Conference hydra::dejavu

      I'm not sure I can shed any light/darkness on this question. 
    I think that it can be tied to the individuals state of mind.  Fer
    instance... If I think an action is bad and I suffer/do it then
    I more than likley will reap some disatisfactory condition.  If
    I view that same action as either serving me or not serving me then
    I have some how disassociated myself a bit.  This really helps at
    times too.  Sorta' like Ken Keyes idea of reprogramming addictions
    to preferences.
    
      Here is an example from my past days.  A certain child evangelist
    by the name of Margo Gortner made a movie about his life.  His parents
    used to hold his head underwater till he memorized the scriptures
    for that particular day.  Consequently he not only learned to memorize
    long strings of text but acting too.  So...
    
      Well Margo made a movie about how he and his roadies were raking
    in the dough even while the people he was preachin' too were benifited
    to the max.  He carried the cameras into the pentecostal churches
    showing poeple being healed, delivered of demons and generaly have
    a good ole time.  His comments.. "I don't even know if God exists!"
    
      Anyways, as far as the Christians are concerned he is probably
    "AntiChrist" as well as charlitain.  What happened to all the people
    who were healed and delivered????  As far as I can see they were
    benifited by something bad.  So in this instance people received
    something good from something bad.  

      Maybe charlitain and bad are shades of things that don't serve
    us well.  This dosen't preclude however that we may receive some
    small good from bad.

    From what I understand, ultimately there is no "good" or "evil".
    Everything is just a manifestation of the absolute, God, consciousness.
    
    How should one conduct him/herself?  One should view all that happens
    as simply the play of consciousness; not placing judgments of good
    and evil on anything.  Bad things very often beget good/growth.
    For example, when I worked at Wang, I had a poor manager.  I suffered
    greatly under him but ultimately it taught me a great deal about
    myself, which was good.  Spiritual growth over career growth.
    
    Then why not punch out the next a**h*** you meet?  It's bound to
    do *SOMEBODY* some good.  But there's a catch.  Until you have burned
    up your own Karma and have reached unity with God you should try
    to perform only "good" actions.  Or put another way, while you still
    think in terms of good and evil, "good" should be the order of the
    day lest you cover yourself with more Karma.
    
    I believe this is basically part of the Hindi philosophy.
    
    Tom

    In my opinion, only God is beyond good and evil: both exist; one,
    the so-called right-hand path; the other, the left-hand path.
    
    Evil is a matter of symbolism and intent.  Whether good comes out
    of it is secondary: saving a life is "good"; if a child's life is
    saved and that child grows up to be another Adolph Hitler, the overall
    result is unfortunate, but the _act_ was good.  A key here is _intent_,
    again: only an omniscient entity can know the ultimate result of
    any act, so one must work in the short term.
    
    Note that it is _not_ bad to work for one's own self-interest, if
    one doesn't step on others to do so.  If I want to protect my own
    life, or that of my wife (or my cats, for that matter), that sort
    of _defensive_ action is legitimately good; however, if I do this
    by sacrificing an innocent child to some powerful entity, than it's
    an evil act.  
    
    Evil exists: the Prince of Evil would like to convince you it doesn't!
    It makes his job easier.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    ~/~
    
    re:.3 "A key here is _intent_,"
    
    There is an old saying, "The road to hell is paved with good
    intentions."  I'm curious how you view this statement in light of
    this topic.
    
    Thanks,
    Tom

    re .4:
    
    To answer your question: The saying "The road to Hell is paved with
    good intentions," can be taken two ways: practically and theologically.
    On a practical matter, it means that _misinformed_ or _underinformed_
    intentions can result in catastrophe; the theological use of that
    phrase is a little more questionable.  If a physician tries to heal
    a patient and through incompetence causes the death of that patient
    -- and retrospectively realizes it -- he or she might create his
    or her own private Hell (or more likely Purgatory); however, it
    is unlikely that the physician in question would be subjected to
    the official Hell on the basis of that act.  Evil isn't accidental;
    it's deliberate.  Even Our Saviour, on the cross said, "Forgive
    them, Father, they know not what they do."  Hardly the automatic
    damnation one would suspect for such an act.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    The "old saying," by the way, is a Karl Marx quote!
		<_Jym_>

    Well, Marx has been gone for some time now; "old" is relative, after
    all.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

I always interpreted that quote to mean basically that the end does NOT
justify the means. Yes, you have good intentions, but you went out and
did something horrible to further them and now your "On the highway to
Hell" as the song says.

