, most governments will have the grace (or the face) to deny that they do this. And relatively few states will take photographs or videos of the gang-rape and torture of a young woman in a cellar and then deposit this evidence on the family's doorstep. This eagerness to go the extra mile, as is manifested in Saddam Hussein's regime, probably requires an extra degree of condemnation. And if we are willing to say, as we are, that the devil is in the details, then it may not be an exaggeration to detect a tincture of evil in the excess. We could have a stab at making a clinical definition and define evil as the surplus value of the psychopathic—an irrational delight in flouting every customary norm of civilization.

Like everything else, including moral relativism, this would be subjective. Probably no journalist in the current discourse has had more fun denouncing Bush as a reactionary simpleton than Robert Fisk of the London Independent. His dispatches have an almost Delphic stature among those who decry American "double standards." Yet I still have my copy of the article he wrote from Kuwait City soon after the expulsion of Saddam's forces. He described as best he could the contents of certain cellars and improvised lock-ups and the randomness of the carnage and destruction and waste (remember that Saddam blew up the Kuwaiti oilfields when he had already surrendered control of them), but there was an X-factor in the scene that he could smell or taste rather than summarize. "Something evil," he wrote, "has happened here." I think I agree with him that we do indeed need a word for it, and that this is the best negative superlative that we possess.

[Omnido]

Fascinating. [blush]

I must say Laz, this is a topic to which I enjoy conversating the most.

When in the course of human events...
Notice that word there. Human. It doesnt say Alien, or Demonic, or Angelic, or even Godly, no. It says "Human."

I rememeber having numerous discussions amidst my philosophy classmates in college about the subject of Good & Evil. My favorite however was not the attempt at semantical, material, or emotional distinction between the two, no, but instead the discussion on Good VS. Evil.
I still have a link that in hindsight, needs quite a bit of reconstruction, merely because it is old. It displays the logically ascribed values between the attempted established premises of "Good" and "Evil."
For those interested, I'll post it here:
http://www.geocities.../Framework.html

The conclusion that I reached was similar to this authors; that the whole entirety of human existence in terms of morality and ethics are functions predisposed to biological evolution, intertwined with sentience and human memory, founded upon relative and subjectively perceivable as well as interpretable circumstances.

Another important reason why I stress the near-uselessness behind mankinds ultimate discernment of the hows, whos, wheres, and whens. After all is said and done, we are still left with the question of why.
Ironic actually, that moral and ethical relativism would in the end lead back to that question, a question so many people have abandoned as futile to ponder, and impossible to answer. [:o]

[Lazarus]

as far as good an evil go these were the definitions that my old sensei/sifu gave to me some time ago and they have really ben a flawless definition for them in everything I do in life

Good - Naturally constructive, the steps and means taken to complete the action justify and are focused upon more then the end regardless of the out come(ie good intentions)

Evil - Naturally destructive, the outcomes of the action is focused upon and is focused upon regardless of the actions taken to get there.


so no matter how ever you apply your moral values these will always work, but they will only work from a single point of view, your own. A group of people can share this view, and often do. but two completly opposite entities (if that is at all possible or if they did not destroy the universe if they ever met) would have switched idead of good and evil. what would be good for the one would be evil for the other and vice verse, with the exception of the constructive and destructive nature, which is a partial way of universally determining he two, but it only works case by case. The worst thing you can become is neutral, without good or evil, because then you are a pointless being, but at that point, you also would not stop anyone from destroying you either, so you probably would not last long, because netral people get annoying, except to other neutrals. The ideal goal is to become balanced, to keep yourself in a constant balance of both good and evil. For most people this is hard to achieve as thier ubrining usually leads more towards one or the other. because of this they feel torn and in constant pain if they try to do both. but there are a few, myself included, that have been brought up to be balanced with both, and a very very very few that have actually learned after childhood to be this way. I have found though that I would not suggest this way of living as those who I have tried to teach it to have either gone insane or come close because of the torn apart feeling it comes with if your not born into it. it also has a large range of moral issues we most people as I could easily steal some guys wallet and then 10 second later help another man fix his tire. most people see it as well... strange, but as I said, I grew up this way so its life to me. anyways, ultimateley good and evil are superiourly important, and completely unimportant at the same time and that why they remain so well, because thwey themselves because of the very fact that they exist are balanced, and anything either un balanced or unequaled, unless totally singular, as in one thing existing only, cannot exist.




