On Good & Evil – old college essay

First before going much into treating the normal concept of evil, which is unequivocally connected in the Christian world to Satan, let us first recognize Satan, or the Archangel Lucifer, as what he really was. In the Old Testament of the Christian Holy Bible, in the book of Job, Satan receives his only mention in the Old Testament canon. In the story of Job he is never described as evil in any way or shape or form; he simply accused mankind of being selfish and likewise suggested that Job only loved God because God had made him so real. Then, in the New Testament, the concept of a devil appears before Jesus in the desert as Mara appeared before the Bodhi tree.

By the time Jesus Christ came into being, whether I believe in this or not is of relatively no consequence to the understanding of a universal good or evil, the concept of a devil came into being in Israel. This devil was considered to be the Serpent in the Garden of Eden, Lucifer, and Satan. In the Old Testament Lucifer is mentioned once; in Isaiah 14:12, and it means “the Morning Star.” If, in fact, anyone has read this chapter from beginning to end, and more especially verse four, it becomes apparent that the reference isn’t to a spiritual being, but instead the historical figure of the king of Babylon. In following fashion, there is a similar reference to Assyria. The talking serpent in the Garden of Eden was referred to as that and nothing more. Neither an angel cast from heaven nor a demon upwards thrown from chaos, as Milton calls it in Paradise Lost. Most of modern Christians get their concept of Satan as a rogue angel not from the bible, but in fact, from Paradise Lost.

In the Talmud and some works of Kaballah Satan is often called Samael though most in of the Jewish faith consider Samael to be a separate angel. In the Apocrypha and the New Testament Satan is portrayed as an evil rebellious demon who is the enemy of God and mankind. Though most people, from my observation and from what I’ve said earlier, have inadvertently shaped their opinions about the devil from Milton’s epic poem. In Islam the seducer of Adam and Eve is laid upon Iblis, though further elaboration regarding the creature is not given. In the Hebrew pantheon Satan is better understood as a force of opposition, such as Yin, than as an embodiment of evil and there is significant disagreement as to whether or not this creature embodies any sort of evil at all.

The seemingly innocent term was is countered by the most seminal of all words: is. In opposition of things that are there is a countering force of things that were. Was is the innocent term that will one day describe everything that now is. The was is in constant engagement of the is. This concept of is, in this context, represent the concrete, real, and degradable objects as the concept of was acts upon them. In this same context light creates dark, one begets two, long creates short, and easy creates hard if things are to be reckoned as interchangeable as per the teaching of the Tao Te Ching. The Tao, which is said to be that which is with shape and what is without, could be described simply as a coin encompassing is and was as the two produce one another. Just as one produces two, two produces three, and so on as the progression of all things. From nothing, or the was not, comes the something and the is.

Human beings are the most beautiful and dangerous of all natural disasters. For surely man, or all men, are born primarily the same creatures. They are shaped out of matter as clay pots are out of clay. We too, have characteristics akin to that of clay; we may shape into whatever it is that we might need to shape into – yet we still remain clay. At birth we are born and are the same as every other human being. As we grow, however, we are irrevocably shaped into other things; cups, vases, pitchers of water. Though at birth human beings inherit the prejudices of their environment and are endowed with the unfortunate opinions of those who impress upon them ideas at a very young age. At an impressionable age man, and during his early years – years two through twenty I would say, inherit many of the traits he spends the rest of his life trying to figure out. Human beings without civilization, still living and thriving in the jungles and living like animals, though this is not an insult at all, have and are endowed with the same mental capability as we are. Some people are disproportionately gifted in certain areas, true, but the baser instinct in each man is the same: survive, reproduce, and avoid being clever whenever possible.

