Evil abstraction: the psychology of totalitarianism

[AshvinP]

Can our conceptual definitions of Good and Evil stand in for their realities at the level of Being-Nothingness itself? Anyone with a mind can see there is great suffering, pain, violence, and torture in the world. But is this evil 'out there' or is it within us as well? Is our desire to conceptually define and substitute the definition for understanding complicit in the evil? And if the evil is within us as well, then are we to destroy ourselves or seek redemption of our evil nature through Heart Thinking? Through a reasoned trust that there is a genuine path to redemption, even if we cannot conceptually define it? Perhaps the realities of Good and Evil still exist 'behind' our conceptual perspective and, while they certainly shape it, that perspective itself is mostly oblivious to its deeper nature. We then awaken to the fact that evil cannot be redeemed by finding it 'over there' in someone or something else, by reducing and defining it with our mineralized concepts, but only by coming to experientially and deeply know our higher Self.

Perhaps a favorite Thich Nhat Hanh poem Please Call Me by My True Names is relevant here. I feel a similarity between what you call "Heart Thinking" and what Thay calls "Heart of Compassion". Yes, I grok that the name "thinking" has a different trajectory in Eastern and Western cultural gestalts. The West being more committed to rational linear (Cartesian) reason at the time seems to obligate philosophers like Steiner to not throw the baby out with the bath and thus a bridge name like Spiritual Thought or Spiritual Science was necessary for dialogue. Alternately, I suspect the Eastern tradition felt less need for a semantic bridge and could thus speak directly of a compassionate heart or Tao that would flow naturally through one who was empty of conceptual thinking. As a non-philosopher I'm just offering a speculation and not setting the stage for a debate.

From a more folksy perspective, I very much agree with Pogo that, "We have met the enemy and he is us." I also believe that "We have met the friend and he is us" and the ongoing evolutionary challenge is to more truly grok both the friend and the enemy in all of us and to know, even if only temporarily, the difference as we seek to do our best. That process of deep ingoing and ongoing inquiry within a dynamic ever-changing living situation (embodied or not) would seem to me as a true spiritual science. Meanwhile, perhaps we might agree that moving too deeply into abstraction carries the risk of separation from the senses, which would inform us palpably of the differences between good and evil. I believe this is the point that BK is trying to make.

Lou,

You know how Cleric and myself are always mention something related to how people stop logically reasoning when reaching their desired conclusions? When you write the bold, you are practically saying, "I reached this conclusion with my logic and reasoning, but I don't want to hear any more reasoning from you which may cut against it, because I'm a 'non-philosopher'". I suppose my question is, what is the point of conversing if further logical dialogue has been made impossible on this issue? No matter what I say, it will be objected, "you are making a logical argument now, and I already told you I am a non-philosopher!".

It seems my only response can be - that is not what I mean by heart thinking and I don't think your West-East conceptualization on this topic is accurate. In short, I disagree.

[Lou Gold]

Can our conceptual definitions of Good and Evil stand in for their realities at the level of Being-Nothingness itself? Anyone with a mind can see there is great suffering, pain, violence, and torture in the world. But is this evil 'out there' or is it within us as well? Is our desire to conceptually define and substitute the definition for understanding complicit in the evil? And if the evil is within us as well, then are we to destroy ourselves or seek redemption of our evil nature through Heart Thinking? Through a reasoned trust that there is a genuine path to redemption, even if we cannot conceptually define it? Perhaps the realities of Good and Evil still exist 'behind' our conceptual perspective and, while they certainly shape it, that perspective itself is mostly oblivious to its deeper nature. We then awaken to the fact that evil cannot be redeemed by finding it 'over there' in someone or something else, by reducing and defining it with our mineralized concepts, but only by coming to experientially and deeply know our higher Self.

Perhaps a favorite Thich Nhat Hanh poem Please Call Me by My True Names is relevant here. I feel a similarity between what you call "Heart Thinking" and what Thay calls "Heart of Compassion". Yes, I grok that the name "thinking" has a different trajectory in Eastern and Western cultural gestalts. The West being more committed to rational linear (Cartesian) reason at the time seems to obligate philosophers like Steiner to not throw the baby out with the bath and thus a bridge name like Spiritual Thought or Spiritual Science was necessary for dialogue. Alternately, I suspect the Eastern tradition felt less need for a semantic bridge and could thus speak directly of a compassionate heart or Tao that would flow naturally through one who was empty of conceptual thinking. As a non-philosopher I'm just offering a speculation and not setting the stage for a debate.

From a more folksy perspective, I very much agree with Pogo that, "We have met the enemy and he is us." I also believe that "We have met the friend and he is us" and the ongoing evolutionary challenge is to more truly grok both the friend and the enemy in all of us and to know, even if only temporarily, the difference as we seek to do our best. That process of deep ingoing and ongoing inquiry within a dynamic ever-changing living situation (embodied or not) would seem to me as a true spiritual science. Meanwhile, perhaps we might agree that moving too deeply into abstraction carries the risk of separation from the senses, which would inform us palpably of the differences between good and evil. I believe this is the point that BK is trying to make.

