Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Evil

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Evil

    "Evil is simply misplaced force; misplaced in time, if it is out of date, or so far ahead of its day as to be impracticable. Misplaced in space, if it turns up in the wrong place, like the burning coal on the hearth-rug or the bath water through the drawing-room ceiling. Misplaced in proportion, if an excess of love makes us silly and sentimental, or a lack of love makes us cruel and destructive. It is in such things as these that evil lies, not in a personal Devil who acts as Adversary." Dion Fortune

    Agree? Disagree? Clarify? Very interested in thoughts.

    "No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical." -- Niels Bohr

    #2
    Re: Evil

    Well, yes and no. I don't believe in a personal Devil,and I get really annoyed with the idea of 'the devil made me do it' as an excuse. But I wouldn't say that being silly and sentimental is necessarily evil, although sentimentality can certainly be used to mask evil... but then I would also add that there is a big difference between sentimentality and sentiment.
    There... I have talked myself round in circles. Time to go and boil my head, probably!
    www.thewolfenhowlepress.com


    Phantom Turnips never die.... they just get stewed occasionally....

    Comment


      #3
      Re: Evil

      If something is placed out of time or concept doesn't make it evil, just awkward or misunderstood. A coal on the hearth rug is just a sign to remind us not to be so stupid next time and be in the present moment when dealing with live flame. Love making us silly or sentimental can be kind of nice actually, it let's us realize there's more to life than just work and discipline. Silliness in love gives us romantic and childlike vigor and joy.

      I can't understand how she views those metaphors as evil- if she mentioned some violent, pillaging future human race to conquer us that is coming out of time, or a coal with the intention to burn the house to collect our insurance because it is possessed by arson and genocide or silly love that is obsessive and seeks to devour our hearts, that would make more sense- the only evil metaphor I see is the cruelty from lack of love. It looks like her view of evil is no worse than farting during public prayer, or burping while kissing your lover. Not evil, just kind of awkward.

      Comment


        #4
        Re: Evil

        agree and disagree....i find a lack of love can make people destructive and very cruel...but that again to me is just a personal way of life...you still have a choice, if you want to let it influence you that way or not.
        I find Love making humans sentimental and silly enjoyable...although yes it can be "dangerous"...nothing good comes without the bad side...i think its all about the right ammount of balance...the right amount of control and the right amount of just letting go and falling

        Comment


          #5
          Re: Evil

          I believe evil, isnt something open to interpretation, evil is when someone does something they know is wrong. for example i know that to call a person a name delibratly to make them feel bad is wrong so to do it would make it and act of evil on my part

          does that even make sense lol :S

          Comment


            #6
            Re: Evil

            I thought it was an interesting point of view, and certainly worthy of further consideration. My initial reaction was "misplaced according to whom?" Then I backed up and tried to fairly consider what merits may lie in this conceptualization.

            Evil is a tough one -- it's sort of like pornography, hard to define but you know it when you see it. Some people argue that evil does not exist in any real form, that is it simply a social construct, defined in and out of relevance by one's cultural background. I have had the misfortune of being in the presence of something truly evil and cannot agree with that argument. I did not even know the person, but proximity nearly caused me to lose consciousness. So, yeah, until about a decade ago I entertained the social construct argument, but I no longer have a doubt that evil exists in a very real sense. What I am not so clear about is whether there is such a thing as absolute evil, or whether it only exists as an energy pattern created and sustained by thoughts and actions. None of this really addresses what evil IS, though.

            Can't entirely agree with your intention-based concept, Kahlenda, though it makes sense in an "ordinary day" sort of way. Taken to its logical end point, though, it means that a completely amoral person can do no evil. Does evil require malice? I am reminded of a quote from one of the Manson family murderers that <paraphrasing from memory> "you have to have a real love in your heart to do this for some one." So, then, their butchery could not be evil if malice is a necessary ingredient. I think malice and evil are different creatures.

