Subject:
|
Re: Blair Witch Project - Thoughts?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 30 Jan 2000 13:41:27 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
466 times
|
| |
|
|
Adam Yulish wrote in message <3893398D.617B42FA@ee.net>...
> The detail of the first and second elements are above, which leaves the
> third element of lesser vs. greater evil.
>
> Here's a quickie take on good and evil (more detail available if you
> want it): Good is the integration, the union of things. Evil is the
> separation, the disintegration of things. When we separate ourselves
> from other things and other people, we sever our connection with them,
> and then become capable of doing harm to them, and to ourselves.
Sounds a lot like what I call life affirming versus non-life affirming,
to an extent, so I can see where you are coming from, I think.
> Lesser evil is when we lose control of ourselves in reaction to pain
> that is done to us. Evil and pain are propagated while we are
> temporarily out of control of ourselves. It could be as little as
> hitting the table upon which we stubbed our toe, or as big as shooting
> someone out of sheer fear, anger, hatred, etc. Our actions, actually
> *reactions*, were a result of a temporary loss of control of ourselves.
> Lesser evil is purely reactive.
I am getting the impression that you say using evil as a defense is less
evil than using evil offensively??
> Greater evil makes the leap from being reactive to being proactive. It
> assumes evil is not the exception, but rather the status quo. Greater
> evil happens as a result of the decision to accomplish, grow, and
> succeed based on pain done to others, and things taken from others, be
> it other people or other things. This is actually an illusion, because
> there is no accomplishment, growth, or success; it merely looks that way
> since everyone around us is falling down. When we work according to
> greater evil, we seem taller, and we can use this as justification to
> ourselves. We maintain our stagnancy through the insistence that we are
> responsible for our "accomplishment", when in fact it is the reactions
> of others that control that "accomplishment".
So, although evil is being used offensively rather than defensively and
it is still doing no one an ounce of good, is it doing any more harm? This
is a greater evil? You are correct that there are differences, but I'm not
sure which is worse yet.
> In The Blair Witch Project, each member of the trio had "lesser evil"
> issues. The lady's ambition was out of control, and she was not
> completely up front and honest with her intentions. Josh had a habit of
> being antagonistic towards others, which was all in good fun, but his
> dependency upon defining himself in that way turned fun into pain when
> he couldn't let go of others' faults. The third person (I can't remember
> his name) was a nice, quiet, along-for-the-ride person until the ride
> started getting bumpy. When things didn't turn out the way he expected
> them to, he started doing things to build an illusion of "how he thought
> things should be", which in combination with the faults of others, made
> him get rid of the map.
How can you say that either Josh' or the lady's evil is reactionary
(defensive/lesser) or proactive (offensive/greater)? From my view, they are
both the opposite of what you have identified them (lesser evil). They do
these evils, not as a "mere" reaction, but as an offense, to make themselves
feel greater at the expense of others (while of course that fails). This is
just a matter of opinion I suppose, but I'd welcome further info regarding
yours.
> === SPOILER ALERT === THE PROCEEDING REVEALS THE PROGRESSION OF EVENTS
> ===
> === SPOILER ALERT === THE PROCEEDING REVEALS THE PROGRESSION OF EVENTS
> ===
>
> So the trio brought lesser evils with them. The specific lesser evils
> weren't important to the Blair Witch; what was important was
> accelerating the magnitude of them so that they became the rule as
> opposed to the exception. When the Blair Witch made first contact with
> the trio, they heard "weird noises" outside at night. The noises
> themselves didn't matter. What mattered is that they weren't normal.
> When the trio woke up the next morning, there were three piles of
> stones. Similar to the ones at the grave site, and one for each member
> of the trio.
>
> This is personalized weirdness, and the beginning of the manipulation
> that would take them from lesser evil to greater evil (and the audience
> with them).
The only fear we have to fear... somehow if someone terrorizes people
enough, they will act insane. Acting insane, that is... not life affirming,
or what you said, not in congruence with others (or primarily self,
actually), is evil. Look at China, look at Europe, look at America... i.e.
look at our world. There are many who are terrorized, acting irrationally.
It (fear AKA evil) is pervasive, all right. It is the terrorizing that
induces further irrational action. I would have to say that terrorizing
people is a pretty evil thing to do. Additionally, I suggest that you may
be somewhat biased, having possibly been terrorized by this movie yourself.
> Later they would find weird voodoo stick people all over the place.
> Somebody went to a *lot* of trouble to make all that stuff. So for
> whoever made them, this was *normal*. It was somehow right for that
> person to do so. As little voodoo stick people showed up on various
> places in the forest, the trio began to associate their travels with
> "being marked". Just like the guy who got cut off in traffic, the trio
> erroneously assumed that the voodoo stick people were targeted at
> *them*, but they weren't. It was coincidence that the voodoo stick
> people consistently showed up in the trio's travels, but because the
> three piles of stones *weren't* coincidence, it was very easy for the
> trio to assume that neither were the voodoo stick people. This is a
> standard manipulation technique--make people think that circumstantial
> events are actually targeted at them.
Ideas (or delusions when taken to the extreme) of reference (1)...
Perhaps a person uses this manipulation technique on themselves with
commonplace things (because they have allowed themselves to become
susceptible to evil). Perhaps it is unavoidable to a small extent. Its
pretty obvious the creator of a TV show, a song, or a billboard was not
intending to manipulate anyone. Or is it? Is there something to the
"old-fashioned" people's disdain for today's media? Is it evil? Lesser or
greater? Just wondering. Its not magic, but it can be manipulative,
considering each viewer's ability to "connect".
