Behold the great dualities of man, good and evil, right and wrong, pure and impure. All are the same and all exist as one.
There is no seperate halves and there exists no difference of identity.
The hero cannot exist without the villain.
The villainous man cannot exist without an adversary.
The man of law cannot exist without the lawless.
The rebellious cannot exist without somthing to rebel against.
Both constantly need each other and thrive by each other’s presence.
Both survive by tearing away at each other in a never ending drama of fury.
The great theatres where the virtuous play the role of heros is built upon the acts of the wicked.
Why is it that those who would describe themselves as the “good” or “righteous” feel compelled to destroy and annihilate the very thing that gives them life to their very existence?
If the so called “good” ever achieve their goals, will they not suffocate themselves in their idealized constructed dreamworld with noone to battle against?
Truely the “good” needs the “evil” will and vice versa. They are one and the same.
I don’t think man needs ‘evil’. It does although help define humanties faults and attributes. Our existence does require the bitter and sweet of life to give a better perspective of what is important. Dualities exist on almost every level of life. If ‘evil’ is thought to be needed, I would think this would stem from jealousy, avarice, boredom and other negative misanthropic notions. It would be nice to evolve into something where that word would never need defintion.
i was pondering the idea of duality earlier today… a possible objection is that 2 of the extremes in question could be rated both from the stating point of indifference.
[-----------desire to inflict pain------------][–indifference–][---------desire to reduce pain----------]
i have not yet concluded but i thought i would throw it out there
I read, cogitate and glean what I deem necessary to fit my criteria for learning. I suppose it wouldn’t do any good to ask if you’ve learned anything from my reply?
I should have said ‘evil’ does describe the dark side of humanity.
No, I stand by my first assessment…‘evil’ is not needed.
Well, we apparently have different views of what is needed, so let’s just consider it a exchange of ideas to which we both can ponder.
I like your model of indifference, but I don’t like the concept of ‘pain’ in there. Nobody likes pain or likes to inflict it. I think people are just driven by selfish impulses and any ‘pain’ they might cause are secondary. That’s why criminals always say they are innocent–they do not see themselves as inflicting pain, or they don’t care.
Perhaps if you replace ‘pain’ with ‘be selfish versus selfless’??
If I understand it right, matter can not be destroyed, only changed. A pile of wood when set on fire leaves ash, while the rest goes up in smoke. The weight of the original mass wasn’t destroyed, only changed from the combustion that occured. The universe is in a constant state of flux, only the mass remains the same. Change is necessary sometimes, but some things need to remain the same. I prefer to look at as change, not destruction.
Even change is the transformation of the old into the new. Transformation requires many destructive elements and principles.
I still say that you cannot have creation without destruction. Even the shooting gallery that is our violent cosmos requires destruction of whole planets ands stars to bring life into the balance.