            I can sort of see where Lillium is coming from and evil could be considered a state of disequilibrium, which is actually pretty similar to what Fortune stated. Again, though, as a matter of degree. If things never got knocked out of balance we would exist in stasis, which is hardly a growth opportunity. Then we are left, again, with who decides that things have gone too far? Maybe there is some measure of subjectivity to some things people call evil, but maybe calling those things evil is hyperbole. Maybe those things are simply "mean" or some other lesser word for hurtful intentions that have not gone too far.

            I agree with Psyk that her examples are not very good. None of these are things I would call evil, and it is difficult for me to imagine a time or place when something like genocide would not be evil. Even cruelty from lack of love must answer where the source of feelings of love. If a person is born without the capacity to love, are they born to do evil things? The book belonging to this quote was published in 1935, and I have tried to bear in mind the sensibilities of the time in which it was written. I have had some major issues with some of the other things in it, but still appreciate a gemstone even if it is lying beside a stinky piece of dung.

            Tylluan, Right there with you on the Devil nonsense. Again, though, she wrote this some 80 years ago, at which time I am certain it would have been considered fairly radical.

            More questions:
            Does evil exist without action? Can a person just sit and BE evil if s/he never DOES anything evil? Once action is taken, is it the action that is evil, or the result of the action?

            "No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical." -- Niels Bohr

            Comment


              #7
              Re: Evil

              i dont mean this in a horrible way nbdy, but how your posing the questions its sorta reminding me of those zen riddles,

              "if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it still make a sound*

              i think the concept of evil is the same, good exists in the universe and so does evil, but are they entities or actions, im wiccen orientated so id say no they arnt entities i belive they are actions i believe everything can be both good and bad depending on its mood.

              Comment


                #8
                Re: Evil

                Originally posted by nbdy View Post
                "Evil is simply misplaced force; misplaced in time, if it is out of date, or so far ahead of its day as to be impracticable.
                I don't agree with that. Evil is intentionally and maliciously inflicted harm. Be it mental, emotional, or physical. Ignorance does not make evil into good. Ignorance can, however, make the evil deed forgivable.

                Murder is evil, but not all killing is murder. Killing in defense of self or a loved one is not murder, even if you feel angry when you do it. Just an example of why "intent" matters. Yet intent is also not the ultimate escape, for clearly evil things can be done with a claim to "right reasons".

                Attempting to keep someone else from having basic human rights, no matter your reasoning and justification, is harmful and thus is an evil act. Even if you are taught (ignorance) that this other group of people is wrong, bad, or evil... the act of attempting to deny their rights is an evil act. Ignorance may make that action forgivable, but it doesn't justify it.

                Originally posted by nbdy View Post
                Misplaced in space, if it turns up in the wrong place, like the burning coal on the hearth-rug or the bath water through the drawing-room ceiling.
                That is not evil, that is inconvenient. That may even be harmful, but it's hardly evil. There is no dark intent behind these things, they are simply part of living in an environment of imperfection. The world itself is not out to get you, Dion.

                Originally posted by nbdy View Post
                Misplaced in proportion, if an excess of love makes us silly and sentimental, or a lack of love makes us cruel and destructive.
                Love is life's greatest joy. Being silly and sentimental cannot be over-rated. Anyone would be hard-pressed in the extreme to show most people how being silly, and / or being sentimental are in and of themselves, evil acts. Indeed, as stated, for much of the world, these are the times of greatest happiness... when loving freely, when laughing, when allowing a treasured object to recall within the heart treasured memories.

                A lack of love can have many effects, but doing evil acts, whether in or out of the presence of love, is an active choice.

                Originally posted by nbdy View Post
                It is in such things as these that evil lies, not in a personal Devil who acts as Adversary." Dion Fortune
                The only adversary is that which we create in our own minds, and in each other. This is one of the things that can be created by choosing against love.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Re: Evil

                  Originally posted by nbdy View Post
                  "Evil is simply misplaced force; misplaced in time, if it is out of date, or so far ahead of its day as to be impracticable. Misplaced in space, if it turns up in the wrong place, like the burning coal on the hearth-rug or the bath water through the drawing-room ceiling. Misplaced in proportion, if an excess of love makes us silly and sentimental, or a lack of love makes us cruel and destructive. It is in such things as these that evil lies, not in a personal Devil who acts as Adversary." Dion Fortune.
                  For me the statement is false. I find evil to be a two pronged aspect within society.