Man certainly didn’t just appear out of dust and grit – man is created, by nature or whatever inherited piety might suggest, as a cake or as a singular decorative ball of sorts. Changes to the ball made throughout the course of the life time are superficial, with clothes and affectation, the first half is spent in acquiring bad habits and the second half spent trying to break and figure them out. These changes, though real, are superficial since man remains the same creature. The desire to survive is inherited, too; though this is not inherited by the social structure of man. It is inherited through nature or the baser structure of man: the animal. Though the social structure of man is designed, and carried out in civility, for the same reason that male deer buck horns. The social man was created to appease the natural desires of the baser man. By baser man, of course, I mean man stripped to his lowest primate instincts of reproduction and survival.

Good and evil are two different interpretations of an act that is neither. The validation of personal perceptions is what turns an action into right or wrong which is then weighed and validated by the perceiving mind or discarded by the man in perception. An act is an act is an act: there is no evil act initially for all beings are shaped by certain things, effect, supposition, intent, though not born with these guidelines they often adhere to, ideas, prejudice, supposition of ontological understanding, evil is the association by which the opposed used to label their actions, and validate their own supposed evil at the other’s misfortune with the thinly veiled shroud of enjoying the suffering of another human being. One man says yes to something and another man says no to the same thing: the validation of perception based on the epistemological senses. Everything acts on something or another: one idea creates another idea, and everything leads back to others. But there is no universal good act because an act is neither good nor evil: it is the intention behind the act of the person perceiving it based on social structure morality that discerns if it is of good or evil. Evil is in the heart of the opposed; actions indicate merely an outward suggestion of the thoughts of those acted upon: one action begets another, as man may do what he wills – he cannot control how he is. The big bang was the moment at which the first letter of all existence was written with which the last sigh of life shall dot the period. In this sense, we are the letters strong along. Though that is an extremely long sentence.

Therefore, to attribute an act of evil to a man is to attribute it to nothing more than his prejudicial endowment, or a pervasive will, and since we have no other way to explain it – we use god as the answer to the questions we can’t yet answer. Acts are benevolent; actions are products of endowment; good, or evil, is the attribution of intent to describe action. Man acts in accordance to his own set of derived ideas and morals in accordance with only what he by will is able to do by thought and expressed by actions. In this case, there is no good and there is no evil by action; rather the evil, or good, lies in the interpretation of the opposition. There are only actions: the concepts of good and the concepts of evil are based on learned prejudice and fear of the opposition. One act: two words to describe it. A man’s action is nothing but a representation of his personal endowment. There is no right or wrong; only personal conceptions of events that either validate another’s opinion or fact or one that challenges it which is always wrong. Truths, in this instance, and reality, have no bearing or say-so.

Through art this is impossible to say. Subtlety died a long-long time ago. The job of any philosopher is to make human nature easier to understand by making everything else insufferably more complicated and tedious. Changes to our ball, or core instinct or that invading conscious in control of this heap of bones and blood, are only superficial at the behest of the compulsion of other ideas giving birth to new ones upon impression. There are no changes to individual individuality when someone acts within the parameters of the way in which he’s willed. A pie cannot become a cake without proviso; without stipulations being added. Man is forever in the same place for the body is but a vessel, or home, to a recurring consciousness. Part of the eternal return to this transient world that Sri Krishna speaks of in the Bhagavad Gita. Man never goes anywhere; our primate body might wonder to and fro and back again but we, that little bitty glimmer of peculiar consciousness, remains in the same place it started. In our brittle little finite skull, trapping us into the delusion that a thought must exist somewhere in the universe as that is how we define the term sentient. Sentience gives way to other delusions and anxiety, hatred, and even malice. An animal unaware of self is unaware of treating himself with higher regard than he may consider his fellow creatures.

Consciousness, of all of life’s necessary evil, is the most insufferable. Nothing is worse than sitting opposite a clever man on a train. It’s better to be surrounded by people who have no capacity to prove you wrong. For a philosopher to wish not to be proved wrong would be a philosopher that refuses to go further and allow corrections and interpretations of their work and improvement if necessary. If an old philosophy is used as the basis for a new and sounder package of musings – then it keeps the spirit of the old and passes it. I don’t wish for people to accept as though I’m fully conscious of everything. I’m human and prone to as much folly as the next. Ask my ex-girlfriend. Or., as I called, a woman with whom I was fraternizing. To wish for your work not to be proved wrong is to wish for the field in which you focus your expertise to remain stuck on ideas that could be made better and more cogent with the reflections of a man with a different way of going about things and making the idea, of the person, more successful and more elaborate.

