Can any person judge the essence of another to be evil? In hindsight, I can judge behavior. In foresight, I can try to intuit when another person may be about to do evil. But I don't think I can know for certain. Too often, my certainties have been surprised. Each of us tends to find or adopt his own lights by which to be guided. I suspect all of us have realized and repented of evil only after the fact. I doubt that evil necessarily submits to accurate empirical modeling. Indeed, trying to box in "evil" may be as unavailing as trying to box in "good empathy." Often, the side that wins a war writes the history and only pretends to define what is evil. I think evil is one of our fundamental accompaniments, but I think it laughs at empiricists attempts to box it in or wall it off.
I suspect even "God" changes his/her mind in choosing among possible expressions of our unfoldment. If so, even God's evaluation of that which is evil may flux. So I suspect "evil" is not a concept well suited to our scaled modeling or measure. For example, I don't believe a voluntary practice of eugenics need be, "per se," evil. Even so, I think evil is a concept important to our qualitative and shared apprehension. That is, as perspectives of God, we participate in helping to differentiate those pursuits which are good from those which are bad --- perhaps even so bad as to be fundamentally antagonistic to decent society, i.e., "evil." In that respect, evil tends to be a word we deploy as a sort of shared epithet, with which to spit out a bitter experience. However, I would no more entrust the subject of evil to elitists or scientists than I would entrust the subject of my individual freedom.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
A doomsday-to-free-civilization bomb has been handed to an electorate that is now led around by its glands by those who want either to reduce America to waste or to profit on the takedown. We have enriched enemies of liberty for the middle class to such an extent that they can now push America into crushing indebtedness, even as they pass the greatest right to collect on that indebtedness on to jackals bent on carving us up. Legitimacy and trust are vanishing, even as institutions of social control are being tightened to such an extent that decent people will soon retain hardly any say. We allowed our good natured tolerance and concern for the ignorant, ill, and impoverished to be played ... and now they have been played --- by the disloyal, unfaithful, derelict, addicted, and corrupt. We assumed all would be made good by our charity. Stupidly, we threw away the lesson our forebears learned at such great cost: there is evil in the world.
Ask: Are there rich clans that seek our downfall? Check. Have we enriched them? Check. Do they now pull the strings of all who seek to be influential in Congress? Check. Is our electorate and the number of blue states trending even further in the dupe-nik direction? Check. Is the middle class informed, organized, motivated, disciplined, and able to stop this abomination? Hmmm.
Re: Does the government really want energy independence?
No. We have stupidly surrendered our government to those elites who regard America as evil. Our feminized elites believe the planet can only be saved by sacrificing America. Anyone who is too independent minded (Palin?), who believes otherwise, must be shunted aside. We need to go green, they say. So, it's two birds with one stone: (1) reduce America; (2) by using the U.S. as an experimental lab for greasing the planet's way to clean energy. In reality, ruling beneficiaries expect no such green result. Rather, they expect to ride to fiefdoms on the backs of dupe-niks. If this continues, then: The meek are to be allowed to drink only from the well of servitude; the oligarchs will drink other water; all will know their place; and mind freedom will perish. It's not easy being green. [www.youtube.com] pbu us.
Karen, regarding evil, see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-8GIEQjqW8.
I wish BW allowed your comment! Indeed, if she were confident of her truth, she ought not fear such comments. Truth depends on vigorous debate! Unilaterally cutting off reasoned debate seems a sour omen of the kind of evil that shepards mindless quackers. I agree with your observations, although I would distinguish between trying to treat poison in a person versus poison in a society.
I wonder why "evil" tends to be such a hot button word that instantly attracts so many? I guess it ties to attempts to warn the herd at large, and it may be Pavlovian for some. As to evil: I can try to intuit when another person may be about to do evil, but I don't think I can know for certain. Too often, my certainties are surprised. I doubt evil should necessarily submit to psychotherapeutic modeling. Trying to box in "evil" may be as unavailing as trying to box in "good empathy." After all, the side that wins a war writes the history and then presumes to define what is evil. Although evil may be one of our fundamental accompaniments, it tends to laugh at empiricists' attempts to box it in or to wall it off.