                  On one hand it is a morale perspective often derived from a societies religious influences as to what is right, wrong and the degree's each takes. Thus what is evil or wrong in one social system is acceptable within another. It has nothing to do with concepts or ethics being misplaced, mistimed or even misrepresented. It all has to do with how a social grouping defines it's existence and the constraints and boundaries of that system. One reason I think that the definition of "Evil" has changed not only by civilization but by generation as well. 20 plus years ago racial issues were the epitome of evil in a social construct.

                  Within that social construct though I think evil is also defined by ones personal exposure or experience of things defined as evil. Thus a person who survived an attempted murder for instance would see evil as something far different than a person whose worst exposure was being cursed at lets say. What many in the military would define as evil is often far out of position of what the average civilian in society would acknowledge or recognize.

                  The second prong of Evil though ties into things that are beyond culture and seen as truly horrific. Murder in the name of religion or freedom and it's perspective of those doing it. Murder such as the Vampire of Dusseldorf, Ed Gains and others which are seen as affronts in all societies and it's more of an absolute sense of evil. Yet most will never encounter something of that level or vileness and in order to comprehend or attempt to understand they place it upon some outside force. A force that might be the Christian Satan, the darker aspect's of Greek and Roman daemon's who influence or corrupt humanity.

                  Of course this second arm also includes those things that are not normally though of but referred to as entities, beings, etc that do not adhere to societies social & cultural norms or even humanity as a whole. But again the odds of actually encountering one of these entities, beings, etc is probably so low that they become infused with urban legends, social legends and mythic lore itself.

                  Sort of like white noise messages and the percentage of them that speak of killing, destroying humanity for its pleasure. Granted a small percentage compared to the many spirits of the passed that convey messages via that medium. Yet still a large enough percentage to suggest that humans are far from being the only beings upon the planet.

                  Even the notion of an absolute evil I think is a misnomer in that it is still defined against ones own ethics, morality and cultural / social influences. From a shamanic perspective I know that I may encounter many things that to my vantage point are evil, yet inversely I to appear as evil to their vantage points and perspective. Yet how many are willing to admit their own recognition as beings of evil?
                  I'm Only Responsible For What I Say Not For What Or How You Understand!

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Re: Evil

                    all I know about evil is Decaf coffee is evil,it is a demonic plot to make me fall asleep and bang my head on my keyboard.
                    MAGIC is MAGIC,black OR white or even blood RED

                    all i ever wanted was a normal life and love.
                    NO TERF EVER WE belong Too.
                    don't stop the tears.let them flood your soul.




                    sigpic

                    my new page here,let me know what you think.


                    nothing but the shadow of what was

                    witchvox
                    http://www.witchvox.com/vu/vxposts.html

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Re: Evil

                      Originally posted by nbdy View Post
                      a person is born without the capacity to love, are they born to do evil things?
                      No, because sociopaths are born without the capacity to love. They are, technically speaking, hollow shells with no soul living only for themselves. They may be selfish and pathological liars to get ahead in life, but they are not evil for their natural born lack of love. They may be jerks, liars and even overtly greedy, but not evil. They are born to survive. Is a lion evil because it kills animals lesser?

                      Pathological lying could be considered an evil act, but I would not say so unless the lies purposely lead one to do something harmful to themselves or others, such as a suicide cult (I am aware that some of these cults believe in their message, just an example).

                      Originally posted by nbdy View Post
                      More questions:
                      Does evil exist without action? Can a person just sit and BE evil if s/he never DOES anything evil?
                      Evil would need an action. I am sure most of us on this planet have had some gruesome, violent, overtly perverted or socially horrendous thought pattern, or patterns, at some point in our lives but we took no action. It was merely thought so no one was actually harmed but our moral fibers after the fact of the thought or thoughts. I feel this answers the second question as well.

