Subject:
|
The Nature of Evil (Was Re: Blair Witch Project - Thoughts?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 31 Jan 2000 23:33:12 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
324 times
|
| |
|
|
<snip>
> > 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??
By no means. There's a big difference in defensive vs. offensive (a
false distinction) and reactive vs. proactive. Defense and offense are
really the same thing; both are defined in terms of what provoked them.
"Reactive" is exactly that--in reaction to a thought, word, or deed.
"Proactive" requires no provocation.
> > 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.
When evil is reactive i.e. lesser evil, it is a contained incident or
pattern. Greater evil i.e. when evil is proactive doesn't have such
limits; it occurs whenever an opportunity is recognized to do so.
> > 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.
Each of the trio was dealing with issues. The refusal to examine and
root up these issues caused them to need certain things. For the lady,
one issue was to prove herself via this project. For Josh, one issue was
to demonstrate that he was smooth and in control of himself. These were
the causes, and their "evils" were the results. They didn't choose to go
out of their way to do evil. They did evil in reaction to their needs.
> > === 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,
Very true. Fighting fire with fire makes one become the very thing they
are fighting.
> 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
Careful now; fear and evil are two different things. Fear is a medium,
while evil is a product. If you mean fear as a synonym to terrorism,
then yes, terrorism and evil are the same (one being a subset of the
other).
> induces further irrational action. I would have to say that terrorizing
I would exchange "induces" with "can induce". The key to stopping
terrorism (and all other evils) is to not perpetuate it. When evil is
given nothing from which to feed, it must feed upon itself.
> 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.
Perhaps my lack of clarity on "lesser" and "greater" made me appear to
have this bias (see my clarification further down). If not, could you
elaborate on this bias?
> > 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
Another name for self-manipulation is "rationalization".
> susceptible to evil). Perhaps it is unavoidable to a small extent. Its
I would agree that it may be difficult to avoid. I've been doing it a
lot lately (in the form of procrastination). But I don't think that it
is unavoidable. At some point we can recognize what is going on, and
change our course of action.
> 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".
The difference between persuasion and manipulation is that persuasion
assumes and requires proactive participation on the part of the
persuadee. Even when phone solicitors call and give a sales pitch, and
fast talk through details, the decision is still ours. It may be clean
persuasion or dirty persuasion, but both require our desire to
proactively participate, even if it is in the form of a simple "yes".
Manipulation also requires our participation, but our role is
*reactive*. We are put on the spot to consent to whatever a manipulator
is doing. In the movie The Matrix, the movie technicians of the "fake"
world put a lot of work into toning down the color blue as much as
possible, and toning up the color green. This gave the "fake" world a
pale, sick tinge, that made the world "not seem right". The intention of
the technicians was to make the audience feel ill at ease with this
"fake" world, even though they wouldn't be able to pinpoint why it
wasn't preferable to the "real" world that had correct color balance.
So, persuasion wants our proactive consent, and manipulation wants our
reactive consent. Persuasion asks "don't you want this?", and
manipulation states, "you want this.", with the unspoken implication
that we should agree. Notice that *both*, however, require consent.
While one is proactive and the other is reactive, both require that we
choose.
> 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).
I think to measure one evil as more or less important than another is to
miss the point; let's clarify the terms "lesser" and "greater". Lesser
and greater evil are terms of magnitude (more of or less of), not
quality (better or worse). Yes, some evils have more ramifications than
other evils, and are farther reaching. All of them need to be examined
and turned around.
And this is why intention is so important. Intention is not only the
cause for good and evil, but by virtue of being so, is able to turn one
into the other. The movie was a difficult, painful thing for me to go
through. And honestly, I wouldn't have learned what I needed to learn
any other way. I was too stubborn. This is turning evil into good.
Looks like I need to find a better pair of words to replace "lesser" and
"greater" when describing evil.
> 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
Actually, this brings up a very relevant point. Some things are tools,
and carry no intrinsic connotation of "good" nor "evil". Such tools
depend completely upon the intention of the person who uses them. While
manipulation requires the consent to be manipulated, it is still "just a
tool".
Did the Blair Witch Project manipulate its audience in the movie? I
don't think so--I knew most of what was going on, and so did others to
various degrees. Lack of knowledge or awareness while watching the
movies wasn't a factor in the fear. Again, the movie wasn't a matter of
"getting it" or "not getting it". Was the release method manipulative? I
don't think so either. Definitely dirty; they presented it as if it were
"real". But a little research could turn up the "whole" truth.
So, was The Blair Witch Project evil? It depends upon intention, and
again, this is key. Even if the intention of the filmmakers was to
instill fear and evil into the audience, if *my* intention was to
observe and learn from the movie, then it was not evil. So the real
question isn't "was The Blair Witch Project" evil, but rather, "was *I*
evil in watching The Blair Witch Project?".
I wasn't evil, which didn't make it any easier or more difficult. And it
is up to me to use what I saw to benefit myself and others. Good and
Evil is a question of consistency of intention. And the focus is on the
growth of that consistency of intention. Good and Evil are "merely"
products by which we can measure our growth.
<snipped "downward spiral of evil" part>
> > 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
I can agree with that. Greater evil must be successive of a cause, which
is often lesser evil.
> 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
<already touched upon above>. I agree completely that to measure one
evil as "more" than another is inherently weak, and misses the point.
<snipped friendly praise -- thanks!>
> 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,
I'd add to that, "...for its own ends". Evil is never a cause; it is
only done in terms of what it can achieve for itself.
> if your logic is the least bit tainted, its wrong (I'm not saying yours is,
Very true. I've found that the two fundamental errors are to be
incorrect about a fundamental principle, or to be incorrect in the
execution of such a principle.
> but it takes mucho investigation) although you'll want to believe it so
> much. Thats in it's nature
Belief (i.e. will) is as important as the principles it propones. It is
not erroneous to be fervent in our beliefs, so long as we control the
beliefs, and not vice versa. That way, if/when errors *do* happen, we
can have the awareness to correct them.
> 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
I'll bet you'll find that statement in many religious and spiritual
texts. It is a fundamental tenet of development.
<snip>
> 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
I agree with that.
<snip>
> 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.
With the phrase "can make" replacing "makes", I'd agree with that.
Intention again.
> 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).
I've found that the happiest, most "enlightened" people have found how
to enjoy the climb, even if it is painful. I hope to someday be able to
do the same.
> > > 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.
<snip>
I've also seen evil do great things, in the form of "learning from the
school of hard knocks". Though I've never seen good do evil things.
> > 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.
One of my all time favorite movies. Absolutely succinct. It's a
difficult movie, but if anyone hasn't seen it yet, please do.
Adam
bwappo@ee.net
> (1) - "ideas of reference" - an illusory correlation - "people think that
> circumstantial events are actually targeted at them"
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Blair Witch Project - Thoughts?
|
| Adam Yulish wrote in message <3893398D.617B42FA@ee.net>... (...) 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. (...) I am getting the impression that you say (...) (24 years ago, 30-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
|
|
|
|