~Lazarus A. Epicurus~

[acaveyogi]

In nature there is no such thing as good or evil. There is only action versus result. And result is either pleasure or pain. Or a degree toward one or the other. Am I a good person or am I an evil person? Who knows, I surely don't. Action that results in pain is an action that I choose to avoid. Love, john

[Lazarus Long]

Defining evil is important to social endeavor regardless of the validity of the term. This memetic reality is overlooked at one's peril. Belief is more relevant than substance in this regard for we are examining the meniscus between fact and fiction, as well as the psychology of belief and knowledge as a determinant of behavioral choice.

I wanted to put this article under Iraq but I think it (and the reason for including it) will be lost in the volume of substance already there so I will include it here instead. It isn't about moral relativism it is about the relationship of morals.

It is also describing the underlying reasons that Spain has reentered its millennium long struggle against Jihad and the Moors with a vengeance that has less to do with suppression of Spanish Africans as it does the suppression an ancient Native (Domestic Basques in this instance) Cultural Movement that does reflect tribal allegiance. By the way, the two leading states that pushed the Crusade were England and Spain, and both the French and the Austrians were highly reluctant partners then too.

Full Text & Links

March 14, 2003

COMMENTARY

Spain Crucifies Basques Under a 'Terrorist' Placard
Madrid seems to think this odious label justifies persecution of a people.
By Mark Kurlansky, Mark Kurlansky is the author of "The Basque History of the World" (Penguin, 2001).

Time passes; labels change. That great scourge of the 20th century, anti-communism, is now called anti-terrorism. It remains a label designed to generate fear and to make any abuse permissible.

On Feb. 20, the Spanish government closed the newspaper Euskaldunon Egunkaria, the only one published in Euskera, the ancient Basque language. The police arrested 10 people -- most of the staff of the tiny operation, including the editor. Accusing them of aiding the violent Basque nationalist group ETA, police sent the 10 to Madrid, held them for days and tortured them, they say, before some were released on high bail. When they publicly described their mistreatment, they were informed that they might be rearrested for lying.

Just how the newspaper, whose books are scrutinized by the Basque government, is allegedly working with ETA is unclear. But the events are all standard procedure, made possible by anti-terrorist laws passed in Spain in the 1980s. Political parties are banished, newspapers are shut down and thousands are arrested, held without judicial scrutiny, beaten and tortured. Hundreds have been killed.

Yet, while human rights groups write their reports, nobody is particularly upset, for the victims are Basques. And the Basques, we are told -- like the Arabs -- are terrorists, and they deserve whatever they get, no matter how law-abiding they are.

The average Spanish family living in a different corner of Iberia will not see a problem with any of this until the political party they vote for is outlawed, their newspaper of choice is shut down, their son vanishes one day and turns up weeks later with bruises and scars. The Spanish government can do this, too, with the same anti-terrorism laws it uses against the Basques.

The Franco dictatorship drew close to the U.S. with the unspoken argument that a commitment to anti-communism was more important than human rights. Today, the government of Jose Maria Aznar draws close to the Bush administration by virtue of a commitment to anti-terrorism.

The great lie on which all this is based is that the Basques are terrorists.

Once a people is labeled "terrorist," anything is permissible, and so the Spanish government insists on this label.

The Basques are a notoriously divided people. Their tiny land, about the size of New Hampshire, is divided into seven provinces -- three in France and four in Spain -- each speaking a different dialect of an orphan language that probably predates all other European languages.

Disputes endure between the provinces of Vizcaya and Guipuzcoa, and between Navarra and everyone else, and that's just on the Spanish side.

Yet Basques are frequently described by the Spanish as single-minded, bomb-wielding separatists.

Some Basques want a separate country made up of the seven provinces, but that desire is held by a small minority. Such an independent Basque nation has never existed in the thousands of years of their history.

What Basques always had was a special relationship with the ruling power: the Romans, the French, the Spanish. Although loyal to the ruling state, they were outside the customs zone and had their own laws.

Judging from voting patterns, a clear majority of Basques, 60% or more, want that special relationship to return.

An even higher percentage of Basques, all but a very few, adamantly opposes the use of violence to achieve goals and believes the murderous ways of ETA to be unacceptable.

ETA, which has killed many Basques, injures the Basque economy, destroys the Basque name and is hated by most Basques.

The estimated 800 killings attributed to ETA since 1968 and a similar number of Spanish killings of Basques in the same period are equally unpardonable.