My views have alot to do with intent as well. Unfortunately, short of an
onmipotent being, no one can know your intent. So actions are what
you judge and get judged on. Which, of course, lead us back to the original
quote...

I always thought that one could do anything one wanted to, as long as it
didn't interfere with someone else's right to do the same. After reading
Illusions, by Richard Bach, I have been re-thinking this to some degree.
I am not sure that one can do ANYTHING without somehow interacting with
the rest of the world (or universe). If this is true, then you are probably
interfering with someone else and so you shouldn't do ANYTHING. Not such
a good philosophy, it seems. Bach says, "You can do anything you want to"
(punctuation changed without premission). Given the rest of his philosophy
as stated in Illusions, what do people think about this?

DDA

    re .8:
    > ... Unfortunately, short of an
    >omnipotent being, no one can know of your intent. ...
    
    Sorry; _you_ do.  I cannot say objectively what any one act of yours
    would be, good or evil, without knowing your intent.  If you do
    enough of a number of similar acts, I could make a statistical
    correlation and take a good guess whether you're an intrinsically
    good or evil person.  If you tell me, "I want to be the wickedest
    man [or woman] in the world," then I'll presume you want to be evil
    (unless you're into teenage slang).
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

  I have just "found" dejavu and have some comments I'd like to
  share as I peruse to various subjects.  In referencing "Good
  and Evil" Denhamn may be interested in what SETH (channelled
  by Jane Roberts) has to say on the subject in THE NATURE OF PERSONAL
  REALITY.  His comments focus around "evil" as a violation to
  body, spirit, mind.  Any act that does not promote and support
  the life force would fall into this category.  This covers obusive
  behavior at all levels of mind and to all degrees.  The chapter
  also includes his opinions on artificial and natural guilt and
  expands into how animals in the natural environment do not
  in general engage in this kind of behavior.  When transitions
  were made from "instint" to thought (the way we use it) then
  memory became a tool to replace the natural survival instint (threat
  vs violation).  Natural guilt is remembering the
  consequences of violation (for every action there is a reaction)
  in order to make our choice (as that also comes with "thought").
  Artificial guilt relates to accepting others definititon of violation
  rather than going inside and KNOWING what is right for you. 
  This is based on the concept that a conscious decision to do the
  right thing for one's self will be the right thing for others
  (even if they don't agree with it in this reality and begs the
  Is anyone else a fan of Seth's or the concept that we create
  our own reality?

                                                                     
    I've put this reading recommendation into another note recently,
    however it probably should be mentioned here as well.
    
    Books to read on this subject "The Road Less Traveled", and "People
    Of The Lie - The Hope for Healing Human Evil", both by M.Scott Peck.
    
    I've only got 10 more pages to read in the second book, however
    it was quite an eye-opening experience for me and I learned a lot.  
    
    If anyone is interested in the details/overview of either book,
    just enter a request into this note or contact me directly and I'll 
    be happy to answer the inquiries as best I can (especially if you 
    are deciding whether to read the books or not).
                                           
    Cindy
    

    RE: -.2
        See 358 for more on creating your own reality (I for one
    am completely convince we do.) 
      
