Your efforts to define good and evil away into relative voidism
are sophomoric at best.

     Take white and black, love and hate, pain and pleasure.

     I think most will find these not so relative.

    Yes people can get inverted and take pleasure from pain,
but this does not change the fact that pleasure is pleasure and pain
is pain.
     Also different will people will take pleasure from different
things, but again the experience of pleasure remains desirable and the
same across all beings at all times, and the same with pain.

     What pain and pleasure are connected to may be arbitrary, but
their experience and desirability are not.
     Ron was a bit confused on this subject as well, he said that
beauty and ugly were basically arbitrary considerations, but that the
being was basically good.  Why would good and bad be any more absolute
than beauty and ugly?

     He defines in 8-8008 very clearly that beauty and ugly are
harmonies and disharmonies in wave lengths which are mathematical
concepts, along the lines of 2 and 4 are harmonies, but 2 and 4.177
are not.

     Not a lot of room for relative truth there.

    Again different beings will find different things disharmonious
to their basic goals.  

    Harmonies and disharmonies result from two things in relation,
in this case something else in relation to the being's prime goals.

    A tree planter will find a park a harmony but a parking lot a
disharmony.  A tar maker will find the parking lot a harmony and
the park a disharmony.
     Good and evil are more difficult, but are analyzable in terms of
intent.  Specially beneficient intent or mal intent.

     Now we have two sides to this, the intent of the eater and the
intent of the eaten.  Each wants to eat the other and each wants to
not be eaten, but neither wants to HURT the other.  If I could eat you
and not hurt you or cause you pain that would be preferable, because I
am good inside, and even though I need to eat you to survive or else I
suffer pain, I don't want to cause you pain in the process, any more
than I want to be caused pain when you eat me.

     Evil wants to cause you pain, period.  Got nothing to do with
needing to eat you in order to survive.

     Goodness in fact probably finds the whole 'survival' arena to be
itself designed by an evil being, because goodness is forced to choose
between its own pain and the pain of others, a choice it makes but

     Now one can ask, does evil get pleasure from your pain?  Its one
thing to get pleasure from your meat, quite another to get pleasure
from your pain, you see?

     Wouldn't it be preferable to have beings who got pleasure from
your pleasure?  You see that leads to a cooperativeness, a 'one for
all and all for one'.  We form strong groups from that.

     Evil will just as soon as feed on its own kind as the good, there
is no trust, union, cooperation, or group consciousness.  The evil may
band together with other evil to better be able to suck blood, but
they will turn on each other at every opportunity whether they need to
or not.
     So there is a fundamental question, why would a being enjoy
another being's pain, aside from revenge etc?

     Usually good runs into another causing him pain accidentally,
conceives that the other is evil, and then takes to being evil
himself in revenge.  Thus the lust for pain between people.
     The good person tends to go into the valence of what beats it,
whether its being eaten or the physical universe at large.  Most
psychos are in the valence of MEST, dead, careless, brings death to
everything without consideration.
     As the good starts to lose to such wipe sweeping death, it loses
its sense of nobility and finally gives up and goes into the valence
of its worst enemy, that which it couldn't wrap its wits around.
     "No being will aspire to a level of nobility higher than that
of the universe it considers made it."
     "The wages of death (failure) is sin."
     "All the bad people that good people fight, are good people who
have given up the fight" - Adore.

     We see in ourselves that we enjoy pleasure in our selves
and others, we cringe and hate to have anything in pain, even those
things that hurt us.  We just want those to not exist.

     So when we run into something whose prime postulate is to cause
pain we rightly consider that they are different from us, they are evil
we are not.  Its not a relative definition, its absolute.

     Either your prime postulate is towards pleasure for all, or its
towards pleasure for me and pain for everyone else.

     When good runs into a being whose prime postulate is pain for ALL,
including itself, the good really freaks out.
     Certainty something is true, certainty something is impossible.
     When good people run into evil people, this messes with their
prime postulate, because now the good can't seek 'pleasure for all',
as that translates into pain for all in the evil being.  That presents
a problem.
     When good people run into an evil being whose prime postulate
is pain for Self too, they can't compute it at all.  Good can't stand
anything in pain, even those who want it, because good want to be
WITH other life forms, not separated from them.  You can't be with
something that hurts with out feeling their pain ourself.