It is wrong to kill in the name of Basque nationalism.

It is also wrong when the Spanish police and Civil Guard kill Basques and then find weapons that no bystanders saw.

It is wrong when Basques "commit suicide" in Spanish prisons with their hands bound, or when Basques meet with mysterious fatal accidents in Spanish custody.

We all know that killing is wrong, so we find ways to identify some killing as better than others. The U.S. does not bomb civilians, but it kills hundreds in "collateral damage." ETA kills people, while the Spanish government simply fights terrorism. Spanish killing is excusable because it consists of "accidents" in the noble pursuit of anti-terrorism -- collateral damage -- whereas ETA killings are despicable because they are terrorism.

In fact, ETA rarely employs terrorism, defined as random killing to create fear. In most cases, it goes after specific people for specified reasons. I am not saying that this excuses ETA (after all, anything the Spanish government chooses to call an "apology for terrorism" is a crime in Spain); I am simply pointing out that the Spanish deliberately misuse the terrorism label to excuse their own crimes.

The Basques denounce political violence and mount demonstrations of tens of thousands of people against ETA. The Basque government and the Basque police force ruthlessly pursue the rogue organization. There is no more they can do.

It is now up to the Spanish people to denounce and seek legal redress for the brutal crimes committed against the Basque people by their government under the guise of anti-terrorism, because if Spain, as the Spanish claim, is a functioning democracy, these crimes are being committed in their name.

[Lazarus Long]

Ironic actually, that moral and ethical relativism would in the end lead back to that question, a question so many people have abandoned as futile to ponder, and impossible to answer.

Ironic?

Very...

But it is answered, it is answered by our deeds and ever more so than by just our words. It is answered and asked for every life. Ask or don't ask is still choice, ask and decide is the "motive force" for the activity of all life.

[acaveyogi]

Your Basque problem is based on the fact that you can't separate the antagonist from the population. Historically speaking the population gets blamed for hiding the antagonist and is punished.
This catch word "terrorist", as you say, is open to an enormous amount of abuse. It is like being labeled a "communist" durring the Macarthy days. It is like being labeled a "heretic" durring the Inquisition days. None of this is right, period! The one thing that keeps this type of thing from getting out of hand is people like you Lazarus_Long, Non apathetic folks who are willing to stand out in a public way for what is civilized and compassionate.

What your wise master said was true and is the perfect place to start the discussion on morals and ethics, once the definition of "For The Good of All Concerned" is defined. john

[Lazarus Long]

 None of this is right, period! The one thing that keeps this type of thing from getting out of hand is people like you Lazarus_Long, Non apathetic folks who are willing to stand out in a public way for what is civilized and compassionate.

Thank for the kind words, for noticing, and saying so. [bl:)]

I appreciate your recognition and only hope the power of good ideas and good works transcends all harm we might do out of foolishness and ignorance. They certainly need to transcend any single one of us and I only hope that some true good comes of my life's endeavors.

We should all be so fortunate.

[acaveyogi]

What you just said is the prayer of all of us that truely feel love and compassion for all living things.

But this discussion is about morals and ethics! Lets get back on the subject here: I would like to define "For the good of all concerned", as #Any action that does not cause discomfort for any living thing.#

Then I would like to say that this definition is an "ideal". Probably one that is impossible to meet in real life. I would like to further say, that as a foundation for all morals and ethics, this definition of "For the good of all concerned" is one that you and I can agree on.

Now the true meat of any rational discussion based on yours and my approach to morals and ethics is: "How far can we deviate from this ideal and still be moral and ethical?" Your turn

[Lazarus Long]

The Physicians credo; " First do no harm".

The engineer's motto; "Keep it simple stupid" just a little KISS

The architects vision; "If it looks wrong it is."

The artist says: "It must express something"

The Scientist teaches: "It is a Natural Principle we can learn from."

I would like to further say, that as a foundation for all morals and ethics, this definition of "For the good of all concerned" is one that you and I can agree on.

It is so easy to be rationally altruistic if one understand that "for the good of all" includes me. It is an oxymoron to think that such a thing as generosity can be obligated, but it is possible to see it as an investment in happiness and a form of self expression that treats bettering the world around that we inhabit in common like the artistic expression of beauty.

Dominance and submission both come into play as each can be bad and good. For example some want to percieve others as a servant class in relation to themselves.

Is this wrong?