For each idea is the direct product of a central idea, or mother idea, that gives birth to a myriad of others. Anticipated perception of something largely impacts your thoughts on the matter at hand. If you feel like something is going to please you – it more than likely will. If you view something anticipating a specific response more than often it happens. Our ability to freely choose, in light of the unfortunate parental endowment, is subjected to learned modes of interpretations. As rocks are sifted through small screens by those out in California looking for gold. We do this with our mind; we try to sort out the rocks and find the valuable material – the gold.

Man’s actions are nothing more than outward manifestations of his endowment. A poor man that gives $100 to a charity is far kinder than a billionaire that gives $1000. And our choices, if eternally recurring, have already been played by the inner will that inside lurks waiting for the appropriate time to carry out pre-define parameters of personal character developed by social impressions and inherited illness and dénouement at the behest of institutionalized learning. I make no critique of institutionalized learning and I would not attempt to pursue others to consider these ideas as if they are perfectly right for anyone in particular. In a world where everybody sits about the twilight hours over old texts with their own fierce opinions – everything would be in terror. There’d be no governing sense of accepted ways, though maybe questionable from the anti-thesis side of the objections of Aristotle’s morality, and things would literally go to hell. Morality, in a very short and easily accessible sentence, is the product of a thought that when man act in accordance with accepted morality that he is moral. If he is moral purely out of the fear of being condemned then he is little more than a fool; for he is so sure of the next world that he forgets that this world suffers too.

In doing an act of good, a propos to evil, there is an act of preserving self interest in the act. Why would someone give a charity $1,000? Is it for the children or is it for the man to feel good about himself and all of his goodness? For those who commit suicide – or at least think of it – there is the concern of the ever beneficent friend there to tell them not to. Why? Because if that person committed suicide, the other person would be sad. That is not compassion for others; that is compassion for the preservation of self interest wrapped in a stained glass mirror of façade and self delusion of benevolence. But to some believing in falsity is absolutely necessary since reality can be a sharp knife. I have my own happy delusions; that I am an individual with individual thoughts. When, in fact, I sit around attempting to persuade others to at least consider my ideas when I’m skeptical too and welcome to correction, annotation, comments, anything. There is no barrier between me and any other human being: only the barrier that is created by endowed social attitudes impressed early in our years.

If the concept of eternal return, then, is held to be true – we are but recorded songs on a album waiting just up to the very tick-tock-tick for the manifestation of an instinctively, by DNA, programmed action of will within the pre-defined boundaries of the pervasive will that begets the one. It begets the mother idea, the whole, which creates the myriad of other ideas; then, through these worthless pebbles, ideas, or segments of ideas as reckoned in the human language, are weighed and then verified by the will of the person only the way in which he was made to be able to choose. A clay pot is still clay; made of clay and the same material over all.

To anything, sentient creatures, deities, and other unexplainable scapegoats of our depressing inability to understand everything, sufficiently greater than us might appear as compared to us as all-powerful gods. They would appear to us much in the same way as we do to squiggly little ants. To them we are all powerful because our world is so much bigger and we are infinitely stronger, more intelligent, and also more content in the ability to form abstract reasoning. We could take the life of these ants, destroy them with relative ease, anything; but just because we are so vastly superior doesn’t mean we’re gods of the ants. It means that we’re gods amongst creatures infinitely inferior to us. Surely that One, the whole which begot second, which begot third, seeing as how two can only come logically after the first utterance of one from which to proceed into the other numbers, might look at us as we do to ants. Small creatures of peculiarity but, as we would not intend ants to be our slaves, we would not need them to carry out our work. As a being larger in stature than our little universe, we must look like but specks from this ethereal view.