Even "God" may change his/her mind in choosing among possible expressions of our unfoldment. If so, even God's evaluation of that which is evil may flux. So I suspect "evil" is not a concept well suited to our scaled modeling or measure.
Even so, the concept of evil seems important. Insofar as we may seek to be perspectives of any kind of higher consciusness, we participate in helping to differentiate those pursuits deemed good from those deemed bad --- perhaps even so bad as to be fundamentally antagonistic to decent society, i.e., "evil." In that respect, evil seems to be a word we deploy as a sort of shared epithet, with which to spit out a bitter experience. That said, I would no more defer to elitists, scientists, priests, or psychotherapists a monopoly or authority over the subject of evil than I would entrust the subject of my freedom.
After European stock became disproportionately successful, economically, many sought, in the spirit of good will and tolerance, to extend their good fortune to all. Thought there have been abusers, there have also been saints. Eventually, those on the receiving end mistook good will for entitlement. Now, large segments of the world's population think they are entitled to reparations. They have flipped good will into indentured servitude. Good sense and balance will not be restored until Whitey says "Enough!" No one has a right or entitlement to anyone else's work. Different cultures are not equally productive. It is madness to let those who have been conditioned to believe they have special entitlements continue under that delusion. This upside down mindset is a moral hazard to decent society. Neither does it not work well in families. It cannot continue much longer in the Presidency without dire effects. There is nothing so hard as to teach bums who do not believe they are bums to give up being bums. They will simply take refuge by twisting and blaming every conceivable affront to their own image as Alpha as being hypocritical or racist. Indeed, to them, if Jesus was white, He must have been racist. Their solution: Unless Jesus was non-white, even God is their enemy-hypocrite. Me me me --- alpha a priori entitled me.
INCITING LANGUAGE: How is it that the left "reasons" that Palin's use of a metaphor about cross hairs caused a killing rampage, while its own use of a metaphor about women's right to subject their bodies to fetus killing procedures is not considered to cause a holocaust? Why assume this "right," as used by the left, is an actual existent, rather than a mind tripping, violence inducing metaphor?
Obama is less our first black president than our first ham sandwich president. MSM is part of the machine that made this possible. Asking the machine to refrain from repackaging ham sandwiches for reelection is like asking the mob to fire its henchmen for being too criminal. It's obvious that our world is being restructured by squeezing out the middle class. The dependent class is trained like squealing oinkers to see this as a promotion, while the ruling class sees it as a step closer to absolute power. The structure allows no profit in loosening the vise. Bureaucrats and talking heads see their survival in smiling pretense and not rocking the boat. Row on, replaceable piggies. Mother Gaia is in sight!
Why does Islam so often seem like the logical, religious side of the coin of fascism (false liberalism)? Don't islamists and liberal fascists both: recruit for followers from the lowest common base of degenerates; rationalize unearned self esteem for the most shiftless, ignorant, and corrupt; continuously recalibrate in order to meet each new crisis by recruiting a new round of bottom dwellers; for chieftains, promote hating, conniving narcissists and sociopaths; pretend to value the earth or umma, while actually working to behead decency and empathy; by their policies, necessarily promote an ever increasing population of replacement drones, losers, and environmental despoilers; promote entitlement to unearned equality over individual responsibility and liberty?
Bottom line: A modern Liberal or Prog (like Senator Graham) tends to be an Islamist in waiting (waiting for dhimminitude), who hasn't yet adopted a consistent religion for justifying a worldwide cult for losers. This kind of stupidity cannot be fixed. It is a 100 ton anchor, and it will always pull a society to the bottom. Once it organizes, even to the point of fanatical or civic religion, it becomes metastasized evil, and cannot intelligently be confronted except as such. Anyone who can read the relentless hate and bile in the Koran and persist in calling it a recital for a religion of peace, even as it is practiced to this day, cannot be other than a 100 percent skull and bonehead, entirely unworthy of being entrusted to higher office.
Post a Comment