I won't speak for others in this respect but for myself one way to resolve this good/evil balance is to have a higher goal. The realization that both being a servant or a master reduces one's own Freedom and combined with the overwhelming esteem in which I hold Freedom, makes the transcendence of the physics of power politics possible by keeping no servants and serving no master.

As a parting comment it is a simple irony that the application of tautology is only examining the reflexive: Evil/Bad is what Good is not; or Good is not Evil/Bad. But this, while logical, is shallow and only begs a million specific instances that apply distinctly in every separate situation.

The expectation of perfection ocompromises a goal of attaining perfection. Ideals of Good/Evil that are practical are better than ideals that are not realistic. Hence pragmatic morality is rationally more Good then a purely conceptual morality.

Deviation as adaptation to shifting ethical challenges is to be expected. The spectrum of Good responses goes from utilitarian on the one hand to a transendent morality on the other, but this spectrum of "good behavioral choice is balanced by a spectum that is negative and destructive to basically instinctual.

BTW, that is a different Lazarus that talked of his sensei above, but I happen to have had a similar experience so it is synchronous anyway.

[Ganshauk]

Good, evil, forsooth.

There is not light without dark.

There is no life without death.

A lion survives upon the flesh of it's prey, a bacteria upon his leavings.

Good, to me, is the living image of a rack of human skulls, thier specie weighing my pocket, and the shrill lamentation of thier women in my ears!

Evil is someone else doing the same.

We are human! Fuck the weak. We will have them out directly. You can hem and haw all you want, but thousands of years will not sway anything - the strong will write history!

Evil? Don't make me laugh. Doing good is the surest way to an honourable but quick death. Pay attention, my brother, to those sharp canines you posses. They are there because you are the top of the food chain. And that big assed brain of yours will enable you to spread among the stars - if only you are viscious enough to get there....

[Lazarus Long]

I must say I have missed your glib rhetoric, it is good to hear you again Ganshauk. I am glad to have your company again

So the war canoe is loaded for another run from the mouth of the Orinoco to the Antilles for plunder and women eh?

Or are you claiming to be Maori? Or both?

Oh I almost forgot you were the Nordsk Berserker, right? Amanita packed piss bottles on a pillage to Ireland. Well I guess to a certain extent it also does come down to fish or cut bait too.

Yes we are the top of the food chain and the distance between the top and bottom is getting shorter everyday. Since you claim to already be an immortal you may be around when the bottom crashes into the top.

[acaveyogi]

I discovered yesterday that there was two Lazaruses, but I did not think that you were him, I thought he was you. Now all is streight.

The discussion of good verses evil and its sidekick moral and ethical is probably as old as prostitution. And its various foundations have probably been laid just as many times.

The "might is right" concept is one polar side and "the love and compassion" concept is the other polar side. And to fuel the heat of discussion is the "fear of change" concept and its buddy "stick with tradition".

Now correct me if I am wrong. Assuming that I am not in this discussion just yet, we seem to have successfully polarized our discussion.

So Mr. Ganshauk are you saying that might is right? Or are you saying that you should be allowed to rape and pillage at will just because you are you?

And Mr. Lazarus (L) How can one rationally resolve the good/evil balance when one's perception of self is that their "goal" is superior. Mr. john

[Lazarus Long]

And Mr. Lazarus (L) How can one rationally resolve the good/evil balance when one's perception of self is that their "goal" is superior. Mr. john

To "overcome" one's own self is but a step on the path of transcendence. This goal of superior achievement is not measured by the domination over others, in fact it is probably not measured by "domination" even over one's own darker side. It is only measured against the starting point in the quest and the quality of limitation being challenged.

This is in part a linguistic problem that all too many make when using a term like a "Superbeing" the weaker and more fearful personalities see a threat based on the power of such a concept, but a different mind, one that is at peace with the world and their own self, sees instead the opportunity to form a symbiotic union of tremendous potential growth and expanded knowledge through a "Collection of Conscience Awareness."

This is no small paradox and one that I am encouraged by rather than intimidated. But I seek no rule over another. Still this is not answering the fundamental question about defining first of all the limits of "good and evil" and then going beyond them.

Now correct me if I am wrong. Assuming that I am not in this discussion just yet, we seem to have successfully polarized our discussion.

OK, you are wrong. First false assumption: You are in this discussion already.