Lou,

You know how Cleric and myself are always mention something related to how people stop logically reasoning when reaching their desired conclusions? When you write the bold, you are practically saying, "I reached this conclusion with my logic and reasoning, but I don't want to hear any more reasoning from you which may cut against it, because I'm a 'non-philosopher'". I suppose my question is, what is the point of conversing if further logical dialogue has been made impossible on this issue? No matter what I say, it will be objected, "you are making a logical argument now, and I already told you I am a non-philosopher!".

It seems my only response can be - that is not what I mean by heart thinking and I don't think your West-East conceptualization on this topic is accurate. In short, I disagree.

Ashvin, you totally misread my bold type. I offered a speculation as a non-philosopher and not, as you suggest, as a logical conclusion. I would welcome reading your response. Just don't expect me to enter into a debate, which would be well above my paygrade.

[Lou Gold]

No matter what the relationship between the US and Ukraine is, there is hardly justification for the invasion of Ukraine and mindless shelling of civilians. Apparently Russian TV is calling for the invasion of the Baltics too.

Certainly you don't believe the opposing view - Putin's rationale of denazification of the Ukraine?

What you say follows along with the point of view of Western mainstream media which, if one lives in the West, one can't help but be exposed to. My question for you is: what sources do you use to be exposed to the opposing, pro-Russian view?

Hey Scott, I appreciate the limits of being caught in a cultural media bubble and have to depend on outliers like The Intercept, etc for views opposing the MSM line. If you could suggest some good reliable foreign sources, I for one would be very grateful.

[Lou Gold]

The symbol does not suggest something simplistically black and white but rather a cyclic living/dying dynamism in which there's a crack in everything where the light gets in. It is by navigating the difficult punctuations of peaceful equilibrium that we evolve toward the next cycle. Turn, turn, turn.

And likewise, how about word from the wise on Blake's vision, here expressed via Vernon, of forging Golgonooza?

Dana, Vernon's discourse on Blake is so good!
What do you think of shifting its location to "General Discussion" or posting it here and there?
I just want it to attract broadest exposure and discussion.

[Soul_of_Shu]

Dana, Vernon's discourse on Blake is so good!
What do you think of shifting its location to "General Discussion" or posting it here and there?
I just want it to attract broadest exposure and discussion.

I concur, MV's brilliance should be more appreciated. So sure, feel free to re-post it in general.

[ScottRoberts]

Hey Scott, I appreciate the limits of being caught in a cultural media bubble and have to depend on outliers like The Intercept, etc for views opposing the MSM line. If you could suggest some good reliable foreign sources, I for one would be very grateful.

Well, "reliable" is usually itself in dispute no matter the source. I'll PM you on where I have been getting my info, but you'll have to judge on how reliable it is.

[Lou Gold]

Hey Scott, I appreciate the limits of being caught in a cultural media bubble and have to depend on outliers like The Intercept, etc for views opposing the MSM line. If you could suggest some good reliable foreign sources, I for one would be very grateful.

Well, "reliable" is usually itself in dispute no matter the source. I'll PM you on where I have been getting my info, but you'll have to judge on how reliable it is.

Yeah, "reliable" is probably too strong a word as all journalism has its biases and blind spots. I be grateful to just know of some that you respect. Thanks.

[Jim Cross]

No matter what the relationship between the US and Ukraine is, there is hardly justification for the invasion of Ukraine and mindless shelling of civilians. Apparently Russian TV is calling for the invasion of the Baltics too.

Certainly you don't believe the opposing view - Putin's rationale of denazification of the Ukraine?

What you say follows along with the point of view of Western mainstream media which, if one lives in the West, one can't help but be exposed to. My question for you is: what sources do you use to be exposed to the opposing, pro-Russian view?

What I wrote is Putin's own justification for the war. Do you believe his justification? What source can you cite about rampant Nazism in Ukraine which Russia controlled most of the twentieth century as a part of the Soviet Union and now has a Jewish President?

Unless you are denying the invasion itself and the slaughter of innocent civilians, or actually support them, I don't need any Russian sources to know the invasion is evil no matter what the point of view is that justifies it.

[AshvinP]

Perhaps a favorite Thich Nhat Hanh poem Please Call Me by My True Names is relevant here. I feel a similarity between what you call "Heart Thinking" and what Thay calls "Heart of Compassion". Yes, I grok that the name "thinking" has a different trajectory in Eastern and Western cultural gestalts. The West being more committed to rational linear (Cartesian) reason at the time seems to obligate philosophers like Steiner to not throw the baby out with the bath and thus a bridge name like Spiritual Thought or Spiritual Science was necessary for dialogue. Alternately, I suspect the Eastern tradition felt less need for a semantic bridge and could thus speak directly of a compassionate heart or Tao that would flow naturally through one who was empty of conceptual thinking. As a non-philosopher I'm just offering a speculation and not setting the stage for a debate.