    Frederick
    

 The question of right and wrong has long been pondered by great minds.
I wondered what kind of answer we might get if we were to pose the 
question to a less than great, even less than mediocre mind.To further
challenge this person we are going to distract much of their attention
away from the question by setting a car on their chest. Is everything
ready?OK now lets ask our question.What is right and wrong?The subject
keeps screaming for help over and over.Are you trying to say that it is
good to help?He is asking for us to take the car off him.I will repeat
the question.What is right and wrong?He says he doesn't know but keeps 
asking for help.Wait a minute I think he is saying something.Treat
others as you would have them treat you.Yes continue. 
  I don't think anyone can know for sure what is good or evil unless
they have a total understanding of everything.For this reason I
think it is good to grow in understanding so that one can be more in
harmony with everything.  Perhaps the best we can do is to be ourselves,
accept ourselves, and try to give expression to ourselves, including our
dark side in an appropriate setting with others of similar tendencies.
This might be a good way to experience the results of who we are and it
has the potential of being quite enlightening. 
 The important thing is for everyone to be playing by agreed to rules.If
someone is forced into a situation I would consider that wrong.Get together
and have at it, but do not force someone to play, who does not want to.
 Please will you take this car off my chest so that you can have a turn.
OK help him out.You guys want to give me a hand setting this car on me here. 

                George D.

    I send this reply back across Space and Time and have no idea if
    you'll actually read it. You have touched on a subject that every
    religion ever practiced on this planet, every philosophy that was
    formulated from the mind of man has grappled with . . . Good and
    Evil. From the Chinese philosophers who believed mans character
    was essentially good to the western schools who say it is essentiall
    evil (my position), to those who call good evil and evil good, todays
    sad state of affairs; everyone has an opinion. 
    I say; 
    Through Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity, through understanding
    his ministry, one aspect of which is to lead those who would be led,
    into all truth. Then you may ask, "What is truth?" Jesus said, "I
    am the way, the truth and the life, no man cometh unto the Father
    but by me". Do you believe that Kathleen? If so in Him is all that
    is Good.
    into all truth, and discern for us what is true

    
    It is indeed true that if you believe in Jesus and call upon His
    name in times of trouble, you will be guided along the right path.
    This assumes that Jesus is, in essense, someone who will rescue
    you if you simply call upon His name.  For those people who need
    this kind of guidance in their lives for whatever reason (perhaps
    structure to escape from their prior chaotic life), this is what
    Jesus is to them, and He will be there to help them out.      
    
    There is yet another way to interpret that quote, and it is "No
    one comes to the Father except through my example."  Or put another
    way, Scott Peck in "The Different Drum" states "Jesus, through his
    life and death, taught me the way I must live and die for my own
    salvation."  Which is also true.  It is also a much more difficult
    path to walk than mentioned in the first example.  
    
    I believe that if every person on the face of this Earth lived as 
    Jesus lived, there would be no reason for war, starvation, etc., 
    but until everyone understands the essense of the commandment "Love 
    thy neighbor as thyself.", where *all* humans on this earth are 
    considered to be neighbors in this context (as opposed to the 'enemy', 
    then humankind is destined to keep repeating the same mistakes over 
    and over again.
          
    Cindy

    re: -.1
         Cindy, I do not wish to dabble within the confines of scripture
    here, but I would like to point out what I consider a notable point:
    Upon observation (mine) it seems to me that people *ARE* loving
    others as they love themselves.  What is really much more important
    and significant and worthwhile is loving others *AFTER* they love
    themselves.  For anyone who has trouble reading between the lines
    here, what I am trying to point out is that people are NOT loving
    themselves as much as they should and it is BECAUSE of that that the
    world produces its results.  The reflectiveness of our realities
    would indicate that the love we are receiving is the love we are
    giving.  When we are fully the self-loving individuals we are capable
    of, THEN we be giving (as a "condition" of self-love) love to others
    and will in turn be receiving it as well.  Loving others as we love
    ourselves is what's already happening and it obviously isn't enough.
    
    Frederick
            

    
    Yes, I concur.
    
    Sorry....I forgot to emphasize the *thyself* part and talk about
    that as being first and foremost.  Tricky concept - this self-loving
    business.
    