And no; while we are analyzing a polarity of "definition by definition", the discussion has not yet become polarized. There are a number of ways to address this such that many of us are able to be flexible with regard to our decisions and determinations for behavior.

I like Gashauk for example because he does not pretend to be a "NEO in the Matrix". He instead is a strict constructionist when it comes to traditional human nature. I see this as good because it is consistent and not hypocritical. I don't have to agree with his conclusions but if I had to find a partner in a foxhole I would trust him over many others for obvious reasons.

Ganshauk is calling me a fool and at the same time giving me a chance, but warning me openly of the risks I entertain by my idealism. He is, however disrespectful of those ideals, and at the very least looking to measure me by how consistent I in turn represent with deed what I claim in word.

Unless we overtly threaten one another we can achieve common cause. Brutality doesn't threaten me unless it is directed at me, or indirectly by association at persons or objects I care about.

Brutality is effective within very limited circumstances but I see for example the cold minded intellectual denial that contemplates such actions as the use of WMD's as base crass brutality, no different than a ghoul thriving on carrion. But even a ghoul has a place in Nature and we would be wise to forgive even such a character as that for on some levels they are little different than from where we too evolved as scavenger predators.

But how do we define a behavior as "Good or Bad" (ethical) or "Good versus Evil" (moral)?

J.S. Mill would have us study its utility, Locke and Rousseau its consistency within the context of the social contract and the memetic clauses written therein, and Kant might argue the Degrees of Freedom the actions create as opposed to destroy.

But I am Western Trained, so my first choices go to these thinkers but I also appreciate the designs of Lao Tzu and others as I learn of Eastern culture. I find again and again I am attracted to Zen, more as the archetypical example of mind body balance then for any specific association of culture. I believe as we achieve balance "Bad" action is what is perceived to throw off such balance and "Good action" is what restores or fosters the balance.

Love for example works its healing magic in this manner as does reason, and they do so Universally in all Human Culture.

I am looking forward to Omnido's comments, yours Mr. John have been helpful to me for focusing my own. But for that matter so have Ganshauk's.

[Saille Willow]

Am I good or Evil?
If there was only me
could I be good or evil?

The only evil I ever felt, I felt in my dreams. Does it mean that the only evil that exist, exist in me?

Even a casual glance at history shows that 'good and evil' works together to create our collective evolution.

"On the one hand evil is necessary for good, for were the imperfections not felt, there would be no strivings after perfection; all defect and sin consist merely in privation; in the non-realisation of possible qualities. It would not be well were evil non-existant, for it makes for the necessity of good, since if evil were removed the desire of good would also cease. "
(Bruno) J,L. Mc Intyre, Giordana Bruno

"Just as a cabbage does not grow unless it is manured, as little can beauty blossom on earth unless, the earth is manured with ugliness." Rudolf Steiner

[Lazarus Long]

It is such a pleasure to have your voice added to this discussion Saille, we are in need of balance as we tend to focus with the prejudice of our gender's perspective too much, no matter that most of us already engaged in discussion here are at least wise enough to recognize this to be so.

Let me add that it is also wonderful to have you back in the forums. Your clear mind and concise rhetoric is sorely missed.

Welcome back. [!]

[acaveyogi]

Mr. Lazarus (L) my point exactly. By astablishing a higher goal you are defining "Good" in some sense. This definition is giving you a point of reference that allows you to come to grips with the question of good and evil in a personal way.

But my inclination as a person who loves both Zen and logic is to start in the middle of two opposites. The place where good and evil are in dynamic flux (no neutral just awsome flux), the point of greatest turbulance. To me good and evil is not a gradient. It is a living breathing awsome conflict. It is the chaos that all order comes from.

If Mr. Ganshauk is saying that he should be allowed to rape and pillage just because he is he, then he is in the middle of the question where the action is the thickest of all.

It seems to me that if one is going to truly understand the question of good versus evil, then ones position in the study should be as an observer located at the point of greatest turbulance or as a participant who is located in the area of greatest turbulance. Mr. Ganshauk is a participant and I am an observer. And maybe Mr. Lazarus (L) you are trying to stay out of the thick of things (but maybe not)? Mr. John

[acaveyogi]

Lazarus (L) sir, It just dawned on me that I might not be on this topics subject and that I might get spun off into Random Philosophical Nonsense again [blush] I hate it when I do that to myself. Love, john

[Lazarus Long]

Is random philosophical nonsense the flip side of rape and pillage, or somewhere near the center?

