Without good would there be evil?

Darn it Meagain! I was going to bring up those points as I read this thread!

I do agree with Meagain.

In McFuddy's defense if I beleived that there was no life after this one, that death was final and that was it, then I would be more inclined to buy into his arguments, because, hey, this 1 life is all I got and if someone harms it----I'll... I'll... I'll be really mad!!! OR if I believed in a God who would allow me to be condemned to the fires of hell for all eternity if I didnt believe in him, or if I happened to break a commandment, then I would certainly pay attention to what was good and evil.

But I don't believe in either situation. And the latter situation brings up the problem that has turned so many philosophers and thinkers away from Christian ideology: if God as all-powerful creator represents good, then why would he allow me to be condemned to hell for all eternity which, after all wouldn't be a good thing. A better way of forming this argument is, if this all powerful good which is none other than the ultimate reality, was so good that it created evil, then does this not make evil good?

I think that the universe is essentially good, but that good cannot make sense in our 3-dimensional reality, because we can only understand good and evil from a human viewpoint. We see those things that harm us, that create dysfunction within our psyches or destroy our lives, or create death (in other words remove us from this 3-dimensional reality), or simply prevent us from acting out our own will. Dr. Stanislav Grof has shown that there are events that we can carry from a previous life which causes mental or physical illness in this one, and will only be resolved by actually dealing with that event---understanding and resolving the conflict within us. Those are bad until we can resolve them. In our reality there is a good and evil. But when I say, in my idealistic fashion, that the universe is essentially good, I am speaking in terms of the good of nature---which includes asteroids striking planets, spiders consuming their mates after coitus, animals eating other animals, and humans whose own nature may not allow himself to stop fighting, polluting, and consuming thereby creating his own demise. After all, people have to die, the planet cannot support unlimited life where every person lives for ever and everything is good in paradise. And if death is just another step, and that our true lives, in this and other realities, could potentially last eons, then we could do many good things and bad things, and ultimately, what creator would really care---as long as we experienced life. But this 'essential good' again is a human label, and if nature moves on choosing the right path, the tao ever flowing, then there can be no evil, and therefore the good itself is-------nothing more than a human label.

Experience-----that is what life is.

 

I do have a little bit to add though:

If we were to take this whole thread and turn it over to Lao Tzu for his sagely advice, I think he would answer that, 1, you are making a big deal out of nothing, and 2, that Orison 319 was right in post 5: “Without lamps there would be no light.”

McFuddles seems so sure of a universal good and evil, that he suggested we could identify elements of this truth by studying history and different cultures. The problem with him, and almost all of us, is that our world view is defined by modern Western culture which is founded upon a dualistic view of the universe. This view is so deeply ingrained within modern culture, ethics, religion, and society that it starts shaping our very psyche from the time we are toddlers.

Alan Watts, as he introduced the hippies of the Western World to Eastern philosophy, pointed out the very points made in this thread: you can’t have light without dark, up without down, and good without evil. Even the East cannot escape this duality, for that is the world of the karmic chain that we are stuck into unless we are so lucky as to achieve enlightenment.

But indigenous cultures do not see the world in such dualistic terms. Indigenous people who still follow their ancient traditions see the world as a multiplicity, not a duality. The Western World cannot understand that. We immediately label anyone who appears to have more than one divine element to their cosmology as polytheistic and question how is it that many gods can rule the universe? If an indigenous person (or someone even from the East) really understood the question from the Western viewpoint and then restated it from his own, he would say, ‘Ok, how can a father, son, and holy ghost run the universe, and don’t get me started on Mother Mary and all those others…’ But the definition provided by the dominant rationalism (that of the West) becomes the accepted norm.

To the indigenous, and I’m sure to Lao Tzu, there is no black and white, just multiple shades of black, grey, and white. If we look at the Yin-Yang symbol for example, we see it as a representation of duality. But we don’t stop to think that it is a symbol of motion, and one becomes the other. In fact, in the front center of the white, is a black circle. And in the front center of the black is a white circle. Taoism, you see, grew out of the ancient animistic cults of Eastern Central Asia. If you look at the Folk Taoism as it exists in China, Taiwan, and among Chinese communities today, you find the same animistic multiplicity that you find in the folk beliefs of Korea and the Shintoism of Japan.