Whatever creator lies behind the evil, which is evil only to the opposition once a benevolent act has been made, also lies behind the good. Whatever created Gandhi created Stalin and Hitler as well. He who made the predator made prey. In the Tree of Transmigration, I described it as: He who made the wise-man made the fool. Both with equal pertinence, and due. He who made the lamb made goat – and then spilt before him those milky heavens falling freely as the wine befalls a glass clumsily from a silver table; shattering like the sun as dawn breaks. As William Blake in Tyger, Tyger, “Did he who made the lamb make thee?” Creating obviously the suggestion that whatever it is that’s behind the prey is behind the predator as well; each endowed from birth with a tiny glimmer, as little holes poked into a black carpet with light on the other side, of a peculiar and self-detrimental consciousness. So, god, for now, remains the best answer to every question we cannot answer and is necessary. God explains that which is unexplainable in one word. A tsunami hit and killed thousands. It was god. Nature writes the rules that god takes credit for. (Digitalis, Book III, Chapter VII)

It could also be summarily said that all of our pursuits are pursuits we found at the behest of sad destiny following us, or as Prince Siddhartha, The Buddha, says it: the effects of our actions follow behind us as a cart behind an ox. This doesn’t not necessarily say that good comes to good – but people are at the mercy of the own causes they project on other people and the causes acted on them by other people similarly acted upon by an idea, which lead to the creation of idea stems leading from the mother idea. The one which is split into Relative truth and Universal Truth. Our pursuits, as the effect of the causes inflicted by our pursuits, do follow us. And it could be described as an on-going desire to validate opinions that aren’t yours to begin with. We all forever fight the wars of our fathers and are endowed from birth their prejudices by consequence of their fault. We are all sons of our government and republic. The government itself is our father. War is the same thing as a father starting trouble with someone else’s dad and sending his sons in to fight for him.

There is an idea which I call, as it may have been called a thousand times before, Wholism: the idea that each idea of impression leads to the involuntary reflex of creating more. Each instance Each instance of every form of perceivable matter can be traced back to a one, or a whole, or that from which there came one after zero; and then two after one and so forth into eternity. This is the underlying principle behind the paradox presented in The Hanger and the Hanged. This is a paradox of piety. To punish blasphemy by hanging a man for blasphemy, the hanger becomes just as guilty as the hanged for committing blasphemy. Then he himself should be hanged for blasphemy for breaking one of Ten Commandments. When I presented this paradox recently to a Christian friend of mine, he promptly answered that blasphemy should be punished by death. So I asked him, “How can you punish blasphemy without becoming blasphemous by breaking one of the ten commandments?” and he replied, “In the bible it says obey the law of the land, but I shall toss the last stone.” To this I asked, “What if the law of the land is to burn bibles? Should the Jews have followed the law of the land in Nazi Germany? How do you differentiate between when the law of the land is accepted and when it’s abhorred by god?” To this he answered, “Its how you look at it.” I said, “It’s based on how you personally look at morals and what is acceptable to your person and what isn’t. Just because you don’t agree with it, doesn’t mean it’s wrong.”

Many people harbor the delusion of ‘could’ and retreat to it when proposed something that their person has been created to the extent that they are, by nature or some pious utterance, endowed with the opinions reflective of the society in which they were raised and also the prejudicial treatment of ideas of the opposition. The only true evil is the good, which base the fact that they’re good on the fact that their side is the righteous side, thinks that by resulting to evil to squash evil that evil can be by evil squashed. It cannot; the paradox is that in punishing evil, or that which by validation of personal bias is arrived at, the side presuming itself righteous quickly becomes an evil to the opposition simply because they are the opposition. The act, the singular instance of describing a situation simply is as it is before interpretation, it is the personal interpretation that turns good into good and bad into bad and it is judged only by human beings with similar prejudices of opposition and the traditional view of evil.

Each army believes to have god behind them and that the other side is evil. This is not a truth; this is a validated supposition confirmed by people around and close so that the opinion might be validated so that it can after be regarded as fact in quarters where like mind and similar patrons of similar ideas gather to confirm each others opinions.

