Despite the fact that my thoughts on this topic haven’t coalesced into anything resembling a narrative, I decided to offer them in the form of a bullet list — mostly as a tool to get them “out” so I can come back to them later, and check them out after the fog has lifted some more…
- when people use the word “evil”, it seems mostly aimed at the intentions of other people and the outcomes that the actions of those other people bring about; for example, I have heard the word mentioned in the context of describing the war in Ukraine
- one of the markers (or the marker ?) of evil seems to be the notion of being in opposition to life, making life (unnecessarily) difficult, unpleasant, hostile, painful, and/or causing destruction and death
- at the same time it seems that people really only apply the word (evil) to events (observable outcomes) if the inferred cause is at the very least alive, and generally really if the causing agent is a human being or a group of human beings — nature itself can be cruel, but is not considered evil, which applies to the non-living aspects of nature (such as a volcano erupting and destroying a large number of human dwellings), but also wild animals that can harm people
- using the word “evil” seems to stem from a deeply rooted need (or at least habit) of wanting to — if not having to — explain to one-self why people do the things they do
- as this (reverse) inference process fails — that is the reasoning behind people’s actions can no longer be deduced with sufficient experienced accuracy (the feeling that one “got it”) — and there are noticeable effects the person attempting the inference thinks of as negative (the above mentioned pain, for instance), humans seem to get stuck in thinking of the person (or group of people) acting in this way as either ignorant (foolish, lacking wisdom) or, well, “evil”
- part of the stuck-ness of this thought (“the other person is evil”) comes about precisely because of the need of being certain about the other person’s intentions (to be able to respond to their behavior); one has an implicit need to “feel” one is correct in perceiving others’ intentions, so as to respond to them appropriately, but failing to infer intentions leaves people with no other option as to think of them as “evil”
- in short, the word evil seems to be applied as a mental catch-all for the experience of bad outcomes in the absence of sufficient explanation for why another human would be bringing them about, given that all available hypothetical reasons are insufficient in covering the gap that opens up in “rational cost/benefit analysis” (of some kind)
- as an aside… the corrective process for (or rather against) people acting out of ignorance is likely to be an educational intervention — that is, if one assumes a lack of insight or wisdom on the part of the person acting (that produces bad outcomes), one is likely to seek to educate those people, in order to change their minds
- the corrective process against people acting “evilly” on the other hand is either punishment — in the hope that sufficient punishment will work as a deterrence of future evil acts — or using force to prevent the person from acting in evil ways, up to and including eliminating (terminating or killing) the people acting in this manner
- I hope that until this point, I have mostly laid out what might be described as fairly “commonsense” propositions about evil; and now comes the kicker…
- given that “evil” actions come out of living organisms, evil would then be have to be considered “part of life”
- when I attempt to conceive of what this means, I usually end up along the following trajectory: life is the process that harnesses “rare, free energy” (conditions of scarcity) into a self-directed force
- this process will, over time, become incredibly skilled at “not wasting energy”
- in other words, its actions (the way the forces are applied) will be optimally calibrated to achieve its goals (growth, the collection of further resources, the exploration of and engaging in reality, the expression of curiosity and creativity, etc.) in a way that is sustainable (not self-terminating) and, as much as possible, pattern-repeatable — i.e., new ways of engaging reality are tested early on for their potential to become “learned behavior”, if they allow the living agent to pass on its learning to future instantiations of the same process (evolution of behavior and manifestation through selection of the patterns that “work”)
- “evil actions” thus seem to be an evolved behavior
- here are a few more additional thoughts I sense are related, as they can help guide my own decision making in situations in which I am tempted to apply the “evil” label to a person’s intentions…
- a test one can apply as to whether an observed process (causal chain of input and output events, typically a complex process that contains feedback loops) is “alive” is to observe how the process responds to external pressure — i.e., an attempt to intervene in the process’s seeming success in achieving certain goals
- if the process adapts and, almost no matter what one does to stop it, regains the ability to achieve similar (if not identical) goals, I would consider it as “alive”
- this means that the achieved outcome is either an implicitly or explicitly held “goal” of the agents implementing the (life) process, coded in the internal representations of the agents acting in such a manner
- related to the idea of the two corrective processes (in the face of either ignorance or evil intentions), presuming “evil intent” then seems insufficient — the reasoning being that if there is a part of life (an alive process) that pushes back (successfully, and with a force or skill apparently greater than the force being applied to quash it), it must be reckoned with in other ways than by applying the label of either ignorance or evil
