Oh dear me, I think he's broken.

Among the multitude of problems with allegedly authoritative concepts such as Evil AND Good (outside of certain contexts that DON'T pertain to morality) is that there's never a "true scotsman" so to speak. Unless the morality is externally applied (and often not even then) there is never a consensus on what the 'boundary' is of what is 'evil'. Granted, there will be agreements; for example, Muslims find that it is 'evil' to not throw homosexuals off rooftops, or 'honor-kill' their raped wives.

So since there's a consensus (and the research data on that is EASILY sourced if anyone wishes to find it), it must be true right? They believe it, so there you have it.

But as I am certain (outside 1st hand evidence) anyone reading this ATM will agree, there are a variety of beliefs that people maintain that are 'evil' (reprehensible) to some and are yet 'good' (supportable) to others. If there can be no unanimous declarations made as to what 'everyone' thinks is 'evil', then there can be no objective classifier.

Furthermore, society at large isn't exactly batting 1000 when it comes to steering the ship. Mass consensus can and has driven society in quite destructive directions with willful and enthusiastic support. So then, even if a clear consensus WERE possible on the concept of 'evil', that doesn't necessarily indicate that that consensus is viable; for example, increasingly stabbing infants with needles full of who knows what is 'the right (moral) thing to do for a child'.

If there were ANYTHING i would apply the label of 'evil' to it would be ignorance, but that is a personal conclusion based on experience, observation, and evidence. I maintain an open-ness to new information and evidence, but if I were in Vegas I would not be moving my money. Having said, I maintain an aversion to the concept of beliefs entirely because the term belief indicates a conviction above and beyond the evidence (or in spite of). If an individual wishes to express their position based ON evidence, etc., that's NOT a belief as that INVOLVES critical analysis (unless its wrought with logical fallacies, which I imagine I'll be pointing out in due course).

Sidenote; I noticed something in this particular post that I thought I'd point out:

I believe "civilization"...
...lead others to believe...
I actually believe it...
...what I believe, while I still do believe it...
I believe there's beings...

[youtube]https://youtu.be/efTwYSuqIgo[/youtube]

And now the juicy bits.

Phil wrote:you are proselytizing

No, proselytizing involves an intent to convert. I don't care what you or anyone thinks, I'm just providing counter-point and taking liberty to make you look like a fool. The liberal attempts to put words in my mouth and misrepresent my position (and others') make it awfully easy tho. ^_^

And if I'm deceiving myself, well it will probably be blatantly apparent [...] Or maybe my emotional tone makes my ideas invalid

It is, and it is not the tone that makes the ideas (I thought they were beliefs o_O), but that is definitely a nail in the coffin. ^_~

Oh, and I didn't say ants EAT eachother, just mass murder. Besides, I've never seen a brutal rape, but I hear it happens quite often; beware the bias of non-exposure.

Phil, do termites make as much noise when they work?

: o )

No my friend, what you hear is the sound of "winning". He shredded my beliefs and silly ideas, exposed how much of a fool I make myself look to be, and won his arguments in one delightful swoop...his verbal acrobatics truly are a sight to behold

I bow to you my master shezbeth, I will go work harder on my zombie ninja style

Hermit wrote:I've had more time to consider this, and I need to ask a really, really basic question that I think needs to be answered, and maybe is a question I should've asked about 20 posts earlier.

Could someone please define what a psyop is?

Phil, at the heart of what you are saying is I think a really strong, solid explanation of the situation as it exists. (I think the big wigs in academia allude to it as post modernism.) I might use different words to explain it because I'm coming from a theological-philosophical background, but at it's heart we agree almost 100%.

One thing I might observe: it is very easy to state an idea as a means of not taking a stand, but in reality the stand one takes is defined by the ideas one enforces. To do otherwise is simply to become a straw man...or perhaps a hollow man might be a better description. What occurs to me is that deliverance from evil is, to put it simply, to walk away from the easy path that provides one with the needs one thinks one requires and instead takes on a harder, more difficult challenge of discernment: what does it mean to be human, to be spiritual, and to be integrated in a world we have mistakenly believed to be simply material?

Cheers mate.

Nice post, I'm with ya...

It's really good to be reminded of what we actual believe a psyop really is, I like this definition:

military operations usually aimed at influencing the enemy's state of mind through noncombative means

...it's become the just about agreed upon phrase in our little community for basically external thought/mind control. So to me, the premise of the thread kind of speaks the bending of another's will and beliefs...hence my little "good psyop" half-joke, as its generally thought of as malicious

But I think the idea was that evil as a force in itself isn't necessarily a "real thing", and if you don't pay attention (focus on self awareness), you can slip into the collectives habit of writing things off to just "being evil". It's a really personally important concept to me that there's likely a purpose for everything, and that seems to be intentionally hidden from us.

Ouch. Anyone who can get empaths, scholars, and psychics to quarrel over a repost is a master manipulator....

That said, I'm enjoying the debate and hope that both sides (?) got more sleep than me..

I'm not quarreling, I'm sharing my beliefs, and (was) responding to the performance of the narcissist that enjoys shitting on them. Though part of why I do so is for feedback:

Do you agree with his characterization that what I appear to be doing is taking the moral high ground to look good or feel good about myself?

Do you agree it's foolish to "have beliefs"...and assume like he seems to that in stating that they are beliefs, that they have no validity?