From a more folksy perspective, I very much agree with Pogo that, "We have met the enemy and he is us." I also believe that "We have met the friend and he is us" and the ongoing evolutionary challenge is to more truly grok both the friend and the enemy in all of us and to know, even if only temporarily, the difference as we seek to do our best. That process of deep ingoing and ongoing inquiry within a dynamic ever-changing living situation (embodied or not) would seem to me as a true spiritual science. Meanwhile, perhaps we might agree that moving too deeply into abstraction carries the risk of separation from the senses, which would inform us palpably of the differences between good and evil. I believe this is the point that BK is trying to make.

Lou,

You know how Cleric and myself are always mention something related to how people stop logically reasoning when reaching their desired conclusions? When you write the bold, you are practically saying, "I reached this conclusion with my logic and reasoning, but I don't want to hear any more reasoning from you which may cut against it, because I'm a 'non-philosopher'". I suppose my question is, what is the point of conversing if further logical dialogue has been made impossible on this issue? No matter what I say, it will be objected, "you are making a logical argument now, and I already told you I am a non-philosopher!".

It seems my only response can be - that is not what I mean by heart thinking and I don't think your West-East conceptualization on this topic is accurate. In short, I disagree.

Ashvin, you totally misread my bold type. I offered a speculation as a non-philosopher and not, as you suggest, as a logical conclusion. I would welcome reading your response. Just don't expect me to enter into a debate, which would be well above my paygrade.

Lou,

We often speak here of the need to reconcile what we're doing with what we're thinking-perceiving. What you are doing is forming conclusions through logical reasoning - this is not a matter of opinion... it's simply inherent in the process of conceiving meaning, forming words, sentences, paragraphs, etc., and conveying them here. What you are perceiving is the thought, "this is just non-philosopher speculation, not logic and reason". These two - what you are doing and what you are perceiving - are completely out of phase. It is no exaggeration to say this is how Kantian and Schopenhauer epistemology came to structure all of Western thought-perception. Those in that tradition simply forgot that they were reasoning towards their philosophical conclusions. So then Schop says he perceived directly the 'blind Will' within himself, apart from any structured reasoning activity or any living idea of what is 'Will'. Why continue reasoning if you never reasoned your way to the conclusion in the first place, but divined it directly from the 'facts'?

Is it so different with these various narratives surrounding Russia and Ukraine and, by implication, the entire East and West? These narratives then precipitate into war and bloodshed. One side has 'divined' the righteousness of their stance directly from experience, and so has the other. Neither of them can ever meet within a shared understanding and value system, because the logical faculty to arrange such a meeting has been cut off - it has been practically denied existence and relevance within the inner experience of these so-called leaders of the world. I'm not expecting or desiring a debate on this topic, but only shared understanding of this reality we are participating in. The evil of these leaders is of the same kind as the evil which lives within each human heart.

Jim and BK find comfort in externalizing it completely to Russia precisely because they cannot perceive it within themselves. Is this only tangentially related to the modern philosophical outlooks of materialism, fundamentalism, mysticism, and analytic idealism? The fact that finding the evil in our brother's eye before taking the beam out of our own eye makes everything easier and convenient for our rigid thought? When I say we often fail to perceive the evil within ourselves, I am not suggesting the solution is to say, "actually I am everyone - the good, the evil, everything - so now I have acknowledged my own evil nature." No, that only gives the illusion of perceiving this evil, but still leaves it entirely obscured within us. It is no more of an acknowledgment than the Western politicians who say, "we are interested in a quick and peaceful resolution to this conflict", while the rest of us can immediately tell these are hollow and deceptive words. As long as we refuse to penetrate into the depths of our Being with heartfelt thinking, these bloody conflicts will only proliferate and escalate further.

I think we all can do well to simply remember not to let any unjustified, untested concepts into our soul. What do we know of the Russians and the Ukrainians and their history and the various influences from the East and West which have shaped the invisible context in which all these outer events are taking place? The latter are like our fingernails - how much of our own living organism can we reconstruct with only the perceptions of our fingernails? We know very little compared to what we think we know, based on entirely second and third hand sources with their own agendas. This is what I feel BK and many others are doing with their commentaries, as a means of avoiding the effortful inner work which is needed to unveil more of the meaningful context for ourselves. We should feel deeply disappointed if the full extent of what we can comment on such matters of high stakes is rooted in broad speculation, and that should serve as an impetus to find firmer ground.

[Soul_of_Shu]

FYI, if interested here's another vlogger from Russia with her take on what she is now permitted to communicate, and the reliability of information she currently still has access to, however long that may still last before the channels are possibly shut down, whether by the government or by youtube ...