The hunter gatherer societies and the early planter societies had a natural healthy outlook of the universe. Their goal in life was to preserve or bring about a harmony between all the different aspects of the universe. Such an outward view would be reflected inward as well, with a well-rounded naturally healthy, or as we would say today, a wholistic psyche. It took many years of denial before anthropologists would finally admit it, but the hunter-gatherer cultures who are left alone to their own devices are probably the happiest people on earth.

However as planter cultures evolved, and the group ethic became more significant to their survival, institutions (including religion) developed, rules became codified, and the need to conform to the group more pronounced. The impact upon the human psyche was to place more stress on primarily two elements of the human psyche: the ego, and the shadow. Through this process the ego associated more with the rational and objectivistic (or male) side of the human mind. The intuitive and subjective (or feminine) side of the mind was largely left to the unconscious. The ego is basically a filter that pushes all the non-essential perceptions, and stimulus from our senses, conscious mind, and our unconscious, back into our unconscious while allowing the essentials to stay in our conscious mind---this is to perpetuate a continuity of self. As the ego tries to conform the individual to its perception of role models, codes, and so forth, it determines that certain beliefs, ideas, actions, and the like are not desirable, and therefore repressed into what it sees as a dark place in the subconscious, i.e. the shadow.

The shadow holds those things that viewed from the perspective of the ego, makes us especially angry and upset. The ego says: these are bad. The ego denies that they represent any aspect of ourselves, but secretly it knows that they are an aspect of us, because it tucked those things away. This is why they can evoke strong emotions. (For example, and I think this is funny, ask a teenager about incest and see his or her reaction. Obviously something probably naïve and innocent from a very young age, pushed anything connected to intimacy with an immediate family member into the shadow. Those kids who are more vocal, probably had some thoughts or actions that were not so naïve pushed into the shadow). The more deeply repressed such things become the more violently they may erupt even without us knowing. This is why a very vindictive person typically does not see him or herself as vindictive.

According to Jung, all humans have shadows. But if you consider the changes that took place as man moved into villages and took up planting, you can see that the ego-shadow development would surely become more pronounced. Suddenly people had to work together and develop a new group ethic to survive. Previously a single man could go out and hunt and be able to feed his family and possibly a few neighbors, or even women that would exchange sexual favors with him. Now it took a whole village to work together to not only feed the families, but to produce a surplus that would last when the fields were not producing. This included a group of people that were working hard to assure that the goddess or gods were happy enough to bring good weather, and those to guard the granaries, and those to build the village, and to arbitrate disputes, make laws, and so forth…

During the earlier planter stages, when much of human culture worshipped the source of fertility, the goddess, the feminine or intuitive aspect of the psyche still dominated. Jungian psychologists such as, Erich Neuman, have pointed out that under the goddess, there was not such a black and white distinction. But as the masculine or rational aspect of the psyche rose, man began to see more of a black and white universe. This accompanies the rise of writing, particularly with the alphabet. Such writing systems shape man’s thinking and language into a linear structure, such as a + b = c, instead of a non-linear structure, such as ‘c is a & b.’ A linear structure is therefore more rational and objectivistic.

The male gods, including Yahweh (I’m not going to look up the spelling, but you know who I mean) were originally consorts of the goddess. As man became more objectivistic, rational, linear, in his thinking, and institutionalized in his societies they typically rose to power, forming the dominant sky-father. I believe that the ego, as it sought to conform man into what it saw as right---the ‘good’---and as part of the rational-objectivistic side of his psyche, rose in prominence to the psyche as a whole; as did it’s counterpart in the unconscious, the shadow (the bad). This makes sense in that the more active the ego becomes in its purpose of conforming, the bigger the shadow becomes with repressed elements from the ego.

