![[tmbchr]™](/journal/popocculture-blog-logo.jpg){kind=logo}
Good & Evil: Absolutes?
I’m going through and picking out comments over the past few days which have really got me thinking. Part of what I’m looking for, I think, is assumptions. I’ve realized in my own work that I have a lot of general basic assumptions which I’ve always just accepted as true, but have never really examined solidly on their own merits. So I’m trying to pick out thoughts from various people which I think either rely on or reference our assumptions, in an attempt to open them up for further examination.
Withour further ado, slomo writes:
Most of us who are exchanging ideas here already understand that “good” and “evil” are concepts that apply only in the realm of subjective human experience, not in any absolute sense.
When I first read that I wondered: is that really what most us “already understand”? Is that what I am bringing to the table in my discussion without realizing? I’m not sure - at the moment - if I do or don’t agree with this. I guess I’m trying to embrace a “radical uncertainty principle” at least temporarily to allow me to really probe things I’ve not before. Anyway, is good & evil purely a human construct, or do these things “exist” in the universe regardless? And again, is this just a chick-or-the-egg type argument that doesn’t really help to answer?
- Prev: What is “true” spirituality?
- Next: The Non-Random Threshold
July 2nd, 2005 at 2:39 pm
Good and evil are culturally defined.
Slavery was good in the south, evil in the north, defined by the cultures of south and north.
Nuclear power was a good, a boon to humankind even; then came Three Mile Island and Chernobyl.
To Reagan, Russia was the Evil Empire. Not to the Russians
To Khomeini, the U.S. was the Great Satan. Not to us.
To Bush, Iran and North Korea (and Iraq, but we invaded them) were/are the axis of evil, because they were pursuing nuclear weapons, which we consider good — in our hands.
I could go on, but you get the idea, I’m sure.
Now — another one for you:
Are Right and Wrong absolutes?
July 2nd, 2005 at 2:42 pm
well, I tend to think of it on three levels.
there’s the level of opinion, or the relative level. Everyone has personal ideas of what is good or not, based mostly on how thingsmake them feel.
then there’s the level of function. what works, what is efficent and durable and sustainable is good. this is the level of economies and ecologies and mechanics. it is objective and verifiable
and lastly, there is the level of the absolute. what accords with ultimate reality is ‘good’.
I personally take the ultimate reality to be the nondual godhead. hence what helps the godhead consciousness unfold on earth is my yardstick for the highest ‘good’, but I recognise that doesn’t neccisarily cover a whole lot in terms of dealing with people or moving through life, so i fall back when possible on what is best for the health of the larger system as i understand it.
when neither of the first two seem to apply then I feel comfortable resorting to my opinion on the ‘good’ from an aesthetic standpoint. certain things offend my sense of beauty and justice and if they don’t seem to play an important role in the larger system, I feel fine wiping them out.
July 2nd, 2005 at 3:02 pm
I would beg to differ here, although I see what you’re saying. Slavery was good in the North too, but they paid hourly wages instead of providing free room and board and job security
July 2nd, 2005 at 3:04 pm
How do you know what helps the godhead unfold on earth? If it’s nondual, don’t both good and evil help it to progress? Why would the godhead need help from you?
July 2nd, 2005 at 3:26 pm
well notice I was specific about saying godhead consciousness, which is distinct from the the nondual ground of spirit which does indeed inhere in everything. so in practice it’s more in line with the boddhisattva vow i suppose. to extinguish all ignorance and all that…
and I never said the godhead needed anything from me. but I sure as heck need the godhead.
July 2nd, 2005 at 3:32 pm
I’m sorry. I didn’t mean to suggest you said those things, cause I know you didn’t. Those are just the questions raised by what you said in my head… They are good insights and good questions.
July 2nd, 2005 at 7:55 pm
i tend to subscribe to the sustainability idea in a practical context — what preserves the most life/health/happiness within the system? that’s generally what’s “good” to me. when i try to look at it in a cosmic context i’m usually left thinking about how “good/evil” is just another manifesation of divine duality. one thing that can get kind of confusing is thinking about god as being “good”… because then it’s like, okay, well what about bad? bad has to be godly too. and that brings me back to the god as neutrality or non-attachment idea.. and i must admit there’s a part of me that’s like, “WELL WHERE”S THE FUN IN THAT????”
i mean in a way it kind of seems like everything is just this friction generated by these opposing-but-coexisting forces, and god is within that, god the constant process of neutralization or cancelling out. i don’t know if that makes sense the way i articulated it.
and yet i’m not a fan of moral relativism.
July 2nd, 2005 at 8:20 pm
From Philip K. Dick’s Tractates Cryptica Scriptura: