Hash: SHA1
ANALYSIS OF GOOD AND EVIL
At a practical level, most people would say good people are those
that cooperate with us in our goals, and bad people are those that
oppose us in our goals.
At the level of a game, good people then are those that are on
our side, and bad people are those that are on the other side.
Most people have the forebearance to recognize that others may be
opposed to a specific goal and yet be people of good will and good
intentions. In a football game for example, one hardly supposes that
one side really considers the other side 'bad people' outside of the
arena of the game.
The same is true in society at large, people can oppose each
other in political issues and respect each others intentions and good
will.
This presupposes the existence of a higher game, such as
"greatest good for the greatest number", and most recognize that
people can have differences of opinions about how to best approach
that goal, and thus become opposed to each other at the practical level of
play, without considering that the opposing party is a 'bad' person.
Games also tend to have well agreed upon rules of play, sworn to
be unheld by all players, and thus both sides of the game will
consider bad any person that tries to CHEAT, win by breaking the
rules.
At a higher level one might suppose that even cheating in a game
would not be possible unless all had agreed to its possibility as part
of the rules of the game, so from that perspective even cheaters are
merely playing according to the rules of breaking the rules.
The same can be argued for those who try to come into a game and
disrupt it or destroy the playing field. They too are generally
considered really bad by those who wish to play the game, but again it
can be surmised that even party poopers had to be given access and
permission to crash the game, before they could do so, so even they
are merely playing by a higher set of rules.
At a very high level you will find conflicts between the upper
most goals of the game. For example there will be those who are
trying to do the greatest good for the greatest number, and those who
are trying to do the greatest good for themselves at the expense of
every one else.
Those who make agreements intending to not keep them, those who
try to consume more than they produce, those that try to take other's
production against their will, so they don't have to produce
themselves, are generally considered criminal and bad people.
One can imagine a game wherein such behavior is actually
sportsman game playing, even in nature, animals eat each other,
kill young to make space for more breeding, steal each other's
nests etc, and its all very up and up.
But in human circles and the game of building civilizations it is
highly frowned upon. Of course that depends on what time in history
you are looking at.
Thus it might seem that the definition of good and bad is
arbitray, being defined relative to the name of the game and its
rules. Set a goal, define rules, then good people seek the goal and
obey the rules and bad people don't.
This runs into the trouble that basically all goals are
arbitrary, or if not arbitrary, then possible of such wide diversity,
that it is quite possible that players in one game might be seen as
cruel cowards in another. Thus judging people in one gmme by the
goals and rules of another is foolish.
It is tempting to postulate that ALL games and goals and rules
are formulated out of the basic fundamental nature of the beings which
play them, which nature is identical across all beings.
The specific manifestations of this common nature may be
sweepingly different, but when viewed from the viewpoint of that
common nature, all beings would be able to see the commonality and
aesthetic sense in any particular game.
Thus if a being were to arise that actually did not hold this
nature in common to itself, it would be considered odd at best,
utterly alien at worst, and probably evil too boot, as it would grate
with, if not outright oppose many games and goals of those sharing the
common nature.
Part of the problem of good and evil, is the assignment of evil
by good to another, tends to be a sign of good's no responsibility for
the other's nature and presence in the game. "I didn't invite you
into this game, I have no idea where you came from, and if I could I
would destroy you utterly, and turn back time, and have you never have
been."
When good gets down to this state of irresponsibility for evil,
it tends to forget that most evil is merely playing its own game, and
is only evil relative to the game the good are playing.
Good will then tend to mis mockup the evil as someone who is
truely fundamentally different and opposed to themselves, someone who
does not share the common nature of all, and thus stoop to using its
own conception of evil against the evil in order to destroy it. This
of course will alarm the other person, who does not understand the
misperception of the good attacking it, and will thus consider the
good person evil too, and respond in like kind. Thus you get a kind
of war out of nothing, based on hallucinations.
One might guess that it is unreasonable to presuppose the
existence of two different kinds of beings in existence. Thus one
needs to come back to the common nature of all beings to resolve such
conflicts. It is the duality that one perceives that leads to this
conflict, and it is the unity that is perceived that starts to heal it
again.
In present time, there are an awful lot of people who are
misperceiving evil where it does not exist, and thus soliciting a
response of like kind in return.
There are also a lot of good people in the world who have given
up to their hallucination of evil and become what they feared most.
This is a valence shift born of utter overwhelm, apathy and total
(designed) irresponsibility.
A person will mockup a Nemesis One for himself, decide to fight
it, lose to it, become it, and then you have a real asshole on your
hands, dramatizing it on everyone else for the rest of time.
So although one might reasonably say that all people are
basically 'good', one also has to take note of this propensity to
knowingly design irresponsibility and overwhelm into one's own life.
Most people, at the level of goodness that they understand, would
find it very hard to consider such design 'good'. They are still very
bent on destroying evil, and will have no responsibility for its
existance, whether real or imagined. They certainly don't want to
take responsibility for it if it is real, for what 'good' would create
real evil? And they don't want to take responsibility for it if it
is imagined, for that makes a fool out of them.
It's the humor in the fool that is the way out and which
motivates and justifies the original creation of apparent evil. They
might end up being the fool, but its a very bright and intelligent
fool, the Imp Soul engaging in astounding imperial stupidity of grand
and excalibur design.
As to whether God values the civilization or the volcano more, it
is pretty well answered in the above analysis. Electra once wrote in
"Locked Dichotomies" that Gods value playing more than winning or
losing. Both winning and losing are a loss of the *GAME* to the God.
The human values winning, mainly because he doesn't want to play.
If good had no evil to fight, would good create evil to fight?
Does good *WANT* evil to fight?
For the human, no, of course not.
For the God, yes.
The goodness of the human is a subset of the goodness of the God.
Adore defines Divinity as all powerful self responsible good. It
is that *SELF RESPONSIBLE* impulse towards ludicrous demise and
majestic practical jokes, humor in other words, that separates the God
from the human. The human *IS* the God after he has jumped into the
grand design.
Within the grand design, the space time game stream, there are
created identities of good and evil. Good fights evil, and would
never create evil itself. If good had no evil to fight, good
certainly would *NEVER* create evil to fight, but would instead while
away its time planting and picking daiseys. If good were to ever
create evil for its own amusement, it would quickly regret it and come
to consider itself evil for having done so.
To the degree that a being enters into the grand design and
becomes the good identity, he becomes interiorized and stuck into the
beingness that it defines, which includes everything it must do and
suffer as a consequence.
To the degree that the being can become the author again of both
good and evil, it can exteriorize from the story, and begin to
*REWRITE* the story rather than just live it out.
The force beind the exteriorization is humor, it is the humor
that blows him out of his head, his story, his universe.
Notice however that as Author, the impulse is not to write evil
out of existence, but to make the conflict more serious, more humorous
and to last longer, thus prolonging the ludicrous demise.
The ultimate dischord and resolve are the primary motivation to
the Author.
The good doesn't want either, they just want daiseys.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The paths of lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 cross in Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com the line of duty. http://www.lightlink.com
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Mon Aug 16 03:06:03 EDT 2010
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/hom54.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFMaONbURT1lqxE3HERAognAJ9Fa0XAcqugJ8Vrx8gS3tpDrNtv8wCeMGKt
v94guB0F4Zy64zMo+9/Poqk=
=PPSN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Homerwsmith-l mailing list
Homerwsmith-l@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
No comments:
Post a Comment