- in particular, this can be applied in pretty much any context in which two opposing sides (made up of living agents, typically human beings) seem to see each other as “evil” — such as in many political struggles these days
- the extent to which each side is able to “come back” from the pressures the respective other side applies (in an attempt to quash it) ought to be a clear signal that the reason for the conflict goes well beyond “bad intentions”
- instead, the corrective process that suggests itself to my mind is that of integration, which goes through roughly these stages:
- respect of the other side as “alive” — which I would consider as the recognition that whatever the agent or agents on the side I began thinking of as evil attempts to achieve is significantly linked to the goal representations manifest in the agent(s), which is providing the necessary force and skill to evade the interventional force applied, and then regroup
- curiosity about the other side’s intentions — without a genuine desire to know what the precise goal representations are, and how they allow the other side to achieve their goals, it is impossible to find constructive ways to move past the conflict, all one can do is further escalate and risk ever greater (unintended but partly foreseeable) destruction of the environment in which the “battle” ensues
- appreciation for the “goodness” of the ultimate goals of life itself (successful re-instantiation of the life process), albeit with (initially chosen) strategies and means that one cannot consider “good”
- deep understanding and, ultimately, integration of whatever parts of the other side’s representation were missing from one’s own (initial) understanding, so that — going forward — both sides can pursue their goals in increased harmony
- several past applications of this pattern (of initial conflict, a lengthy period of painful experimentation with the difference, but ultimate and successful integration) come to mind, one of the most significant (in terms of scale) for me being the Constitution of the United States of America — a document that seems full of recognition of the differences with which people pursue their goals, and attempting to codify (or at least outline) a process by which integration can be achieved, coming with important reminders:
- no-one ought to be given or living under the impression that “believing one has the right approach gives permission or ability to quash those who believe otherwise” (for instance by mandating the government to respect the freedom of speech)
- i.e., every person ought to be free to express their most cherished (religiously held) beliefs, in recognition of the fact that those beliefs are often (always?) tied to the most deeply held convictions manifest in any given organism that translates this organism’s “goals of life” to its choice of how to pursue those goals
- enshrining the right of individuals to defend themselves from and against (organized) attempts of precisely this kind of useless approach of meeting the parts of life one doesn’t understand with the idea of “they are evil” (bearing and using arms, especially against “a government” or people who claim to have the appropriate authority to attempt the quashing of evil)
- preventing the government from using tactics that would stop individuals from keeping private their inner processes that allow self-development (acknowledging the risks this entails! i.e., ensuring people have an expectation that the privacy of their thoughts and their homes will not be touched)
- instituting “due process” (between individuals) and “republican government” as the “option representing the least-poor-choice” when people do (inevitably) get into conflict and integration of intentions that are easily considered “evil” cannot be achieved (at the time)
- unfortunately, it seems to me that much of public discussion these days moves further and further away from integration — the process outlined above, requiring respect, curiosity, appreciation, understanding, and ultimately combination of the elements that seem initially in conflict
- instead, we are moving towards an ever more strongly held position of “I have the correct viewpoint, and everyone who disagrees with me must be either ignorant or evil”
- this process itself — the pattern by which life harnesses ever greater force on two opposing sides of a conflict in an attempt of “forced reconciliation” — is also part of life
- what stands and navigates between (what I currently perceive!) as the two broad potential outcomes (resolution via integration or the energy harnessed in the conflict leading to an explosion) is wisdom and the recognition of having and then accepting choice
- if the people engaged in the conflict can see that they must either complete the escalation cycle beyond the point at which the environment (in which the conflict occurs) changes (likely dramatically and in then unforeseeable ways) as a consequence of the (immense) force being released at the end of the escalation (in a sort of explosion) or they can recognize the situation for what it is and seek “wise integration”, then they can choose the latter path
- I wish I knew how much of a critical mass of people living with that recognition is necessary to prevent the escalation cycle/pattern from leading to an explosion — which in our current situation could truly make our planet uninhabitable for humans for a while
- if we don’t make it, I hope someone will (in a future iteration of the process) be able to decipher at least some artifacts from our present attempt, giving them some clues as to what happens when one is unwilling to accept that “evil” is also part of life