    Cindy

    RE: .17
    
    From a Christian perspective the "thyself" means *after* your neighbor
    or at least equal to.  This can be a problem if taken to excess,
    but so can loving oneself.  I think one of the main attractions
    of the New Age movement is its focus on self; a concept easily embraced
    by the "me" generation.
    
    John M.

    re: .18 (John)
      
          I believe that what you have stated is valid.  It is true
    that when we first understand that we need to love ourselves more
    and to not always be looking for causes/reasons/etc. outside of
    ourselves to love, that there arises a decision to ignore the
    rest and focus on the self.  And after hearing both "sides" one
    could be left utterly confused "Well, what *AM* I supposed to do,
    anyway?"  Actually, what happens here is a system wherein first
    you love yourself, then love outside.  This then leads to more love
    of self, which then allows more love outside.  This becomes a cycle
    of love of self and of others.  What I attempted to point out is
    that the Christian concept of loving others above the self is foolish,
    when the self is ignored/restricted/sacrificed.  Love starts with
    self and grows from there.  It does not start there and somehow
    becomes a part of self.  I realize that you think Lazaris is somehow
    a fraud but among the many incredible things he says is the
    following: "Love yourself enough to love someone else more."  This
    is not a terribly simple thing to understand because it has a 
    multitude of levels of intricacy.  Again, I pointed out what I did
    in order to draw attention to the simplistic view of a possibly
    incomplete statement which carries with it a tacit and unconditional
    demand for approval (normally.)  Everything can not always be taken
    at its face value.
    
    Frederick
    

    
    This may be made a bit clearer by taking a look at the "On Loving
    Thyself" topic over in RELIGION.  
    
    You both have good points, and it may be a good idea to just take
    a peek over there as we've discussed it quite extensively...also
    in the Christian frame of reference (which I, too, would like to
    not discuss at length in DEJAVU since it has the possibility of
    going outside the bounds a bit.)
    
    Cindy

This note looked a little musty so I thought I'd liven things up a bit.

Good and Evil...hmmm, I see lots of people in the conference actually
believe that there are things/people/entities which are inherently good
or evil.  I don't.

Everything that any person has ever read, wrote, heard or seen has been the
creation of humans, with the exception of the natural environment.

Good and evil were postulated at the beginnings of what we call civilization.
Humans NEED civilization to exist collectively.  It is how we have become the
conquerors of our environment. We humans, seek justification for everything we
do...or shouldn't do, whether or not such a justification exists.  Civilization
provides these justifications, especially when they do not seem to exist.

When early societies were being created, and even in fact today, Good and Evil
serve as the bounds by which humans conduct themselves in their particular
societies.  Good is the promotion of the human race, evil is the destruction
of the human race.

Civilization requires leadership, this is provided by government and religion.
Early in our history, these were one in the same, in many cultures today they
still are the same. So when Monarchs and the Clergy were asked by their
subjects,  "What gives you the right to rule over us?", the answer was "We have
divine right, given from God, who represents everything good".  When people
asked those same forgers of civilization "Why can't I kill and maim and steal?"
The answer was "Because you will go to Hell if you do".

For the majority of people, that was convincing...after all, in the beginnings
not too many people were educated fell prey to the convincing images of good
and evil that other humans conjured up to support themselves as leaders of
societies.  And as more and more people became more aware of the world (ie
educated), these concepts of Good and Evil were forged unquestioningly into
just about everybody's mind since birth.  Again for the majority of people this
works.

For the others, they were blasphemers, they were evil, they were the destroyers
of civilization...they were the destroyers of order...they are the destroyers
of the human race.  Our history is filled with how these others were
treated...some justly (after all violent crimes are not only against the
acceptable behavior of most societies, but they are counter productive to the
human race.)