I have the advantage of having read Ganshauk for over a year now and I am familiar with his wanton prose. He claims he is an immortal. More one of the middle of the road Highlander types rather than pure villain or hero. I enjoy his banter he reads mine and berates me but he does read it. In part when he first posted some wanted to delete his work and I created the Creative Freespace so that fictional prose and poetry have a proper area for development.

For all I know John you could just be an alter ego of Ganshauk as you suspect my Lazarus E. of being me, or at least a mini me clone. What I enjoy is the freedom of randomness, so philosophical nonsense sounds reasonable to me. But what do I know [?]

However it is kind of hard to imagine even a born thug that doesn't wise up if given enough time. Mr. Ganshauk claims the likes of the Count St. Germain don't happen, just long lived thuggery. But you see I don't believe him so we debate the point. I treat it all as random fiction turned real. Imagination as the wellspring of will.

It does however belong in the discussion as an example of how a person "might" act and for every action there is a potential judgment, and that is where the discussion about "good and evil/bad" usually ends up. So I address directly what a person claims whether it is Ganshauk or Kissinger, or you...

So is rape ever justified? Pillage? And worse? Or is this only about the establishment a different set of "norms"?

I think such behaviors are proscribed not just socially but as ethical individual choice. I do see a good and evil choice, but I am the definer of such choice, not one that is imposed. I do not see all action as morally equivalent.

That is precisely why I decided to stand up and speak out against things that I see threatening us all. I also see "risk" as an important element to analyze. And many "risky" behaviors are associated with the actions in the center of the vortex created by attitude with regard to good and bad/evil.

On some levels good and bad is reduced to mere pragmatic utilitarianism. If it works, good; if it fails, bad. But clearly this is not what most people mean by an ethical or moral conundrum.

[acaveyogi]

Dear Lazarus, this is my point: In order to understand the relationship between Good and Evil, we have to ask these questions:

What is it that "Evil" wants and what is it that "Good" wants and what is the difference between the two "wants".

With these questions we are now talking about the dynamic flux between "Good" and "Evil" in a true investigative sense. And, oh yes, we are now studing "Conflict Management" at its roots.
Love, john

[Lazarus Long]

In the sense you describe they boil down to simple directions and not even absolutes. Good is the direction of creation and bad/evil is the direction of destruction. What confuses the two so much is that much that is required for creation entails some destruction and visa versa. Also that they still represent necessary opposites.

Is death evil? [":)]

Here in this forum we are attempting to redefine the paradigm for this and say yes but is this evil, or is it a full cycle for life?

Is birth good? [B)]

How about the birth of a Saddam, or Stalin, or Hitler, or Attila, or Pol Pot?

They are products of creation too. [?]

Good wants to create and evil wants to destroy but the creation of one is the destruction of another just as one man's pleasure is another's poison. I wish such simple sounding questions had simpler answers but in fact they don't.

[Lazarus]

my goodness clearly you are missing the point and trying to understand both good and evil in separate lights and though human desire, where good and evil are two sides of the same coin and are applicable to all things including those not living.

One, pain and pleasure are entirely dependent on personal preference, they are not good or evil by them self usually both are a mixture of both. for instance I enjoy the hell out of my tattoos but it does hurt to get them, but I don't mind because I find pleasure in the results. or the fact that human beings decide to love because it brings the pleasure but most of the time they go through great amounts of pain to hold on to their love.

Good and evil cannot be truly classified under morality, what you are talking about is RIGHT and WRONG, which is NOT GOOD AND EVIL. again I will clarify

GOOD: Constructive, the means to the end holds unanimous value.
EVIL: Destructive, The end holds unanimous value without consideration of the means.

what is value?" something that adds to (grumbles at knowing where you will try and place your half witted arguments)

This WILL work in all things, however what you must understand is that nothing is purely good or purely evil. to be so would mean that there would be at least one being that was purely good and another purely evil and if the two ever met the fabric of the universe would unravel in a paradox situation. NOOOOOO!!!! all things are both good and evil, as all actions are balanced good and evil, by chopping down a tree(evil) you MAKE wood(good)by lighting that wood and burning it(evil) you MAKE fire(good). these are simple goods and evils. There are greater ones but they are nothing more than complex amounts of simple ones and the decision of if they are good or evil is based on the judgment of man (i.e. right and wrong) by determining weather they agree with the amounts of good and evil in them.