Not many people seem to much care for truth anymore and why should they? Subtlety is dead; along with it compassion and wit and love and at least some sort of intellectual pursuit. That is what separates us from the other animals. Our consciousness; our ability to look in a mirror and know we’re looking at ourselves. Love play is nothing more than the combination of two senses culminating in a temporary hormonal imbalance (Lust + obsession – reason = love) but the illusion of love facilitates one of the most basic of all instincts: the desire to reproduce. Regarding the righteousness of battle, and of war, and murder and death, everyone believes the other side is evil and thinks that because they can rationalize and justify their personal beliefs by the mores of modernity that it is correct because the personal validation of the mother idea allows them, within a predefined parameter which is different than the coming evil, or entity of opposition labeled evil by the interpretation of a group of people that are evil to the other side.

Forced morality, or the accepting the moral hang-ups of others, is nothing but a superficial change engaged in for an affectation type result. The attempt, basically, to pass off the visage of someone of morality when their own morality, though easily chosen within the instinctive confines of the way in which human beings see things, is a mere attempt to decorate the ball of existence you are and each change is superficial in the same respect that a pie cannot become a cake regardless of what you do to it. In you there is the ability, which is inherited or learned early in a particular stage in which impressions stick, to choose within the confines of that which controls you and allows you to choose. There is moral choice and there is moral reason: but you can control how you act normally, but not why you act normally the way you do.

The underlying theme of human nature is the formulation of ways, by intellect or strength, to ensure their natural survival. This same concept is leaning heavily towards the creation of all this technology in a further attempt to better secure their most basic drives. A man that works all of his life to become a movie star does so for wealth, survival, ease, luxury, and of course the ability, and natural inclination, to reproduce. Work is not work for the sake of being a good and moral person; rather it is a selfish act in an attempt to make the contributing person feel more secure about himself. The only act on earth that you can do to someone that is completely unselfish would be to sacrifice your life for them. You gain nothing; eternity in a hole. They gain the ability to continue living and they’re remembering you forever for this. But this also could be said to be a way to secure the character and values of the one that sacrificed the life because surely the act was attempt to be seen as noble, caring, and a great man. People seem to wait until you die, anyway, to show you any signs of concern. Funerals, however, are dreadfully boring; I intend to sleep all the way through mine.

Cause and effect is a difficult question for anyone wanting to look at it through empiricism. Cause and effect, in concordance with empiricism, becomes extremely difficult because it’s muddled by which motion or by which cause someone instigates another by the terribly far away and random chance is at work in the deciding of the outcome of each fate of each person. Cause and effect is determined by interweaving concepts of events leading up a specific point in which millions of actions were taken to produce each and every event. The reason I digress to cause and effect is that the concept of good and the concept of evil rely heavily on it: it is not the man that creates the evil; it is a situation that has been instilled in him by the effect of cause or has been adopted from somewhere else. It is the trillions of aspects of cause and effect that lead him to it and it’s caused by every single person on earth in a sort of patchwork quilt of cause and effect leading and controlling every action on earth.

Take the following situation as a way to further elaborate on my supposition – though I do acknowledge it necessary not to advocate ideas based on what if this and what if that’s rather than on the scientific method: but that is inaccurate for the medium of philosophy. So, I will describe a fictional account that is at least very probable. Let’s start with something tiny. A human being? No. An ant. Destiny and the causes of evil are brought about by a sequence of irrevocable events leading up to a certain point. Destiny can be controlled by an ant as easily as a human being. It goes in all directions: morally, religiously, death, life, everything. A simple bug walking down the street might drive a man to murder, a woman to suicide, a dog to be hit by a car, lots of things. Here I will describe the creation of evil situations as ordained by chance and cause and effect of interweaving human events and situations leading up to a specific point that is set in motion from the first second; seconds add up to minutes, and each sentence withheld from a destination can drastically reduce the degree and outcome of the effect of the incidental, if even accidental, cause.

