Three forms of evil
DeMarco, Frank. Rita's World: A View from the Non-Physical
(Kindle Location 3309). Rainbow Ridge Books. Kindle Edition.
(Q) More, I take it,
on the subject of good and evil. I doubt
we have exhausted the subject.
(A) Not quite. We're more likely to exhaust the reader than
the subject. But, as I said, slow but
steady.
Very well, bearing in mind that the nub of the underlying
question is, what is the nature of good and evil when considered in the
nonphysical as well as physical parts
of reality, we come to the question not so much how we experience it but, what
is it really? We have carefully
differentiated between what seems to any individual to be evil but is really a
matter of taste, and that which comes from the principle of pure evil that
exists as the opposite of pure good. And
I remind you, all creation exists as dualities, or perhaps I should say can be
described and perceived as dualities[1],
and the higher dimensions clearly (I hope it is "clearly" by now)
cannot exist under different rules than the lower ones, given that they are all
one thing in different terrain.
In any moral question (and for that matter in any question
even of physical structure) a safe procedure is to remember that the universe
is scaled. As above, so below.
(Q) Man is the
measure of all things.
(A) That, too. You don't have to stretch your imaginations
to try to figure out how things might look.
First imagine it as you experience it on a human level, then imagine
that familiar phenomenon expanded or shrunk in scale. Because the universe repeats at different
scales, this is as good a guide as any.
So, if you want to know about good and evil in the
nonphysical, the place to begin (once you've reminded yourself of the facts we
have been laying down as groundwork) is with your own commonplace
experience. How do you experience good and evil in your own lives, both short-term -
at any given moment - and long-term, the results of tendencies experienced over
time.
And in the examination, bear in mind that at the center of
the question is you, yourself. Your own experience of evil that seems
external to you; your own experience
of evil that seems to be a part of you; your own experience of evil that seems
to cohabit your mind and being against your conscious will. These three overlapping contexts will lead
you anywhere you want to go in the exploration of good and evil.
Three ways in which you experience evil:
·
As something external
·
As part of yourself
·
As a recalcitrant part of yourself
This statement isn't quite right - is quite wrong, in a way,
as we shall see - but it will lead us to a greater understanding. The process of learning is the process of
replacing error with less egregious error, sidling toward the truth.
So, we will begin with the easiest to see - evil as
something external. And in the course of
examining the three conditions of experiencing evil we will answer James
Austin's specific questions.
Evil as external
DeMarco, Frank. Rita's World: A View from the Non-Physical
(Kindle Location 3344). Rainbow Ridge Books. Kindle Edition.
It is always easiest to see evil in the actions of others
and - to your eyes - in the nature of
others. In this discussion, we omit - as
I said - questions of a difference in taste being seen as good or evil. I am now talking about pure evil, and its
manifestations. But we are not quite
ready to try to define pure evil or even relative evil. We have more ground to cover first.
Take someone who did evil deeds, of whose evil you are
sure. On a political level, Hitler or
Stalin. On an economic level, anyone.
No, skip that, it will bring us back into preferences, as
policy decisions are always a mixture of good and evil, and it will only blur
the picture. So, leave it as political
monsters at one end and individual criminals at the other end, and
"criminals" here has nothing to do with statutes, but has to do with
the doing of evil. Rapists, murderers,
thieves, arsonists - fill in your own specifics, as long as they have in common
the quality of willfully hurting other people either through active malice or
through exaggerated selfishness.
You, yourself, have not issued orders that resulted in mass
suffering. At the other end of the
scale, it gets a little closer to the bone, even though (presumably) you are
not a murderer or rapist, but still let us confine ourselves for the moment to
instances where you observe (or even imagine) evil as something you did not do, did not abet, did not
approve of. Evil the contemplation of
which hurts you.
Considering this subject of evil has this advantage - it reminds you that evil actually exists. You can't define it out of existence by
finding the right formula. You can't
meaningfully explain it as "merely the absence of good" unless you
care to explain gravity as "merely the absence of weightlessness". That is, you can wrap the words around it so
that it seems to make sense, but a
close reading will reveal that either you aren't saying anything or you are
saying what is not so.
(Q) I don't think you
would have said this while you were in 3D, Rita. At least, that isn't how I remember you from
our discussions.
(A) You will find
that reconnecting with the rest of you is apt to alter your view of things[2]. I won't say you wind up outvoting yourself,
but you certainly do see things differently.
This is a diversion, so mark it down for future examination if you wish,
but 3D is for fashioning the habit-system that is your mind; thereafter the
habit-system is exercised continually, and often comes to very different
conclusions than it would have on Earth where it saw things in fragments.
To return to the point:
Evil exists. Duality is not a quality and the quality's
absence, but a quality and its opposite.
And points between the two extremes, of course, but the point is that
the polarity exists, it can't be explained away.
Now it will be easy to lose sight of the fact that what
we're calling pure evil or pure good is not one
thing so much as it is the connected extreme of many qualities. Remember, I tried to give you the idea of
many expressions of a tendency. That's
why. When people allow themselves to
flatten the discussion to one scale - good at one end, evil at the other - it
does allow them to make compact statements, but it does not aid understanding. It would be more accurate to say there are
many, many good-evil scales, all being bounded together.
(Q) I got an image of
the lines of longitude on a globe, all beginning at the north or south pole,
and covering the whole globe by diverging somewhat - but all beginning at one
point and ending at an opposite point.
(A) That's the visual analogy that seemed to do the
trick. The poles represent
concentrations of qualities that share something of the same nature.
(Q) Is this akin to
the teaching that ultimately the universe is suspended between love on one end
and fear on the other?
(A) Closely akin, but
the kinship may not become apparent for a while. Nor is kinship identity.
Time to wrap up for the morning. The first way you experience evil is as
something external. It isn't something
wrong with you. It isn't that you can't see straight. You didn't cause it and you aren't (necessarily)
misperceiving it. It's there. But what is it, really? It will be a while before we're able to bring
that to light. Meanwhile, we must look
at evil as you experience it as sharing your value-system (that is, areas in
which you consent to evil) and evil as you experience it as contending against
you. And this is where we will resume
next time.
No comments:
Post a Comment