If someone devoted their life to killing they might classify a war well won as right, and so on and so fourth. but actual GOOD and EVIL are simple basic building block on which moral values are placed which is necessary in order to function humanly at times but not correct truly in any manner. so would you PLEASE stop talking about wright and wrong and try to realize that good and evil or so so so so sooooooo much more basic and simple because they are likely the VERY FIRST things in this universe, Create, Destroy. Order, Chaos. Good and Evil.They are not so very complicated as you would like to think them and if you even say pain and pleasure again then I will give you the same lecture. pain and pleasure are EXTREMELY EXTREMELY ALTERABLE AND RELATIVE.

Good and evil are solid foundations like laws of physics, they would still be there if you did not exist. if you want to discuss wright and wrong than state so but very few people can grasp good and evil because they are looking at them from a totally human and usually VERY person point of view. there is an old Chinese parable that says "think like a rock and learn the secrets of the universe". meaning it is not always necessary to complicate things further then they need to be.

There I have vented and I don't give a crap if you disagree with me because if you do then I will simply consider you another technogeek ignorant fool with nothing better to do than bathe in his own extensive vocabulary and scientific knowledge. whoop ti do. and in case your wondering no I am not having a nice day I have had to deal with idiots all day long so don't worry you no the first I have taken over my knee.(scofs...pain and pleasure..how human....)

~Lazarus A. Epicurus~


P.S. this is not aimed to Lazarus Long as he and I usually share many opinions this is aimed at that other guy cause I am having a bad day and I wanna backhand somebody.

[acaveyogi]

No! What I am trying to say is that in order to understand good versus evil one has to separate themselves from the question. You are neither good or evil, premise 1. Otherwise you are envolved and prejudiced one way or the other.

Evil versus good is a process, period. It is a process based on opposites. God is not good or evil, God is something that is totally beyond comprehension. The knowledge of good and evil is the first sin. Good versus Evil is a process based on wants, whether they are constructive or not. Good versus Evil is a social reality realitive to mankind, not creation.

Life survives because it kicks ass, both from a good sense and a bad sence. Good and Evil is not an aspect of nature. The concept of Good and Evil is something that was created by mankind. In nature might is right and it all works out and there is no problem.

If I want the weak to live then I defend the weak. If I can whip you then the weak live. And in my mind I call this compassion and in my mind I am good and have fought on the side of good.

I am good is an is an illusion in my own mind. What is real is that I want the weak to live and I fought and won. So they live. The fact that the Basques who are not terrorists and are being punished anyway, is not right, is only because I do want "it" to be not right. The question is not whether I am right or wrong, or Good or Evil, in reality. The question is, whether or not I can whip
those who are punishing non terrorist, somehow, because I think that, what is happening, is wrong.

Good and Evil boils down to a persons interppretation of reality at any given moment based on self worth. Because I want this I am good and because you don't you are not good. In all conflict realitive to good and evil each side says I am good and you are evil, I want is right and you want is wrong.

I think I am good Lazarus and I think anyone who wants to abuse living things is bad/evil and if I can whip them, I will, period. But if I want to study the dynamic relationship between good and evil I can't be on one side or the other. It ain't scientific. Good and evil is a man made concept and Good and Evil boils down to wants or there would be no conflict and self worth is the kicker. Love, john

[Lazarus]

oi, you are such a bible hugging !@#$%&, you are still talking about wright and wrong and you so !$@%& blind to it that you dont realise it, you think if knowledge of good and evil were the first "sin" as you say that they would have been invented by mant and by want. are you honestly so nieve ot think that human bieng created a part of the universe that has been around as long as the universe. you are still thinking so incredibly small, so incredibly restircted by morilty or docturine or desire, good and evil are the building blocks of such things and were around long before there was conciousness, you are still talking about right and wrong whihc a SOCIAL AGREEMENTS, not solidfied existances. and somethins can and is good and evil. you may by a mosty morall right person, but even the preasious and idoitic bible says that all are siners. and as for sin. hahahahahaha. a !@#$%& laughable subject, sin is religous law and that is EXTREEEMLY man made so you can even begin to use it to try andrealise good and evil.wake up and smell the space dust. the bible did not envent good and evil, man did not envent it, and pleasnt of other races of beings have been arround before man. and good and evil were arround before all centiance. because your different and very very fragile definitions dont work for everything, they can chnage form person to person and are therefore meaningless as solid issues, they are mere opinions I am dealing with philosophical cornerstones. my definitions of good and evil cannot be manipulated from person to person and dont chnage, they are ever stand and can be applied to EVERYTHING. and you know why. because they are not mine, they are not some pathetic leather bound books, and they are not any gods, they are as stable and simply existant as space and time. moral !@#$%&.