The biblical book of genesis is a great account of this rise of the ego-shadow duality. For example, you have the Golden Age paradise, which is clearly a description of the hunter-gatherer and his/her animistic relationship to the universe and all life within it. More significantly, you have the universal motif of the Tree of Life/World Tree/axis mundi that you find in every known culture on earth. However, in a very unique way, Genesis splits the tree into two: The Tree of Life (ego ideal/good/masculine/god) and the Tree of knowledge (shadow/evil/feminine/goddess). This was written by a Semitic group that had rebelled against the Goddess (Asher in particular), and therefore wrote from a male-oriented focus that the fertility and carnal knowledge provided by the Tree of Knowledge was bad (hence repressed into the shadow). But it was the knowledge that enabled man to be able to now create life on his own (i.e. agriculture and animal husbandry) and thus be like a god himself. But from the male-based perspective the knowledge, and even the serpent (a goddess motif) was evil. The Tree of Life was taken away from man as he was thrown from the garden---because it represents the ego-ideal, that which man has to become ‘good enough,’ to attain (i.e. man has to attain the ego-ideal).

This duality, which is found clear across post-goddess Western thought, not just the Biblical source, has defined our world view ever since. In fact it easily becomes a characteristic of any culture that has developed the typical institutions we associate with a state. In the eastern philosophies, as mentioned earlier, you see it as the karmic reality of the universe of illusion we live in. The deep connection to mysticism that the eastern philosophies have maintained, clearly contributes to a continuing understanding of the universe wherein the duality does not become all consuming. I believe that the inability of the early Indo-European (Aryan) culture with its sky father, to wipe out the Dravidian Goddess culture of Mother India also enabled Eastern philosophy to avoid over-emphasizing duality.

You can also see a definite evidence of a dualistic understanding in the Mayan and Aztec cultures, which had evolved state-sponsored institutions. For example, you see this same ego-shadow duality between Quetzalcoatl and Tezcatlipoca.

We can see the very early stages of this same kind of institutional development in North America: in the southern regions where agriculture dominated, you will find a more group-oriented spirituality with a richer structure of rituality, as opposed to a more hunter-gatherer lifestyle on the plains with a stronger emphasis on the individual and his/her relationship with the spirit. For example, the kiva in the South West not only replaced the sweat lodge, as a spiritual center, but became a center for a more formalized or structured ceremonial worship. Though I would argue that the spirituality of the South West does not yet represent the fully formed institution of religion, complete with its dogmas and codes and other such trappings. More importantly, the duality, like that of most indigenous people, is rather benign, with the innocent motif of the twins. After all, everyone has an ego and a shadow.

I would also argue that Taoism, like Japanese Shintoism, is more of a spirituality than an organized religion. As stated earlier, they both tie directly back to the animistic traditions that gave birth to them. It may have been the importation of Buddhism, which provided a non-threatening structured institution to China that allowed Taoism to remain the non-dogmatic pseudo-religion that it is. When Buddhism was introduced into Japan, Shinto remodeled itself into the pseudo-religion that it is today, copying the trappings of the institution, without ever needing to become an established institution.

So how does that relate to good and evil in a Taoist perspective?

This duality that exists because of the inflated ego-shadow aspect of the psyche is a perspective that grew out of the institutions of civilization. It does not represent a holistic sense of our true psyche. It is a hindrance to, what Carl Jung called, individualization—the process of becoming a complete individual. This concept of duality between ego (good)/shadow (evil) is so strong that even Freud felt that the unconscious mind was filled with all kinds of evils and sexual perversions. It took Jung’s breaking away from Freud for him to discover that the unconscious mind was filled with all kinds of aspects and complexes outside of the shadow. (Coincidentally, the ego, which presents the psyche with the ideal of good, is actually dishonest in that it denies the existence of the shadow to the psyche. The shadow on the other hand, merely is what it is, and its contents only present problems to the extent that they have been repressed into the unconscious by the ego).

Indigenous people view reality as a multiplicity, not as a duality. Hence the polytheistic nature of folk-Taoism (again, polytheism as defined by a dualistic based Western philosophy). While civilized man with is inflated ego-shadow complex may see this multiplicity as a result of vestigial folk superstitions left over from man’s ‘primitive’ existence, the fact is that it provides a much more healthy and far more natural view of the psyche. Remember that how we view the world around us reflects the inner workings of our psyche.