Some might say the lesser evils (those less noticeable) are the greatest
evils, as they allow the greater evils access. I might be saying it is the
smaller, seemingly more trivial evils, like little white lies, that are
actually the greatest evils. Perhaps the greatest evil plaguing men is the
fact that we frequently overlook the smaller evils (it is those that give a
foothold to the "greater" evils).
Was the Blair Witch Project (how fitting a name in that it was a
Hollywood project!) evil? Weren't they quite manipulative in the release
method? Did it not terrorize/manipulate you? Are you guilty of evil for
watching it? Is Hollywood guilty of evil for making it? Or the way they
touted it as real? Just an onslaught of silly questions, sorry, its quite
early.
> This is why we start to see increasingly strange actions from the trio
> members. Camaraderie goes to sarcasm, and they take shots at each other.
> As fear builds, they start to take things more seriously and more
> personally, and go from sarcasm to backbiting and paranoia. Josh is
> usually a pretty decent guy--why is he being so harsh toward me? The
> lady was always driven--but now she's driving us right over a cliff.
> What gives? The crux of these questions isn't why the people are doing
> these things, but why they are doing these things "to me". They react to
> each other negatively in the same way that they were acted upon, and it
> becomes a downward spiral.
I can definitely relate to this downward spiral. Its good to keep your
guard up if you don't want to get knocked down. It helps in not taking
impersonal things personally. Once you drop your guard, you can really get
battered.
> So, lesser evil is the temporary absence of awareness that we are
> interconnected. Greater evil assumes that this is the standard, not the
> exception. The trio brought lesser evils with them, and refused to
> examine and let go of these evils. Through conventional manipulation and
> a little witchcraft, the Blair Witch was able to make their "evils" go
> from exception to rule. The greater evil of the Blair Witch depended
> upon the lesser evil of the trio for the Blair Witch to "succeed" in the
> downfall of the trio.
I appreciate that you have defined all of this so well. I do think what
I called the greater evil above is more accurate. An appropriate term for
what you are calling greater evil, in my mind, is further (successive) evil.
The further evil is seemingly more destructive, yet without the traces of
your "lesser" evil in the first place, it could never have come about. I
think you are saying it is slightly evil to suspend pieces of reality part
time, but it is very evil to do so all the time. Maybe you are right, but
to me, that is a weak reason to say one is worse than the other. Maybe I
haven't looked at this enough, and I do thank you for your insights. It is
different, and as I told you, very interesting in comparison with our
repetitive debates in this group.
Solzhenitsyn wrote, "Evil supports evil." I've remembered that simple
phrase very well. It's so obvious, but, like "lesser" evils, is constantly
overlooked. When pondering this topic, you have to be sure you are not
eliminating any particular point of reality... its so easy to do. Moreover,
if your logic is the least bit tainted, its wrong (I'm not saying yours is,
but it takes mucho investigation) although you'll want to believe it so
much. Thats in it's nature
Someone wrote down that God said he doesn't "rank" sins (and whoever was
in charge of it, put that in the Bible). To me this says that God doesn't
see a distinction between lesser and greater evil, merely that he sees evil,
and he really does not like it! I'm pretty sick of it myself. Now, truly,
I don't know a single provable fact about God (or witchcraft for that
matter), but I would venture to say that judging the severity of evils could
be misguided, could in fact be evil. I think thats what the guy who wrote
that part in the Bible was thinking. He might have been onto something.
Or... he might have been on something.
> > > Who was better off? I can't say. As much as it hurt, I'm glad I saw the
> > > movie; it forced me to face some issues I wouldn't have otherwise done
> > > in terms of recognizing the difference between lesser and greater evil.
> > > And I wouldn't wish the same process on anyone.
Hmm. I have been going through a great deal of this myself over the past
few years, on and off, you know. What doesn't kill you makes you stronger.
Sorry for all the cliches, but sometimes they just sound right. I'd like to
know that other people haven't suspended reality, despite the pain endured.
I, of course, think that's their choice, too. I may not have been through
the roughest ordeals yet... I may not survive those, but I enjoy the
learning process, highs and lows (obviously after reaching that new summit,
but not during the climb).
> > No, I guess it was a painful thing for you. It was for me as well, but
> > it showed me that the power of evil (Donkey) is ever present, and can do
> > horrible things.
Amen to that Scott! And thanks for the great new depiction of the devil!
> I would have preferred to have been able to learn that without having
> had "to go through that". :) I'd like to think I can do that now.
See Shawshank Redemption??? It was worth it!!! No pain, no gain.
Growth is a true miracle, IMO. Sometimes you gotta go through hell to get
to heaven.
(1) - "ideas of reference" - an illusory correlation - "people think that
circumstantial events are actually targeted at them"
--
Have fun!
John
The Legos you've been dreaming of...
http://www114.pair.com/ig88/lego
my weird Lego site:
http://www114.pair.com/ig88/
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Blair Witch Project - Thoughts?
|
| John DiRienzo wrote: < Snipped John and Adams Discussion of Blair Witch for clarity and length > (...) This is what my pastor is saying, and I tend to believe that myself. Since God (At least, in Christian and Jewish beliefs ) is without sin, any (...) (25 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Blair Witch Project - Thoughts?
|
| <snipped intro stuff> (...) I've found that content in dreams doesn't necessarily correlate with feeling. I've seen some "very bad" stuff, and have been unaffected by it, and I also once had a dream about smurfs that scared me senseless; I remember (...) (25 years ago, 29-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
18 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