This post was amended by OmniDo due to unnecessary offensive language and unprofessionalism directed at the previous posted reply.
~OmniDo~
Immortality Institute Advisor

Edited by Omnido, 17 April 2004 - 10:27 PM.

[Lazarus]

P.S. on more things stop confusing good with rightousness, crusading bafoon. I swear pople like you start holy wars and cause the most horrible type of things to happen to this world. and stop confusing evil with wickedness, you are still thinking of good and evil as moralls and socially acceptable and unacceptable actions.

[acaveyogi]

Lazarus, I have obviously upset you. This topic is your topic and apparently my attempt to participate in your topic has been not only non productive but is also creating conflict. So to start with, I would like to apologize for being in a state of ignorance and with your permission take my incompetent and thoroughly chastised butt out of this discussion. Thank you for your well placed insights into the foundation flaws of my character. I will take them under advisement and see what I can do about them. Love, john

[Lazarus Long]

No it is not Lazarus E's topic it is mine as a matter of fact and I haven't decided to censor anyone. Yes you have apparantly upset Lazarus Epicurius and I hope he has not returned the favor. Consider this a good test of principle as an object example of the discussion.

I would suggest for now you both continue but Laz a word. I didn't make this a CIRA topic but I don't think calling people names is necessary no matter how trivial the moniker.

Please try and make your point with less use of ad hominem attacks. I know I push this envelope in satire and sarcasm but when Kissinger and I are working out as protagonists please note that I try to never use it to make the point and only flavor the message with acerbic spice. And generally while Kisssinger has tried to label me he has refrained from so obvious an attack as a direct personal insult. As a matter of fact it undermines your implied purpose, which is to attack acaveyogi ideas', not his person.

In this instance I did get the impression you wanted to attack the person, in addition to his arguments but I didn't think it was aimed directly at him as much as whatever got in your path. Relax a little and as frustrating as it is at times slow down and you might better find your own voice and be better understood and appreciated.

[acaveyogi]

Yike! I think I am going to have to post before I drink beer. Sorry everybody. First I do not want to fight, period. But I do love inellectual discusions with people who have educated and balanced minds. Finding a group of people of this calibar is a rare treat. Second what Lazarus (E) said hit home in a self concept sense. He picked out of the "intuitive mind" the internal foundation of the core conflict that creates the turbulance in my questioning of self. When I thought that Lazarus (L) had said this I then thought that this should be taken seriously. Because I respect his mind. So anyway all is well and rattling the cage of ones self concept is a good thing. Sorry I got confused and thank you Lazarus (E) for a cathartic moment.

In the sense you describe they boil down to simple directions and not even absolutes. Good is the direction of creation and bad/evil is the direction of destruction. What confuses the two so much is that much that is required for creation entails some destruction and visa versa. Also that they still represent necessary opposites. Is death evil?

Lazarus (L) your are saying very clearly what I am saying. Now I would like to add the concept that, when one adds morals and ethics (man made concepts) to the mix, Bad becomes a distruction to life and Good become a gift to life in what ever way one wants to define Good and Bad. Example: If you are not like me, then you are Bad/Evil and a distroyer of life. If one Basque is Bad, then all Basques are bad and we have a moral licence to distroy all Basques. And so on.

About death: I think that death in nature is a neccessary aspect of life. Without death there would be no room no matter how big the planet is. Death realitive to mankind is an interesting question. I think we are God's babies and if we wish "physical immortality" is our birthright. john

[Lazarus Long]

I am a hopeless romantic so I created a paradigm I use for self development. You might define this as a mantra I suspect.


Genius is the ability to transmute ugliness into beauty

and

Madness is the desire to turn beauty into ugliness


If it works for you feel free to share

[acaveyogi]

Ah Lazarus(L) sir, Are we talking about intelligence genius or creative genius. Intelligent genius is a set pattern reality and can't change set pattern, only add to it or subtract from it. Creative genius not a set pattern reality until it chooses to be and then whoa! who knew! The fact that your desire is to use your creativity to turn uglyness into beauty is what makes you, a gift to mankind. Love you!