Hello, all! I hope I'm not too late. These conversations go on at lightning
speed, and I don't have either the brainpower or the leisure to keep up. <grin>
Anyway, we've been all over the board about evil. I think our posts could be
boiled down to the idea that
* "evil" = STATIC, at a particular level or
* "evil" = static, period.
(One exception is that "evil" = death. I won't deal with that now.)
All of these definitions of evil in terms of MoQ levels can be found in the
thesaurus under words related to evil. The fact is, the word covers a lot of
territory in general usage, and there's not a lot of point in disagreeing about
what it is, if we're all talking about different contexts of the word.
Here's a thesaurus entry for evil:
http://www.thesaurus.com/cgi-bin/htsearch?config=roget&words=evil
It's fascinating in itself. You could spend a long time looking at the
particular combinations and distinctions, sorting them out as from the viewpoint
of one or another active level of value, filtered, of course, through another
particular level of awareness. (Sigh--another time.)
I was surprised that none of the categories fell out into into some version of our
levels. I think that the selections listed for "impurity," though, which is
considered as an aspect of "moral practice," is closest to the context of evil
that I picked up from Lila.
It makes sense to me that one inter-level conflict could be the root perception
for which all of them are similes and metaphors.
I wanted to explore "evil" in that particular sense--that evil can be seen as
biological urges and drives that go beyond whatever the society values. Some of
you picked up on that aspect.
Ken Clark said:
>The evil that you point to in your message was not evil >until after the social
and intellectual levels came into >being. The inorganic and biological levels,
until after >sentience developed, did not contain the possibility of >evil.
That's a clear way of stating it. Then you handed me a real puzzle, that I
haven't been able to solve.
(Ken again:)
> For instance, one can use a rock to bash out the
>brains of an unwanted baby but that does not make the >rock evil. The evil
>lies in the social or intellectual level impulse that caused >the rock to become
a weapon.
I agree that the rock is not evil.
I also have said that from a MoQ perspective "evil" is biological excess that is
beyond the specific social constraints of a particular culture. The culture then
perceives the biologically-influenced behavior as evil.
According to that, your statement, "The evil lies in the social or intellectual
level impulse that caused the rock to become a weapon," would not be true.
This is a challenge to me, because your statement sounds intuitively right, yet
according to the MoQ blueprint of reality that I carry around with me, it couldn't
be.
I've been chewing on this for a while, but I'm not able to post anything coherent,
so I thought I'd throw the question back before the thread gets lost.
Unwanted babies is a problem in many societies, one that has different
"acceptable" solutions.
"Wanted" babies may themselves be a product of intellect.
In the pure biological world, "babies" aren't "wanted". I want to take the
premise that in the fundamental biological sphere, "babies" don't exist. Plants
propagate but don't protect and tend. They have no connection with their
offspring after the fact. A tree will take available nutrients and sunlight
without being able to make any discrimination that its progeny also need the same
(perhaps limited) nutrients. The mighty oak produces thousands of acorns, which
sprout, then wither in its shade. This is basic biological impulse.
"Babies" are a social development. Offspring that must be part of a group to
survive are instances of the social world reorganizing biological urges and
capabilities in the service of a more powerful development. These babies's
survival depends on the group for protection from dangers to their biological
health. They also depend on whatever social patterns (patterns of action) give
the group its coherence. This social dependence has a long history (perhaps 700
million years) of barely-connected parents and offspring, that has lately, within
in the past couple of million years, matured into a dominant, high-social form in
which the ability to discern, imitate, and rank complex behaviors becomes more
important to the individual's survival than its biological form.
"Wanted" babies are not part of this social picture. Neither, I think, are
"unwanted" babies. I've seen pigs stomp their malformed offspring into the mud
immediately after birth. No choice here. The pig doesn't choose. Contained
in a certain set of piggy social patterns, she has the ability to recognize
something that sets off a certain behavior--a behavior that has developed, over
the long history of the species, as a kind of betterment.
So, in the pure social level, there are no wanted babies either. Societies that
have been affected by the intellectual experience, however, have correspondingly
lower birthrates, and children become a choice. This, I believe, creates the
distinction of a "wanted" baby. So, to even speak about an unwanted baby is to
recognize a situation in which the intellectual patterns have had effect. See the
problem?
Still, it's possible, even in this intellectually-mediated society, that the evil
action is somehow the biological aspect.
Using that rock might be considered biological excess if it involves a pre-social
attitude, one that has no recognition of another as a valued member of one's own
group, and only looks at preservation of self above all else.
But it's interesting that a "me first" attitude, which I think we all agree is a
produce of intellect, can look exactly the same, or can unleash the same action.
Where is the "evil," in the intellectual impulse or in unrestrained biology?
(Note: If the killing was part of a socially-proscribed, accepted ritual that
defends the society, it wouldn't be evil unless viewed from the standpoint of
another society.)
I realize I've talked in circles, but I'm sure I've said something that someone
can leap on. <dons hard hat> If you can jump in with a MoQ perspective on this,
I'd like to see what it is.
Thanks for the good ideas! Sorry to be so slow.
Also, Rob had some thought-provoking ideas about fear, and Fintan talked about
yin/yang. I want to get to that, too. When I can.
(Rob Stillwell, Tues 20:42 fear
Fintan Wed. 1906, yin/yang)
Cheers,
Maggie
MOQ Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mailing List Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
Unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with
UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in the body of the email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:50 BST