Good can never win over evil, because the ego can never destroy the shadow. The harder it tries (i.e. the deeper the shadow elements are repressed) the more evil it becomes. Just think of how all the evil psychotics in movies, like Psycho, are nothing more than (in their eyes) perfect little boys in the eyes of their own demented concept of their mothers. The only way to resolve the conflict between the ego and the shadow (good and evil) is to face the contents of the shadow, understand it, and thereby assimilate it back into the psyche. The ultimate result of deflating the ego and shadow, is a return to a multiplicity where the various archetypes and complexes of the unconscious, including the shadow, all play their part along with the conscious mind and its ego—a holistic individual representing a harmonious psyche.

And this is the goal of indigenous man and Taoist alike: achieving harmony with all the elements of the universe. This is the only thing we could consider a universal good, but as a non-dualistic good, and therefore not definable as good, it could be known as nothing more than----natural; or perhaps: The Way.

 

there would be precisely as much good without evil as with. evil being totally needless and serving no useful purpose. of course there is only one thing that evil is, though that can be named and described in various ways. primarily it is tyranny, which is the dominance of aggressiveness, regardless of ideology, economics, or belief, or any other excuse for it for that matter.

i may have misread the question.
without the concept of good there would still be benefit and harm. if one defines evil as the absence of good, then without good there would only be evil. this latter makes less sense to me however. i do not know how ONLY evil could exist. if only evil were done, we would soon not be there to do it, and if no one were there to do it, how would it be done?

even if there were only spirits and they were doing evil only, i suppose that might be possible, but i still don't find it convincing.
good and evil are not things that exist other then by being done. if no one were doing them, would even the words exist?

physically living people on some other worlds would face the same dilemma.

 

I didn't read any of the other posts but I think that evil would turn into "it". "Evil" implies that there is something "good" you can do. I believe that without the contrasting way of acting that "evil" would either 1 become "it" or 2 quickly loose it's purpose and meaning. I could be completely wrong. I've talked to people about this subject and there have been quite good arguements.

 

I have followed Buddhism and a little Taoism for a while and this is hitting on something that my western mind has trouble with.

This thread seems generic and theoretical to me. My impression is that these religions are totally about LIVING NOW. I get that. BUT... I can't get beyond that there ARE things which seem evil to me... Rape and abuse, especially of children, seems particularly evil. There is a deep part of me that does not want to in any way minimize or excuse these kinds of acts.

Thoughts? Suggestions?

 

The good/evil thing can be taken too literally... defining evil is not as easy as defining good.
Of course no one wants to excuse or minimize obvious aberrant behavior that causes suffering, however I don't believe any sentient being can be purely evil and I believe Its not impossible for any being to redeem themselves...

I like better Taoist sayings "possessions create thieves" and "dissonance gives rise to harmony", "Dark supports light", "silence is only absence of sound"...you get the idea

It's yer basic yin/yang stuff...


ZW

 

i think silence is a sound.it's the sound of silence.

 

True dead silence is very uncomfortable.

I've been inside an 'anechoic chamber' where sounds cannot enter and the sounds you make do not reflect back at you...you own voice sounds stuffy and inside your hear like if you plug your ears and talk. It kind of feels like when you get off a plane and your ears are plugged up.

Unless created artificially, there is almost nowhere on earth that is completely silent, there is always that tiniest bit of ambient, and/ or reflected sound ... that is really what defines how quiet you perceive a particular environment.
Just the right amount of pleasant ambient 'noise' makes the most sublime silence :daisy:

 

thanks for the link wolf.i was just checkin' out them chambers.some are as big as hangers.you were very brave to go into one of them.what with the radiation risk plus you could have got trapped inside.i'd say the reason you noticed your voice sounded stuffy an your ears plugged was more because of your hightened awareness of them in the silence.i find it very interseting whenever i see a few people in a room together and suddenly no one is talking.and everyone starts looking uncomfortable,because they dont like the sound of silence.it also very interesting how people who like the sound of silence when theres no other people,but yet feel so uncomfortable in the first thing i explained to you.its like they dont think its ok,just to be!i never feel uncomfortable like that.ya,i understand what your saying though bout how there is no where on earth completely silent.but there is inside peoples souls.where no matter whats going on the outside, how a persons soul still feels a comfortable silence inside themselves.its a lovely peaceful serene feeling to.that kind of sound of silence is the nicest one