In our American civilization, it has become OK to question these original 
ethics of Good(God) and Evil(the Devil).  Both are creations of humans.
Although I still believe there is a deeper concept of God, one much deeper than
the shallow fantasy that many modern day theology can grasp.  I do believe in
God, but that's another sermon :^).  I certainly don't believe in the Devil,
and  I certainly don't believe in evil.  But I do believe in people who may be
twisted enough to believe they are evil (and that scares me).  And I do 
believe that the majority of people in the world do believe in the concepts of
Good and Evil as they are portrayed.

So there is really only good, and not good.  I believe that the bounds which
have been set need no justification beyond their own logic. Like, why hurt 
somebody or something if it doesn't hurt you?  But many people don't see things
that way, so these concepts are still needed.  Perhaps one day, we humans won't
need threats(like hell) and rewards(like heaven) to see that we just shouldn't
do things that are considered evil, and should only do things that are
considered good.

In a way, as a species we are still as children.  Perhaps we will evolve into
something better, if we can survive our childhood.

Of course, all of this is in my own opinion.

Chris

    Re: .21  (Chris)
    
    I agree, Chris...it does seem like people rely a lot on threats
    and rewards to define their behaviour.  And those threats and
    rewards are created and maintained from their own limited view 
    of the Universe.  So it's like a self-made prison...and a life
    of reaction to illusions.  That may sound very gloomy to some,
    but I look at it that it's just what some people are doing for
    their experience...and it's not bad.  It just is.  
    
    Also, I agree that the human race is very much like a race of
    children, spiritually and intuitively.  I can see a similarity
    between the way children play "dress-up" and act like adults...
    and the way many "adults" play "spiritual-awareness" and act
    like they know something.  There's nothing wrong with playing...
    but I think there's much, much more than what most of us are
    comprehending and seeing right now.
    
    I think that's exciting! :-)
    
    Jerri

    
    re: .21 (Chris)
    
    Well, I agree in part, but I believe that the threats perpetuate the
    evil in the long run.  The reward(s) is life.
    
    Guy
    @^%

                             
    There is a wonderful writing by Kahlil Gibran on 'Good and Evil'. 
    Don't have that book with me today though.
    
    Cindy
    
    PS. Reading one's old notes is never a good idea...(;^).  They are
        rather dusty at that.

Note 80.21                        
VAXUUM::PELTZ 


>Humans NEED civilization to exist collectively.  It is how we have become the
>conquerors of our environment. 

It is how we have become the destroyers of our environment.

>Good is the promotion of the human race, evil is the destruction of the human 
>race.

Good is a perception only.

>Civilization requires leadership, this is provided by government and religion.
>Early in our history, these were one in the same, in many cultures today they
>still are the same. So when Monarchs and the Clergy were asked by their
>subjects,  "What gives you the right to rule over us?", the answer was "We have
>divine right, given from God, who represents everything good".  When people
>asked those same forgers of civilization "Why can't I kill and maim and steal?"
>The answer was "Because you will go to Hell if you do".

And when we ask, "what gives you the right to pollute the waters and the air?,
What gives you the right to corrupt the land with nuclear testing?  What gives
you the right to destroy the animals, the forests, the birds for your own
personal profit?  What gives you the right to impose your values and behavior
on us all?  And the answers are still the same... "we have divine right".

>So there is really only good, and not good.  I believe that the bounds which
>have been set need no justification beyond their own logic. Like, why hurt 
>somebody or something if it doesn't hurt you?  But many people don't see things
>that way, so these concepts are still needed.  Perhaps one day, we humans won't
>need threats(like hell) and rewards(like heaven) to see that we just shouldn't
>do things that are considered evil, and should only do things that are
>considered good.

There really only is, what is.  And humans don't need threats, threats are used
by the users to control the others for the benefit of the users.

We mutate now, some of us.  Others cannot adapt I fear and will be left behind.

Mary

Mary,

	I am an environmentalist, as you seem to be.  I have sympathy for
all your concerns.  Polluting and destroying our good mother and her non-human
children hurts me as much as it does you.  I do not completely agree with 
what is perceived by society as what is good and evil, I just observe and
learn without trying to get too caught up in it all.

