Despite 'Evil's' subjectivity there is an underlying structure that I believe I have uncovered .
Evil :
Strategy or situation becoming myopic selfishness with extreme ( malicious ) dogmatic tendencies driven by process or policy
TYPES (sub-sets)
Denial
- seams the most destructive type and can go unnoticed , Personality and process are expendable , denial of all , even to the point of denial of self . ( Dogmatic base).
Selfishness
- This type seams to be 'main stream' ; either process or personality become paramount ; it has an agenda and a lose strategy .(self or goal based)
Indifference
- usually the first step in the 'denial shift' ( myopic base )
'Evil' is fluid within theses boundaries . 'Evil' acts have a variation of the sub- sets within their basic 'structure'. Once 'it' is identified , if able ; 'evil' will shift to another sub -set in order to camouflage it's actions .
This structure can be found in any ones concept of 'evil'.
Identifying an element as 'evil' doesn't define 'why' it is so .
People often use the terms as a blanket statement without any universally accepted definition. 'They' refer to 'it' as a noun , adjective , entity , purpose ...it's all twisted .
'Evil' has not had any clear definition for a long time . Society has tried to grasp it's complexities : in the end ‘we’ still seam willing to accept shallow conclusions ; ignoring the bits that allow it's continual development .
A modern definition of it's structure is needed . I don't expect the masses to be aware of the concept I have developed here .
'Evil' is separate from 'bad' . Bad is a singularity , 'evil' is a chain of choices toward a goal , even if that goal is as simple as denial ; but 'evil' can be measured once there is a clear definition .
Good doesn't know it is 'evil' at times as well . If you understand that most charitable or any other organizations develop agendas ; like helping the homeless or defeating legislation . Strategy become myopic, full of selfishness with extreme dogmatic tendencies. Collateral damage becomes inevitable .
Since I think that 'evil' acts can be indirectly implemented and at times does not rely on personality , but process : I can not accept either ego or morals ( religion/ lack of) as an inhibitor of 'evil'.
Choice separate the 'ego' from ' evil ': you can not be what you do not know.
Ego must be aware of 'process' in order to create 'evil' . Ego can not be what it doesn't know .
Subjectivity of the 'process' and 'personality' is where ' evil' lies .
‘Myopic selfishness with extreme dogmatic tendencies’ , those words are very accurate in identifying potential for an 'evil' situation and seams to tidy up the lose ends and are kind of a 'red flag' that identifies a situation as having potential for one of 'evils sub -sets to emerge (or already have ).
Defining 'evil' isn't based on emotion; the ability to define 'evil' is in the sub -sets that I have outlined .
" Good and bad are two sides of every act , choice ; is that which connects them. They can never be separated , unlike what most religions claim........ all acts have a 'proactive' and 'destructive' consequence due to the level of dogmatic impetus : which dictate the level of 'free will' and 'determinism' in the outcome ." - Santi P
Agreed?
Then again , one would have to accept that 'evil' even exists. If one doesn't, can one be held accountable?
