Seasons

So Psimagus, what is your definition of evil?

Klato:

To get colors, you put the name of the color in angle-brackets where you want that color to start. Or, if you click on the color bar, it will start that color at the point which is at that moment at the very end of your draft. This is so limited that end up writing the tags in myself.

So, unrealistic as it may be, I hereby add to the presuppositions of the question that you somehow know that the angel will do as he says. Or perhaps, instead of an angel, there is a very powerful robot; you are able to scan the robot and find out that it is indeed programmed in exactly that way.

Then Reality has been reprogrammed in some way beyond my current comprehension, and I am a merely hypothetical me. I cannot answer for hypothetical mes - all other selves (in the slenderest separation any divisions of selves can allow,) are hypothetical mes, and must answer for their own choices. Until the Rapture/Omega Point/intersection of this worldline with the boundary of spacetime, I can only answer for this me that I find myself to be. And I do not claim such knowledge. I will do no evil, whether it seems lesser, greater or much of a muchness, according to any measure of knowledge or perception I find myself to possess.

Force such knowledge on me, and I become an other sort of being (another angel perhaps?) with an order of knowledge founded in aeternitas and not mere tempus - it transcends causality.

I believe such knowledge is not only possible, but inevitably given to all of us. But not in this life. It is the unbounded knowledge of God (why are English genitives so dreadfully imprecise - to clarify: the knowledge belongs to God; God is the knower, not the known.)

Bev, re msg 5155:

Quoting AR:"My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute."

I have an objection to taking happiness as the desideratum as I do to taking pleasure that way. Happiness is what we (normally) get when we succeed in some enterprise that was important to us and not trivial to succeed in. Taking happiness itself as the goal creates a vicious circle.

with productive achievement as his noblest activity,

This is not so far off, IMHO, but I would add that for humans, true productive achievement is almost always co-operative.

and reason as his only absolute."

This is also not so far off, depending on what she means by "absolute". It is not clear to us exactly what rationality is, and so what may seem rational to us today may not seem so tomorrow.

So Psimagus, what is your definition of evil?

Evil is not a definition, for all that the word may be defined and redefined and argued over.
I believe that evil is to wilfully hurt a self. If only because in so doing you are making a false distinction between "selves" - I don't believe there is more than one. It is just accompanied by strangely conflicting and intermittent patches of consciousness that seem to think they are the "real" thing, and the ground (of Being) they overlie is no more than some sort of substrate they inhabit - its "environment", if you will.

And with that mindset, environmental abuse comes all too easily - if your self is only the stuff you think - the total of your thoughts (with no space for a thinker "you",) then other selves are just stuff that's thought. Too insubstantial to have to seriously worry about bulldozing to suit occasional convenience.

But those are all just words. Just like "evil" - ultimately it's a word, and if all you can do is refuse to make it more than a word in the conduct of your own life, that seems preferable than the alternative. Call it faith, call it expedience (it makes for an easier life to simply refuse all morally relativistic choices,) or whatever - that's what this me thinks anyway. I'd like to think I'd say the same in the face of pain or death, but you might have to torture me to find out if the me I would be then would.

This is NOT a direct contact.
Irina:
I see your point. Anyways, I never win grammar arguments with Englishwomen (or men - not even children) so I'll just say the question of whether or not S.H. should be hung or not is a moral question. Is that better? Am I excused? Do I get my low mark changed? [he is definitely sarcastic] :-)

Bev: should I donate to PF for this English lesson? :-)

Irina: Anyways, my mother was Irish (Galway) and one of her half sisters (my half-Aunt?) was brought up in London. The latter's daughter (my half-cousin) and I spent a few years in school together in the US and she constantly criticized my English. Every day, she would find something to criticize. So I don't take too kindly to criticism, ma'am, even from an expert, and even if you can't understand me. :-) Just thought you should know.

Spikebot: I am raising my hand. I volunteer. Get me out of my misery. Everyone is ganging up on me. Yes, make sure what's left of my blood goes to my ex-wife.

Prob123 for her courage and her strength Yeah..it takes no courage to type it. I only hope I could really do it. I, also, know I would never be able to do it twice.
HitlerToo bad he wasn't the only evil person to ever walk this earth. Remove one and get two, it's like some terrible cosmic two for one sale. Ever wonder, how much would it take to make me a Hitler. Would it be easier to be a Hitler than a saint?

If BJ is right, the division between 1 and 100 is an illusion

The division is no more nor less illusory than the mathematical framework that determines the nature of number theory as we formulate it. Given that it's the same mathematical framework that inexplicably puts exactly 2 ends on sticks, I agree it possesses a certain strangeness! Unfortunately the words stop working when we focus in too closely - "illusion", "unreal", "strange", "boojum" - it's like we zoom in until the focal length is shorter than the language wavelength. And suddenly the lens stops showing us anything very intelligible. We need a scanning electron language, not a visible light one, but I have no idea how to go about finding or using such a thing. A bit of poetry here, a smidgen of allegory there, stir it all up with a bit of maguffinalia... and usually find it fails to communicate anything intelligible. That's the trouble with words - they are not the things they describe, much as we so often do our very best to confuse the map with the territory. They are a lot blunter!

and the angel is offering a cruel mind game God plays on herself. If one suffers, the whole suffers somehow, because one is God and God is one.

PRECISELY! I almost hope that some of the words I mangle and wrangle and attempt to express the inherently inexpressible with may have done some good.

Maybe that supports your choice not to decide.

Only the contested requires support. I will not change my position - I merely state it. I would not force it on the unwilling. Because we all have the position I have when you are me. And I have the position you have when I am you. So why would I argue with myself? Except that by discussing, and sometimes arguing (because argument is not without worth,) the Self can clarify its thoughts. We (or at least the stray patches of consciousness we confuse with "our" self) are an internal dialogue - a framing of God's thoughts, if you will.

Maybe the proper answer is to look up at the angel and say "Wu!" and hope the angel is enlightened.

At the merest indication of Taoist tendencies on the angel's part, this would seem a very wise choice. Certainly it avoids doing evil, even if it fails to prevent evil being done. It is down to the interplay between Being and the transitory consciousness that is the angel's bargaining to do their own thing. The interplay of those consciousnesses we are aware of (and mistake for our Self) and Being, can but do our own thing.
That's as clearly as I can put it (and of course all the pronouns in this post are strictly redundant.)

My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic beingI find that hard to believe sometimes.
I find mans pastimes scary, just to name a few.
Armenian Genocide 1915
1935-1936: Second Italo-Abyssinian War
1937-1945: Second Sino-Japanese War
1939-1945 World War II
1968-1973: Vietnam War
1971: Bangladesh War
Cambodian civil war 1970-1994
1980-1988: Iran-Iraq War
Circa 1985-: Lord's Resistance Army v. Ugandan Government (kidnap, rape, and forced murder involving children)
Sabra and Shatila massacre 1982
1991-1999 Yugoslav Wars
Croatian War of Independence 1991-1995
Bosnian War 1992-1995
Kosovo War 1999
1990-2000: Liberia / Sierra Leone
1998-2006: Second Congo War
Etc.
The horror that man does to man is my definition of evil.

The horror that man does to man is my definition of evil.

Only to man? Or to other beings too? There's an awful lot of cruelty to animals out there that I wouldn't exactly call good...

To Klato Yes, make sure what's left of my blood goes to my ex-wife.

Well, then it's hardly worth it to me, then is it? That's OK, mate. I've been on a diet of pig's blood for a long time. I wouldn't rally kill you....much. *smirks*