	Indeed, the destruction of our wildlife and environment should be
considered evil, just as you and I consider them evil.  Unfortunately, the vast
majority of humans on the planet, either they don't care or they don't believe
that we, mere humans, can slowly destroy a whole planet!  Everybody looks and
says "what did I personally do to destroy the planet?"  Most don't look at the
tons of garbage they produce, and most don't look at the products they buy.
Because the cause is not one or two people, it is the collective effects of all
humans, especially those in the more industrialized societies, like our own.

	Fortunately, consciousness is being raised, but probably not before
its too late...in many circumstances it is already too late.  Our world
is changing right before our eyes, and people are still ripping up the
natural environment in the name of human existence.  I fear that by the
time everybody finally figures out that humans also need the plants and the
animals, that these non-replaceable portions of our planet will have 
disappeared.  And then perhaps we too will begin to disappear.  Nature always
seems to take care of itself, maybe this is how nature will right itself and
start again.

	Sounds dismal doesn't it?  WELL IT IS!


	But this is all contrary to the actual discussion of this topic of good
and evil.  All I wanted to point out in my original note was that good and evil
are merely perceptions, and not some mysterious forces from the unknown.  And
I think that seeing things for what they are is the best way to see them.

Chris

    Re: the environment (or good or evil or whatever)
    
    >Nature always seems to take care of itself, maybe this is how nature 
    >will right itself and start again.
    
    This may very well be true.  If humans are an intricate part of the
    Universe, then their evolution (and destructive tendancies) are just
    a part of the whole picture.  Through our mistakes, we learn.
    
    We can look at it that the planet is being destroyed.  We can look
    at it that evolution is taking place.  Perhaps from a larger frame
    of reference, this is all working out very naturally.
    
    Anyone who gets depressed over this, may very well be numbing or
    blinding themselves.  Your life, right now, is what you've got to
    live.  *Whatever* the conditions are.  Why not be happy?  Working
    for solutions to problems is wonderful -- but if people become
    angry, pessimistic, or depressed over ANYTHING, it's just another
    lesson for them to learn.
    
    I think that, very possibly, the things we think are important,
    aren't as important as we make them out to be.  Maybe through much
    greater understanding, we would know this.  Much of what we *make*
    important is external to ourselves.  Yet, I think that our thoughts
    create a great deal.
    
    Jerri

    re -1, this is Good vs Evil, not Free Will vs Determinism. Man has
    choice and he can choose that which is evil, or that which is good.
    These terms do not have to be religious in connotation. Torture is
    evil. Giving a beggar food is good. 

    Re: .28 (Eastland)
    
    It looks as though you've noted that your reply is in response to 
    my reply .27?  I don't understand what your reply has to do with
    what I said. ??  I was responding to the previous few replies on
    the environment (a slight digression but an interesting discussion).
    
    Just curious,
    
    Jerri

    Re .25 (Mary):
    
>>Humans NEED civilization to exist collectively.  It is how we have become the
>>conquerors of our environment. 
>
>It is how we have become the destroyers of our environment.
 
    I should have hit the initial observation first: "civilization"
    _is_ a function of collective living, not a "need."
    
    The environment, whatever else, is marvelously resilient.  Before
    the first biorevolution, the atmosphere was mostly deoxygenated;
    the photosynthetic protoplants changed that markedly (the primitive
    stuff that survived, like botulism as an example, is anaerobic).  A
    Hegelian thesis/antithesis of the current situation suggests that the 
    synthesis is environmentalism.
    
>>Good is the promotion of the human race, evil is the destruction of the human 
>>race.
>
>Good is a perception only.
 
    I can't agree with either position.  "Good" (as "evil" for that
    matter) is a matter of intent.  To me, saving a drowning kitten
    is a good act, whether or not it advances/"promotes" the human race.
    Drowning a kitten for enjoyment is evil, in my opinion.
    