 

No, It's because when there is no reflected sound very little of the sound of your voice reaches your ears, you mostly hear just the resonance of your vocal chords transmitted through your skull and to the timpanic membrane.

plug your ears and talk... thats pretty close to what it feels like in an Anechoic chamber. you end up yawning and moving your jaw in that way trying to get your ears to unplug and it doesn't work.

But I like the rest of what you said and I think its mostly true...lots of people are uncomfortable with silence, they reach for the Ipod or turn on the TV or something because without constant sound at a certain volume they are nervous and uncomfortable..

Myself I seek silence whenever I can.

'cept for a moderate case of Tinnitus, I'm very comfortable with silence when I can find it. It's a very rare and precious thing these days it seems.

ZW

 

i did it wolf.stuck my fingers in my ears and talked.i could hear a sound in my eardrums like an airport.like a plane crawling down a runway.an ya you have ta get the plugged feeling unplugged again.ya,lots of people are uncomfortable with silence.thats a pity cos they are missing out on the joys of it.i must do some research on that subject.its good you enjoy silence.it also means you feel very comfortable within yourself. and ya, it seems it is a very rare and precious gift to have.not something to take for granted ever. a friend of mine has that tinnitus.it can be very irritating for him.but at least its moderate for you.hopefully someday there will be more that can be helpful for it.there dose'nt seem ta be much they can do for it presently

 

I found a spot on earth that is completely silent--and I love it. I am deep in some limestone caverns, and it is completely silent. Not a sound at all... ...wait a minute----no----there is a dripping noise... ...like a faucet!

Where is that coming from? It's just a constant drip...drip...drip...

Oh man! It won't stop!! I've got to find it... ...this is driving me crazy!!!

STOP!! GET ME OUT OF HERE!!! IT WON'T STOP!! THIS IS DRIVING ME CRAZY!!!!!


Sorry-----I couldn't help it. Actually I dig silence too. But the most quiet place I have ever been is on top of a 14,000 foot peak on an odd day when there was very little to no wind. Silence does not bother me, unless it happens to come on suddenly, with very dark clouds overhead---then I feel both a sense of curiosity and a bit of fear. I am speaking of the odd silence that comes on before a tornado. It cannot be a complete silence either, but it is the kind of situation where the sounds of nature that you never hear or pay attention to suddenly stop, and thereby create an awareness of silence.

 

If we lived in a world without evil and only knew good then our perception of what's good would be equivalent to what we perceive now as neutral. There will be no down therefore an up wouldn't exist. I'd imagine it to be quite boring. It reminds me of the Twilight Zone Episode: The Number 12 Looks Just Like You. Where society has become so consumed in beauty they advance science to make everyone look the same which in turn makes beauty obsolete.


"Be the change you want to see in the world."

 

there will always be evil.but good will always win over it,cos its a way more powerful.

 

Of course there can be good without evil. There is no logical contradiction in imagining a world where only good things occur. There would simply be no need for the word 'good'. It is the same as dark and light. Of course you can have darkness without light, or light without dark, there would simply be no need for the words 'dark' and 'light' respectively. Do not mistake the map for the territory.

 

Positive and negative are two sides of the same coin. What separates them is only potential, the potential of positive to become negative, and that of the negative to become positive. They balance each other, but are always in flux.
So while it may seem at times as if there is too much "evil" (negative) in the world, Taoists believe all things in nature seek a balance.
There can never be too much negative, there is always just the right amount.

 

evil only exists in the sense that there are things everyone would be better off if no one did them. every form of prejudice is one of them. as is thoughtlessness.

 

Man rereadin' this thread brings back memories. @McFuddy you recall this rather long & protracted discussion? If so have your views changed at all in these seven years?