An ant is walking idly by one morning as you go down the steps, eating a piece of bread you ate last night, which your wife cooked around seven and invited friends and family over. You go inside again, to get something to destroy the ant hive, and the ant is gone and you can’t find him. Since messing around with the silly ant for a minute or two, you might be late for work. As you’re on the freeway a small girl walks in front of your car delaying your trip by another minute or so. The young girl walks off. Up at the curb she goes to walk into the convenient store. After spending a couple of minutes in the convenient store, she leaves and walks outside. A group of guys had just walked by and they stop to come and notice her as she came out. They offer her a cigarette. She accepts and they make small talk for around two minutes or so. They talk and each head in opposite directions. The boys continue down the avenue and walk down the back alley and find a man that had just came in the alley after crossing the street. They see that he is well dressed and they decide to rob him.

They rob him and take his money and accidentally injure him in the process. After filing a report to the police the injured man gets a cast put on his leg and sits around the house watching TV for a week without doing any work. While he’s absent, at his job, a younger man takes over his job for his absence and begins to do better than he does. He returns to work and is fired because the young man does a better job. After having been granted this job the man is completely happy with his new career. After a week or so, he walks outside, down his steps, and stops to pick up the paper. This takes two seconds and he brings it up to read it for a second. There is an ant on it and he shrugs it off for a second or so. He gets in his car and drives to the other side of town. A girl walks in front of him – delaying his trip. He gets to the car dealership and finds out its closed; he goes to a bar with most of his money from earning the other man’s job, and gets extremely drunk.

He comes home to his wife really drunk and they get angry at each other. After being appointed to such an illustrious position – she figured he should be able to buy the new car. His wife goes into her bedroom, slams the door, and locks it and he stands at the other side for ten minutes waiting on her. She opens the door as he’s going down the front steps out into the street. He leaves as she sits down and picks up the phone. On the phone she tells a friend to come over so they can discuss something regarding the newly successful husband and how they can acquire his wealth. As the man drives across town he runs into a group of pigeons out in the middle of the road and stops for a minute and honks the horn. After this he makes his way over to the house and sees that the woman’s husband had just walked out and was leaving. He makes his way up to the apartment.

Inside they sit around and talk about idle things; this and that this and that and the other-other stuff nobody seems to really take any particular interest in and the man comes up with a morbid sort of plan. As he waited on the pigeons to move he had charged his cell phone and he hadn’t done it in weeks. His phone rings and it’s a man he’s been wanting to talk to. After talking on the phone with the man at the woman’s house, the man that had just called gets ready to leave his apartment but finds out the door on the other side had been locked. He slept for about an hour longer than he should have. It takes him a long while to get the door open. He makes his way across town and a man beside him speeds by going 100 mph. He drives cautiously on his way over to the woman’s house who is already there with another man friend. She tells the man that had just arrived that her husband just got pulled over for speeding and that they’re going to bring him home soon. She tells him of his new job and success and money and the three, together, plan to kill this man. After getting out of jail the man comes home to find a rotting fig on the outside of the door. He stoops down to pick it up, smells it, and then walks towards the trashcan to throw it away. Something, or someone, had carelessly dropped it there, no doubt. He goes to walk back to his room and he’s the two men coming out. He ducks behind a bush and watches them laugh as they leave. He goes to a bar and spends a lot of money drunk because he thinks that two men are following him and having relations with his wife.

He gets drunk and goes home to speak to his wife and this time he carries a gun. Upon entering, he saw, or at least thought he saw, two men sitting with her on the living room couch. He points the gun at one guy and shoots him in the head. The other ducks and gets hit in the shoulder as he runs off speeding down the highway. They take the man to the hospital and the first man dies first on the spot; his three year old daughter watches him die and gets very sad. Her father was her only real friend and she loved him dearly since her mom’s divorce. The man that sped away is sent to prison for three years. The little girl, due to the loss of her father, grows up in an orphanage and hates herself and lives a life of sadness for so long. Such torture she endures, such stress, panic attack, fear, and anxiety. At 14 years of age, she kills herself. It’s read about in all the papers and the TV’s run big stories on it and seeing the death of a child so innocent, a man in his home, decides to go and adopt children from a local orphanage to give them all a home and love them. They decide to go on vacation. At a friendly beach on the Pacific the man meets women and he falls for one and brings her home. She has a drug addiction that affects him and his kids and he grows increasingly tired of it. He orders her to come out of a bathroom that she’s locked herself in. She overdoses because she never thought he’d love her because he already had kids by another woman – which he didn’t. The children grow up without a mother and spend many years of their lives in the wee-wee hours of the morning recalling the horrible shot – having nightmares and terrible dreams.