>And when we ask, "what gives you the right to pollute the waters and the air?,
>What gives you the right to corrupt the land with nuclear testing?  What gives
>you the right to destroy the animals, the forests, the birds for your own
>personal profit?  What gives you the right to impose your values and behavior
>on us all?  And the answers are still the same... "we have divine right".
 
    I think the answers aren't those of "divine right," but that "nothing
    else is worth anything."
    
    A problem: most of us using this (or other) Conference(s) are
    comfortable, well fed, literate, and reasonably well educated. 
    Our concerns can be local, regional, national, international, global,
    or planetary.  It raises us to a level where we can be concerned
    about such things as the ozone layer, the greenhouse effect, and
    nuclear winter.  But talk to a half-starving person in a third-world
    country who, if he or she is lucky, lives in a shack.  A person
    who may have difficulty reading, much less having an exposure to
    higher education.  That person, if you spoke to him or her about
    issues like depleting the tropical rain forests, would be likely
    to think you silly at best, or possibly crazy.  
    
    One problem here, I think, is with the English language.  "Good"
    can be the antonym of "bad" and "evil"; and "bad" is generally not
    the same thing as "evil."  "This is a good cup of coffee" has no
    moral imperative; it means that the coffee is, in the opinion of
    the drinker, is of an enjoyable quality.  Likewise, "the battery's
    bad," means it's nonfunctional, not that it's malevolent.  
    
    Re .26 (Chris):
    
>	But this is all contrary to the actual discussion of this topic of good
>and evil.  All I wanted to point out in my original note was that good and evil
>are merely perceptions, and not some mysterious forces from the unknown.  And
>I think that seeing things for what they are is the best way to see them.
 
    Whether one perceives good and evil as actualities or "perceptions,"
    [parochial opinions?] either is a _quality_ or characteristic, not
    a "force."  I believe that "good" and "evil" are real, and are
    qualities tempered with awareness (it isn't "evil" for a cat to
    toy with his or her prey; the cat isn't doing it to _make_ the prey
    suffer; for a human, enjoying the suffering, IMHO, it would be evil).
    The key word here is _intent_.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    Reply to .30, Steve,
    
    Ok, let's then explore intent.
    
    I think we've all been down this road before. I try to keep it short.
    
    Is my intent evil if I shoot John Doe?
    
    Is my intent evil if I shoot John Doe before he throws a fire bomb?
    
    Is my intent evil if I shoot John Doe before he throws a firebomb at a
    crowded school bus?
    
    Is my intent evil if I _let_ John Doe throw that firebomb at a crowed
    school bus?
    
    Conversely is my intent evil if I mount a campaign to quickly and
    drastically modify part of my culture for reason of my own?

     Re .31 (Mikie?):
    
    >Is my intent evil if I shoot John Doe?
    
    Insufficient data.
    
    >Is my intent evil if I shoot John Doe before he throws a fire bomb?
    
    Insufficient data.
    
    >Is my intent evil if I shoot John Doe before he throws a firebomb at a
    >crowded school bus?
     
    Probably not; however, _why_ are you shooting John Doe?  To stop
    him from hitting the school bus with the bomb?  Or because you like
    to shoot people?  You'd have to tell me your reason for shooting
    him.
    
    >Is my intent evil if I _let_ John Doe throw that firebomb at a crowed
    >school bus?
     
    Possibly, though again, the data are scanty.
    
    >Conversely is my intent evil if I mount a campaign to quickly and
    >drastically modify part of my culture for reason of my own?
     
    I suppose it depends on the reason.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    Reply to .32, Steve,
    
    Thanks. I was getting to that. Of course it's situational. To be
    situational one must exercise their perception. And if their perception
    is biased or programed in any particular direction then the nature of
    good and evil depend upon the influence and/or health of the
    perceptional skill set of the perceiver and upon the mental program
    which controls the perception.
    
    I guess we all know that good and evil are relative to the perceiver,
    but most don't know why.

