Evil, hatred, character flaws, annoying rashes...what else?

Recommended Posts

I have seen some elsewhere-than-OL discussions that I find telling, on a number of levels.

One of these "tells" is that, it seems to me anyhow, there is a lack of efficiency in how traditional O-thought process goes down.

Case in point, discussing evil. Evil is, in my mind, at the minimum, a verb. Most people know what actual, day-to-day evil looks like. Evil is fairly easy to spot because it is intense, and extremely hurtful.

Realtime example of what evil is probably not... Yesterday, my girlfriend went to the gym for a workout. when she went to change, she realized she had been remiss (or, "too trusting," as she said) and saw that someone had rifled her purse, taking about forty bucks in cash.

Evil? Probably not. Morally bankrupt? Yup. But probably not evil. Oh, evil could be in back of it, I suppose- were the funds acquired for some truly dastardly purpose. Not bloody likely, though. It was a simple punk robbery. That is how I look at it; the action did not come from hateful thoughts, just good old moral vacuum.

I believe that evil simply comes from hateful thinking, period. Where the hateful thoughts come from is interesting to study, but pragmatically, it doesn't matter if the thoughts are translated into action.

Evil is a very simple thing, that's one reason it is so powerful.

Another O-area I see as not overly-complex, but instead too-simple thinking would be as such... I will not mention the poster, it is not from here. I hesitate with cross-posting stuff, but my rationale is that he put the idea out there in public, so it's on as far as I'm concerned...

The vice of intellectual passivity of your ancestors and mine has kept religion and its evils alive for far too long. While these people may have had virtues that outweighed their vices, the facts of their characters remain that they had, and have, those vices. I know better than to engage in the attempt to change people who do not want to change, however, especially elders who will always look upon me as "that naive young 'un." But I do judge these people as having character flaws, though not as thoroughly evil, because of their passive acceptance of religion.

I totally don't get this, and I definitely just didn't fall off the turnip truck; analysis just doesn't get any traction for me on this kind of move. It is so fraught with holes, and broad categorizations (religion being not a category, but an "A"; for instance). To look into the past and claim "intellectual passivity" is armchair quarterbacking woulda-shoulda-coulda, and above all, it's easy; it is easier than getting a hooker with round heels to fall on her back. And incredibly broad, beyond belief! "Passive acceptance of religion" totally happens, for sure. But , in the real world, there are also many, many other ways that spirituality is engaged, notably, in the form of attempting to understand, to study. But, in the ortho-O world, if you spent time trying to draw the essentials out of spirituality, you are a fuckup, you are intellectually passive, you might even be evil. Bottom line: big, sweeping generalizations of people, an era (namely, all who came before the person who wrote it, more or less).

Intellectual passivity is a nonsense term. More likely, you might see compliance for the sake of personal survival, or at least comfort. That's not passivity, that's just saying "fuck it." If "fuck it" involves basic moral transgressions, people like me (scary, religious, mystical, non fully O) would talk of it in terms of how it would create, for sure, bad Karma.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Hi, Rich,

Nice to meet you. I'm board hopping tonight. Here's some thoughts in response to what you said.

Ayn Rand's ideas went a long way with me in reducing the charge or shock value of the concept, evil, simply by showing how common it is. It's too bad she had everyone pronouncing judgment all the time on everything consciously, as if the people of this culture don't already do it continuously. I mean, get over it. Which planet do you think you're on, anyway?

Yours is a very simple approach to evil. One can always find hair-splitters for any purpose, but aside from them (I've never, ever been a hair-splitter myself), evil as inspired by hateful-thinking is easy and quick to get. I immediately pictured a skinhead at a table in a damp basement, muttering to himself under his breath, a gun leaning against the wall.

For me hatred is always associated with the desire to kill. Whether that desire is proportionate or appropriate it 1) should not be discussed with the police 2) probably should not be acted on immediately and 3) probably needs considerable examination, if not hard labor in an exotic location. And all because it would probably lead to what anybody passing by would call evil.

Regarding the standard insanity of the poster: I think I would be happy just to have survived what my ancestors went through, to say nothing of achieving total intellectual activity. Speaking from experience, a lack of understanding of one's ancestors (let alone hatred or contempt) is simply a sign of great pain, to the point of wanting to die to end it all, on the part of the descendent.

And that's only when they were in error. Back then, I think it was somewhat harder to avoid the sacredness of all things, the lifeforce expressing itself as the entire universe. It's so vast, if the town fathers want to call it Christ or Vishnu, what do I care?



Link to comment
Share on other sites


Thank you kindly.

Hope you had some fine board-hopping last night! I enjoy your posts, I hope you spend more time here, it appears you are.

Evil is not in nature, it's only in men. Interestingly simply point, no?

I kind of agree where you talk about killing always being associated with evil. It's there in the background.

There are moral transgressions. They happen. Usually, if you do one (and for the most part, those that don't admit to them, well, either they are incredibly involved, or more likely way into self-lying), you get the sense of being psychologically separated from your true self. It happens. Prof Campbell might have something more clear on that. I think it's called fucking up, and you pay for it psychically. It is very difficult to forgive oneself for such acts, but there is no other choice, really. That is the cost. I'm not too afraid to talk about them.

I did something about a week ago that I couldn't believe I did. Nothing too infernal, but I did it, and there was nothing I could do to make it right to myself, or the person...not without causing more damage. And, no, I will not go to detail, I cannot. All that was left was to forgive myself, and try harder to be kind to the person I did it to. It worked out in the end and I feel reasonably decent, now.

Of course, our more moral brothers would rarely admit to such an offense. These things are prosecuted, souls are cast into the void.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now