                      Originally posted by nbdy View Post
                      Once action is taken, is it the action that is evil, or the result of the action?
                      Both, but I guess it depends on the circumstance. War would be the biggest argument in my mind. War kills innocents (bystanders for example) which is an act of evil because the bystander was innocent, but it may not have been the soldier's or platoons intention- it's war so shit happens, as sad as that reality is. Since it was not the soldiers intention to kill the bystander, it is not an act of evil but an accident, but the aftermath, or result of the action, can be considered evil because an innocent still died because of the soldiers actions. Intention can be argued here that nullifies the action being evil, just chalked up to an accident, but since the bystander was innocent, in a certain sense, their death was an act of evil because war itself is an act of evil- good people from both armies die because their governments think the other government is evil, so they are both killing each other, and innocents from crossfire, for an unjust reason- hatred built upon ignorance or greed.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Re: Evil

                        I tend to think of evil as moral wrongness committed in a certain level of awareness. So to use the example of homophobia from the thread the other day, someone who discriminates against gay people because they've been raised to think that doing so will either make life better for society at large or in the long run, for gay people themselves, however repulsive their views and actions might be, I wouldn't necessarily call evil. Which isn't to say that they're void of moral responsibility for their actions, because imo everyone has a responsibility to think carefully about and be informed about the impact of how they act, but I don't think it qualifies as evil, just being very mislead and doing horrible things as a result.

                        On the flip side, someone who just straight up hates gay people, thinks they're disgusting or sub-human somehow and would prefer they don't exist or don't have to be treated equally, would qualify as committing an evil act, if not necessarily being defined as 'evil' by nature. The problem comes in when one is mistaken for or disguised as the other. I think you'd find a lot of people who are on the surface claiming to act in the best interests or others, are really just selfish or bigoted, and I'm sure there are people who appear evil on the surface, but are really just horribly misinformed or indoctrinated. Which again, doesn't allow them to avoid culpability, although perhaps mitigates some of it.

                        As for "not in a personal Devil who acts as Adversary," I tend to think that we humans create our own gods (even if they act in some manner of independence) not the other way around, so the causal relationship is the wrong way around. Demons, evil spirits or deities, aren't the cause of, but a product of or at least indicative of, evil.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Re: Evil

                          First, Thanks to all who have participated in this discussion. You have no idea how gratifying it is for me to have these conversations that are a little difficult to find in real life. Plenty of small talk, but not many willing to do big talk. And, Kahlenda, you are right, it is more of a koan than a quest. I have no illusion that at some point in the thread we will have evil neatly boxed up and just waiting for the bow on top. Rather we are more like the blind men describing the elephant, and the truth lies somewhere in the middle. It is sort of like taking a walk around the block -- we all know we will return to the same place from which we began, and yet something does change in the process. Thanks for taking the walk with me.

                          Psyk, a lion is killing other animals for food, not sport. I wonder though, if by that example you are indicating that so long as an animal behaves according to its nature it cannot be doing evil, which is an interesting thing to consider. I've sat here a while considering, and I will consider that idea further. It is difficult to separate my own values from a generalized definition of "evil," which, admittedly, may not be possible.

                          Kahlenda, Please explain further what you mean when you say that "everything can be both good and bad depending on its mood." That's the sort of statement that hints at something profound. What is meant by the pronoun "its?" Is "mood" similar to intention?

                          Sphoenix, I strongly believe that any deed is forgivable; forgiveness lies in the transgressed not the deeds of the transgressor. No matter what a person does to me, they cannot take my ability to forgive -- that decision is mine alone.

                          I really struggle with the intention v. result aspect, and the forays into murder and war scenarios demonstrate why it is a difficult one. There is a reason for the old quip about the road to hell being paved with good intentions. Haven't we all seen the best of our efforts take a strange turn for the worst? On the other hand, I have seen malicious action take a strange turn for the best. Is there such a thing as "attempted evil?" Is there a difference between evil and blamelessness, such that an outcome is evil but the perpetrator(s) are blameless? If so, where does the evil reside?