      I have to agree with Steve that the answer (or at least most of it) is
    expressed best as intent.  This seems to make the issue rather subjective
    since a lot of the time we cannot truly know someone's motives.  This
    seems like a good argument for the "live and let live" philosophy,
    which I personally would like to see more of.  
    
    Below is an excerpt from "Man and His Symbols" by C.G.Jung that shows 
    how acts that appear to be evil can actually be done with good intentions 
    and have good results - that is, if you're a god....;-)
    
    


  "The ethical difficulties that arise when one meets one's shadow are well 
described in the 18th Book of the Koran.  In this tale Moses meets Khidr 
("the Green One" or "first angel of God") in the desert.  They wander along
together, and Khidr expresses his fear that Moses will not be able to witness
his deeds without indignation.  If Moses cannot bear with him and trust him,
Khidr will have to leave.
  Presently Khidr scuttles the fishing boat of some poor villagers.  Then,
before Mose's eyes, he kills a handsome young man, and finally he restores
the fallen wall of a city of unbelievers.  Moses cannot help expressing his
indignation, and so Khidr has to leave him.  Before his departure, however,
he explains his reasons for his actions: By scuttling the boat he actually
saved it for its owners because pirates were on their way to steal it.  As it
is, the fishermen can salvage it.  The handsome young man was on his way to 
commit a crime, and by killing him Khidr saved his pious parents from infamy.
By restoring the wall, two pious young men were saved from ruin because their
treasure was buried under it.  Moses, who had been so morally indignant, saw
now (too late) that his judgment had been too hasty.  Chowder's doings had
seemed to be totally evil, but in fact they were not.
  Looking at this story naively, one might assume that Khidr is the lawless,
capricious, evil shadow of pious, law-abiding Moses.  But this is not the case.
Khidr is much more the personification of some secret creative actions of the 
Godhead. (One can find a similar meaning in the famous Indian story of "The 
King and the Corpse" as interpreted by Henry Zimmer.)  It is no accident that
I have not quoted a dream to illustrate this subtle problem.  I have chosen
this well-known story from the Koran because it sums up the experience of a 
lifetime, which would be very rarely expressed with such clarity in an indiv-
idual dream."


  The question that comes to my mind is this:  Are we evil if we are truly
unconscious of our behaviour?  Are we also good if we are unconscious of
our behaviour?  If we are so unconscious as be completely unaware of whether
we are doing good or evil, which are we *really*?  

  My personal belief is that in most cases we choose (on some level) to be
unconscious of one thing or another.  Thus, if we end up doing evil, we are
still responsible for it.  The same goes for good.  Of course, there are 
neuroses and psychoses that have their root in some physical problems first
and then proceed to throw off the brain - in which case we wouldn't have 
much control....

     Guy
     @^%

Re -1

The story line you mentioned is similar in format to the Martial Arts 
story "The Silent Flute". I believe it was written/directed at least partly by 
Bruce Lee and James Coburn. Though the action is the physical side of 
martial arts the theme is the spiritual side and one mans quest for 
the 'book of knowledge'. The scenes include the boat, the beautiful 
child ( though a different reason ), the re-building of the wall, and 
an amusing discussion about celibacy with Eli Wallach. It also stars 
David Carradine as the multi faced teacher.

	I won't spoil it for anyone that hasn't seen it but some of 
the quotes from it are...

	'You can't step on the same peice of water twice'

	'If you tie two birds together , though they have four wings 
	they cannot fly'

Martin

    re .-1
    
    Thank you, i KNEW those stories were ringing a bell.
    
    That movie is shown sometimes as Circle of Iron (or maybe
    Ring of Iron??).  It shows up on Boston area tv from time to time.
    
    An Unusual picture...
    
    thanks
    dwp
    

    Evil enters like a needle and spreads like an oak tree.
    
    
                        Ray

    Re: .37
    
    Oh?  And what does good do?  Dry up and blow away like the Autumn
    leaves?
    
    8-}
    RJC