     Of course one way to make such an evil person suffer is give
it pleasure!  Owwww....!
     Anyhow Adore points out that virtue for the creator is not virtue
for the creature.  Since the being IS the creator that then becomes
the creature in Adore's world view, the being as Author/Creator
creates stories of good and evil, harmony and disharmony, etc and then
jumps into the various roles.

     So who or what would equally chose to become a good character or
an evil character in a story?

     A *DIVINE* being.

     Divinity then is the non dichotomous creative force that creates
grand tapestries of dichotomies to then engage in.

     That's why we clear being with non recrimination, any role they
were playing was equally culpable to any other role anyone else might
be playing, for 'all chose that all should choose'.
Phil Scott ( wrote:

>The notion that a person is dichotomous, that is as much good 
>as evil etc. is in error, if not destructively bogus.

>Why?   Because it puts the individual out of context with 'all 
>that is'.. into word constructs and notions.... and ones own 
>very limited viewpoint....those in themselves confine and 
>pervert the individual .... regardless what the words and 
>notions are.

>But the cage...confined these symbologies can be 
>useful.. so much so that some come to appreciate and nurture 
>their cage,, buy chrome hub caps, get big teeth... 
>a dick extension.

>As soon as you define right or wrong or good or evil you are 
>defining it in the context of a specific situation.   For 
>instance what might be good for the snake is not always good 
>for the mouse.... thats from a single perspective.

>If we consider the mouse getting eaten as bad from the mouse 

>And of course the mouse getting eaten is good from the snake 

>However on the broader spectrum there is the need for micies 
>to stay sharp...the dull ones get to be snake food... this 
>insures the survival of the mouse species.

>So you see, it was good that the fat-ass, half diabetic mouse 
>became snake food.   Progress.  A hundred precent good thing 
>from both the mouse species and snake perspectives....

>Just as domesticated dolphins forget how to hunt and cannot 
>thereafter survive in the wild, it is hunger and sometimes 
>starvation that turns them into hunters and killers of sharks 
>in the wild .... and perpetuates them and their species.


>So are there any absolutes one can cling to and benefit vastly 
>thereby?      Oh yes.


>Especially as one comes to understand that he or she has seen 
>virtually none of it.   Thats valuable.  It allows a person to 
>detach from all of the bogus and confining structures we find 
>so miserable and fatal in the end.

>When one manages to fathom that he has virtually no actual 
>clue, at least a clue frameable in words, then he or she can 
>let go of the biased spin, blind and twisted garbage...

>.....whats left is Life itself.    The experience is not 
>frameable in words of course.    Like an exhilaration.. its 
>experienced.  you cannot impart that by jabbering about it.

>Will such attainment make you a better used car salesman?
>That entire question and issue as I see it is emphatically and 
>firmly on the road south as is all culture wedded to the 
>material construct.  It's temporal you see.

>Calling it a 'game to play' is doubly corrupt.  It would be 
>like convincing a stunning young lady, innocent in the ways of 
>the world, that she could have fun and make money being a 
>whore at the bus depot...because 'its just a game'...and she 
>could be well off, and have nice things.

>It isn't just a game.  Now matter how successfully it can be 
>defined that way.

>Beyond these degradations is actuality.
>Compromise into the 'game' simply takes you farther and 
>farther away ...its the road south.    And it can end there as 
>well imo.

>In that context then is there benefit in teaching a person to 
>'play the game'?

>Not actually.   Skill in those areas is a total liability, 
>founding an utter disaster in an 800 dollar suit.   thats not 
>success actually.  It is the 180 degree oposite.  It is only 
>success in one tiny microcosm of some idiots 'reality'.

>Its possible to play it straight and do limitlessly better 
>than very well across the spectrums of what actually matters 
>with Life.

>Phil Scott

Homer Wilson Smith     The Paths of Lovers    Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF        Cross            Internet Access, Ithaca NY    In the Line of Duty

Tue Sep 13 23:05:13 EDT 2005