I read that the progression of the levels do not necessarily occur in sequence.

...there are a fair number of difficulties with it; "low" esteem-deficiency behavior, for instance, is probably more related to fear and physical survival than to esteem, which is more matched by an internal sense of competence.

There are general trends, however - people who grew up surviving in nasty, war-torn areas watching to see if their "friend" would try to stab them in the back are generally less-likely as a population-as-a-whole to just ignore the physical danger to wonder about the underlying physics of star formation, for instance. 'n it's still largely useable...

Very poor cultures, dangerously close to starving, still have members that attain even the highest peak of self-actualization.

...and organized buddhism still deprives its monks of food just to make them go begging and dumpster-diving for the psychological effect. :)

And no, I can't imagine being comfortable with evil; perhaps I lack sufficient imagination.

I couldn't either, except, well, it is very visibly seen.

Defining evil falls into two philosophical paradigms : "strict" and "loose." In the former, it is simple... destruction is evil, kindness, creation, and repair is good. This is probably the most accurate.

In the strict form, food is evil. You're killing something for selfish benefit. This... is probably true, and it has been the great stumbling-block of contemplation, to much positive end. Self-defense is evil - you're altering your paradigm to one of destruction in response to an other, rather than acting from one's own impulse unaltered. "Just wars for a righteous cause" are evil - and given the history of propaganda, this is likely to be something to remember for both frameworks - a "just" war is more likely to be an unjustifiable and useless evil than one which does not spin elaborate effort making up excuses.

The loose form is much, much more tolerant of abject amorality; "evil" is destruction which does not even put money in one's pocket. In the strictest form, the theft of car stereos is barely evil; the actual theft itself is perfectly neutral, as one person loses a car stereo and one person gains one - a net holding-position. No one profits from breaking a window to get to it, so that itself is a minor evil - although not-so-strict forms of the loose form would note that it is an act in pursuit of financial gain, and therefore, neutral.

Being able to map the world, and hence, public lies, in strict-form ethics while being very capable of identifying loose-form evil while being aware of loose-form ethics makes this shit very, very, very easy to spot.

A classic example of the processes surrounding loose-form evil, I can provide from life; I ended up chatting with a homeless youth whom I didn't know at random, and they were discussing making a cardboard sign and begging.

This is within strict-form good, largely - no one is being robbed, killed, or coerced, so the only question is whether the cardboard is cruelty-free - and since it was being dumpster-scavanged, even that was partly a moot point.

Somewhere in this chain of events, they started thinking out loud about making up bullshit sob-stories. I pointed out that there's no reason to do this, but they just kept spinning their wheels, alone..

I'm familiar with the homeless population of a large area; I don't have much prejudice, so my social circle ends up including the homeless and disadvantaged (some 'homeless' are disadvantaged, some are not, and most are more-homeful than the "non-homeless"), random schizophrenics who just decide to chat me up, fellow businesspersons... a lot.

The most fiscally-successful sign recorded in the community to date is "need money for heroin." "need money for alcohol" and "anything helps," with no other text, are close seconds.

There is no reason to invest elaborate effort into bullshit artistry. It does not make one money, and may in fact cost one money.

This illustrates the universal psychological problem behind most loose-form evil; shade does not make profit by itself. The loose-form is completely, brutally amoral - stabbing someone for a very petty amount of change in their pocket is not "evil," and is more like hunting. Stabbing someone because you think it will make you look "strong" and leaving the change in their pocket is evil - it's rather like gutshooting deer and leaving the meat to rot.

As one might be capable of discerning, awareness of strict-form ethics and awareness of the amoral nature of even stricter loose-form ethics is a powerful tool to see what is around you.

Sadly, the "shade does not create profit as a standalone" is something a few damaged persons... have difficulty grasping. As a sidebar, one of the translations of the original characters which makes up the english word "satan" is "killing makes meat," which was the word for "deception" or "deciever" for a while - if that was true, we'd all be feasting on dodo bird right now.

As someone who is aware of hunting and gardening, the mental processs surrounding loose-form evil are quite troubling to me.

Now, consider, if one will, the MPAA's attack on kaaza - "there are pedophiles on there!"

The MPAA is a bit questionable to begin with, since they're arguing against infinite wealth rather than trying to find ways to cash in - and in doing so, sabotaging their cash stream; try buying a DVD and putting it on a tablet sometime. But... let's take a look at what they did here.

1. They attacked an innocent group of people, in a fashion directly analagous to nazi germany or being a rwandan radio operator.

Yeah, that's about as deep as it gets in strict-form evil. How do they do in loose form?

2. Said innocent group had no effect on their IP revenues.

...unless, of course, the MPAA wants to confess to manufacturing CP for profit?

3. There is no difference in IP management legislation with crimes (yes, there's laws against it) against an innocent populace than there is in crimes without it.

Well, that's establishment of loose-form evil in even the most indirect of senses.

What was the result??

4. Their attacks on innocent people created possible enemies.

Yeah. All I have to do is link the MPAA with CP-bitching in a chatroom, and I can start a major, ideologically-driven piracy operation in any city in the world without having to partake in it. Their actions hurt the that bad - it cost them money - because they forgot some of the basic rules of the universe.

That's the classic paradigm of the psychology of the union of ethics- and amorality-defined "evil" - someone costs themselves money because they forgot that shade does not make profit by itself.

Since my mortal form was brutally evicerated in early childhood leaving the shell open only to whatever can survive/whatever hunts such environments, I tend to latch on to the slightest drop like a motherfucking pitbull who couldn't unlock its jaws if it tried. ;) It's been a point of interest in the universe for a long, long time.

You are a virtual world ghod to me ever since that hometown story...

It was a good time, and one of the few times I failed to avoid the dances. ;) Each one is special.

If you want a stupid trivia fact, "god" is actually part of the long form of my real name - a small character within the phrase "divine emperor." People bitch about pre-chinese-contact japanese names being lengthy. They ain't got nothin' to bitch about, lol... :)

The family reports that hirohito was nice. :)

Anyways... yeah, it was a beautiful moment, and that's a basic glimpse of my everyday life. There are stranger bits surrounding just such a time and place, but I haven't told those here yet.

Take care. 'n keep an eye open for the servants of satan - old-form meaning. :)

Good day.