                          Dang if I am not gravitating back toward the social construction theory because that is where logic takes a person, but I have felt the darkness of a person's soul, and my apologies if that sounds cuckoo to anyone. In retrospect, can't say whether they WERE evil or just carried the overpowering 'scent' of something(s?!) horrible they had done. Most of the examples we have had in this thread would not make what I felt. They are bad, unfortunate, mean, whatever. I have gotten bad vibes from many people, but have only met one who radiated evil. And as I gasped for breath leaning on the wall outside of the store I knew the name for it as surely as my own. Evil. Maybe this is the second arm addressed by monsno. I know I don't ever want to feel it again.

                          "No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical." -- Niels Bohr

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Re: Evil

                            Originally posted by nbdy View Post
                            Psyk, a lion is killing other animals for food, not sport. I wonder though, if by that example you are indicating that so long as an animal behaves according to its nature it cannot be doing evil, which is an interesting thing to consider. I've sat here a while considering, and I will consider that idea further. It is difficult to separate my own values from a generalized definition of "evil," which, admittedly, may not be possible.
                            By lesser I didn't mean for sport, but because they are known as 'King of the Jungle.' Lions are a lot like most 'OG's' ('original gangsters'- the older and more experienced ones) I have met, they won't bother you unless they have a good reason and usually only fight or kill if they feel they have the advantage.

                            My point wasn't exactly that because it is its nature it isn't evil, it was just an example, but now I must sit back and think about that as well! Thank you for the insight into my own example!

                            Originally posted by nbdy View Post
                            I really struggle with the intention v. result aspect, and the forays into murder and war scenarios demonstrate why it is a difficult one. There is a reason for the old quip about the road to hell being paved with good intentions. Haven't we all seen the best of our efforts take a strange turn for the worst? On the other hand, I have seen malicious action take a strange turn for the best. Is there such a thing as "attempted evil?" Is there a difference between evil and blamelessness, such that an outcome is evil but the perpetrator(s) are blameless? If so, where does the evil reside?
                            It really is hard to define evil. When I was younger and a wannabe Satanist (I was a young idiot, basically) I did bad things for the sake of doing bad things, such as drugs, picking fights, vandalizing, blaspheming religion, etc. I truly wanted to be 'evil' and wanted to gain mastery over the world through malicious reasons... but where did this stem from? Simply- my parents divorced when I was very young and lived in different states so I was on a back and forth roller coaster between parents every six months and one parent and their partner verbally and physically abused me and my brother on an almost nightly basis for almost ten years. That was an act of evil, mine was a reaction to that evil, sometimes consciously and sometimes not. Then again, knowing that parents past, they were merely reacting to their upbringing, and who knows how far back that line of abuse went.

                            What I am trying to say is that although I did things for 'evils' sake, as I got older I realized it was just a release I needed to become the person I am today. I am happier, smarter and understand why people are the way they are. I understand anger, violence and perversion on a new level that has filled me with compassion. Sure, I get angry and depressed at times and there are some people I can do without, but I accept that is where I need to be at the moment and I do not seek to harm others when I am in those mental states. I find more positive releases that change depending on the circumstance.

                            So where does evil reside? In your intentions, but sometimes because of that evil you are able to become good, and vice versa. Sometimes you do so much good you never really looked into your darker aspects and someday you just flip. The principle of balance, but sometimes those that start out as bad people (or harmful to self and others) remain bad people and those that start out as good people (kind and beneficent to self and others) remain good people. Another conundrum I guess.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Re: Evil

                              One more point I would make here is the context of the quotation. It comes from the Mystical Qabbaleh by Dion Fortune, and follows on from her discussion of Geburah, which, she says holds a central position as a pillar of severity.

                              She was trying to point out that good was not always constructive (i.e. sometimes destroying bad things can be good) and bad is not always destructive (you can build up something which is rotten to the core, such as a political movement for example) [I should say here that these are my examples and not hers.]

                              Immediately before the given quote in the OP, we read 'good and evil are not things in themselves but conditions.'

                              I think this sheds a slightly more helpful light on her views, although obviously members may well not feel it changes their personal viewpoint.

                              Just trying to be helpful
                              www.thewolfenhowlepress.com


                              Phantom Turnips never die.... they just get stewed occasionally....

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X