Based on these terrible dreams one of the young girls starts to write fiction books and short stories and after a while she gets wealthy from her writing and her passion for realness and imagery. She is awarded the Hugo award and is world renowned as an author. From one of the stories in her book she had an imaginary sort of air craft that was capable of taking man to the moon by producing a self powering electricity conducting turbine engine that never exhausted fuel sources for as long as it’s on it’ll always charge up enough to start again and it’ll keep it powered as the turbines turn. A man, a depressed scientist on the verge of madness, catches her idea and decides to try to see if it’s possible. Great breakthroughs are made; propulsion of space ships change drastically and man is able to leave the planet and go to the moon with relative ease. At a college in the north a young student reads it and comes up with a theory to get the human beings out of the solar system based on his ideas and mankind enters into a state of technological miracles based on the works of a fictional author that provided the outline for something that was perceived as possible and a similar, though not identical, structure was made and it worked.

This is an account of what one tiny ant delaying one human being for one second on planet earth can mean to mankind and the effect that follows good acts isn’t always itself good. A supposed good act, if a second awry, with destiny grieving, could lead to the creation of evil in someone’s heart to the point of setting off this chain of events whether petty or grand – evil is created by situations of the environment and is thought of as evil only by an opposing party that is thought evil by the other party. Acts only have the meanings we later, or earlier in our self convincing delusion, ascribe to them and pretend they mean so we can feel we might better understand something.

The concept of Wholism, as opposed to holism is that every single facet of existence is a product of some sort of grand scheme of chance and events leading to certain events in history and in the future. A small ant of seemingly no real importance can mean the death of millions by simply wandering aimlessly in the path of a busy man. Evil is the endowment of a social situation caused by an infinite number of seconds leading up to the specific track that plays when each song prior has preceded it from one; as all pieces of everything, in this concept of Wholism can be attributed to a whole – a whole meaning the physical incarnate and mass of the entire universe together is primarily one entity. Such as the Hindu concept of Brahman, the unmanifest. There are many facets on a diamond; there are many facets of our universe that form into a whole; and as a whole we become but passing patchwork pieces in the quilt of suns, mirrors, days, time, everything. Everything is the product of the effect of a certain cause. Everything started from one.

Time, in the sense of the whole, is restricted to its basic structure. Space time is the only explanation we have regarding the phenomena of passing seasons and the growing of bones, fingers, and what not. So, in this sense, time is a word ascribed to the progression of matter from one stage to another as it grows into a whole. As the seasons pass we attribute this to time continuing to move; but this is also based on supposition and a case cannot be made on supposition alone. Time is a scheduling system for human beings. Do those humans that hunt daily in the jungles in real Darwinian testing grounds worry about time? Some tribes, and even countries with different languages, have no concept of soon, then, when, and in some people have no concept of a past. Words are never spoken in past tense because past tense doesn’t exist in the term that a mold of the events was imprinted in time. Not imprinted in any physical sort of way and the natural progression of matter might lead man to suppose that there’s an agent propelling it. This, by man, is to suggest something you can’t prove; and the scientist groups, in which there are nothing more than flogging academics telling you of their various good deeds they did only for reward.

But the essence of time is sustained by an essence in which time has no factor. This sad eternity has no concept of time for it is not a long period of time. Eternity is the absence of time completely; there is no present in which to sit still as the future rolls onward. There is no past from which to come; there is no future of which to think when that great imaginary creature tramples over you like straw horses in the street.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s