I try not to "quarrel" with people I disagree with, I try to understand their position while doing my best to make my own understood...but i admit I may have failed...do you agree with him that I vastly misinterpret his words/position? I feel like I got pretty good understanding of it, and the discussion has helped me refine my own thinking.

As much as I feel like he's tried manipulate my ideas and the reality of what's happening on this thread, I don't feel personally manipulated at all. My emotional reactions were at ideas I know I'm charged up about, and while I'll continue to refine my delivery of the expression of them, I haven't seen any new ideas or information that would make me feel any less strongly about them.

I think shezbeth likes to play games and put on performances, it's hard for me to tell what he actually believes of what he says, and which is the clever trickster/adversary he fancies himself as...but giving him the benefit of the doubt, I'll accept at he wants people to believe he means what he says. I have no quarrel or argument with him believing (or knowing or whatever) that, he's entitled to his opinion....even that he thinks I made myself look the fool...curious: do you agree with that?

Anyway, I'm not sure how you think the "repost" comes into play...can you expand on that?

I will say this much.

One way you can spot evil is that it hides it's face from the light.

Now can we put this bagpipe down?

I'll put it (my position) as succinctly and effectively as I can.

The only 'source' of 'evil' one will find is within, but it is not 'evil'. Are there agencies and individuals outside that seek to encourage the misappropriation of it? Absolutely, as they are operating from a comparably and cyclically misappropriated position and unerringly stand to benefit from its encouragement. Having said, that position is not 'evil' it is simply misappropriated, but in spite of any/all encouragement the source of that misappropriation is within.

My experience has indicated that this position is unpopular because it takes away the ability to blame, to claim victimhood, or to justify/rationalize malfeasance. My initial comments on the subject - entirely rhetorical and not directed at anyone - were summarily perceived as insulting and contentious, the 'why' of which I leave to the reader to determine for themselves. I close with a question, in line with what I perceive to be the intention of the OP:

When an individual (as it all boils down to individual choices and actions) acts in a manner that is commonly referred to as 'evil', who do you think is responsible or at cause; the individual, or some 'outside source/force'?

Deuces.

No no, was not trying to offend. As you know I get upset too. less by debates than random creepy personal shit tho.


Evil as a concept I tried personally to link to barter, ie primitive but working concepts of give and take. But I stupidly left out a key factor that makes such a primitive system work: either the presumption of equality or a clearly marked hierarchy requiring minimal education.

Campanella, whom, i mentioned in two other threads, maintained that all meaningful experience is based on sensation. I guess we do learn by our pain, but most Utopias are relatively pain free and/or egalitarian. America, to use one example, sort of tries to hide from pain or to glorify and distance suffering by corny potrayals on TV. We see "instances of suffering" followed by a commercial break and simply cannot fathom the depth of actual, ongoing suffering on the global scale. If people realized how much pain supports an empire this large, they might be sick.


Also, to watch each other suffer here, is distressing. Even when I called out chanlo23/lowca for email spoofing on my mother's birthday, I felt bad for calling her "piece of shit", if any of you get my meaning?

We all say things and break down a bit under stress.

It is a rare bird who navigates the corporate world without fatigue. Personally entranced by Shezbeth's ability to bounce back.

Although my energy level and the way I was brainwashed as a child tends to support the other side. Lol

*raises a glass*

I have been seeing more consistent attacks on the concept of “morality” every day. Thinking on this, it sseems that most people that are contemptuous of the idea, are so because historical morality has been imposed upon the masses by an authority. An authority or another that chose to define it through values and ideas that supported itself, whilst more often than not oppressing/subjugating/controlling everyone else.

Perhaps the injection into the collective consciousness the projection of this definition of morality is a form of a psyop, ultimately evil to our species. Morality—an agreement of what is right or wrong—is essential for a communal species, which I BELIEVE (because all experiential, scientific, and anecdotal evidence that I’ve been witness to and choose to believe) humanity to be.

Shezzy sez: “When an individual (as it all boils down to individual choices and actions) acts in a manner that is commonly referred to as 'evil', who do you think is responsible or at cause; the individual, or some 'outside source/force'?”

I believe the person is responsible for his choice, and those that experience it directly are responsible for their to their reaction to it.

If the individual in question appears to like to eat/kill/rape whatever it is that it is acting upon, it would behove the other individuals in the scenario to not take it personally and fear the individual as “evil”…objectively, as a survival mechanism, it seems true that it would be helpful to not view through the “lens of evil” that shez projects for his argument.

All the semantics in the world doesn’t change the fact that for the most basic survival of self and species, those individuals should view the original acting individual as not beneficial, to be avoided or removed from their reality. That, in itself, may be viewed as “evil” to that actor…but again, verbal acrobatics doesn’t change the fact that anti-life views or choices exist, outside of those actor...which is external to the other individuals as well.

Just because morality has been historically twisted, does not make the concept useless. Finding a common ground within a collective is essential for that community to thrive. Likewise, having beliefs based on solid reasons to do so is more useful than dismissing another’s just because they haven’t stated all the qualifications that got that person to that belief.

Imposed morality and blind-faith beliefs are counter-evolutionary, I never disagreed with that despite what appears manipulation of my point of view (project much?). An agreed upon framework of right and wrong and mindful/educated/experiential beliefs are tools for evolutionary living when a species (like our own) has transcended the bottom level of the hierarchy that Maslow describes.