How Do STS's View Other Selves?

[Minyatur]

What would it mean for something to be "evil"?

Or "good" for that matter?

I have mixed feelings about it.

It has become very popular in new age circles to say "there is no evil", but if there is no evil, there is no good either. But I can't really get on board with that, because there are certainly actions that I feel are more good, harmonious, and virtuous than other actions. Generally, those things I interpret as "good" are selfless in nature. And the same goes in reverse for things that I consider to be "evil", they are generally extremely selfish actions in nature. To speak in a simultaneously more specific and also more broad context, there are definitely actions which are more consonant with wholeness than other actions. Truly democratic actions, done for the greatest amount of people, are more in alignment with wholeness than those actions that cater to less (in a deliberate sense, I'm not talking about random occurrences or unforeseen consequences here).

So I guess, at the end of the day, while it may sound very zen to say there is no evil, and/or that no one is evil, I feel like it ultimately boils down to just a meaningless game of word substitution. To be negatively polarized is to be extremely selfish, to be positively polarized is to be extremely unselfish (in terms of intent/desire -- outcomes ultimately cannot be known and could be for better or for worse).

So I think the issue is more that people have emotionally charged feelings about the words "good" and "evil".

The problem, as I see it, is not that some people are good or evil, it is the notion that the creator frowns upon the choice of evil, or selfishness. It is perfectly valid choice of evolution in its nonjudgmental eyes. Evil and good is just a dichotomy of oppositely charged behaviors with regard to other selves, just as the words "negative polarity" and "positive polarity" are. And just like talking about polarity, they have no definition except in comparison to another relative action. So you can't look at any behavior and say that it is pure evil or pure good. You can only say, "it is more (or less) evil (or good) than another specified deliberate action."  There has to be a comparison to measure the charge of the act.

It could be argued that the words good and evil are imprecise. I'll grant you that. But really, so are "negatively polarized" and "positively polarized". But even so, I can't deny the obvious correlation.

So is there good and evil? In my opinion, there most certainly is.

Good and evil falls when you understand that the energy behind what you can consider the greatest good is the same energy that is behind what you would consider the greatest evil. The same will is focused unto different states of balance with different surrounding parameters, yet never is unlike any of the two poles.

The negative polarity is not extreme selfishness, it seems that way to the external eyes that understand not it's cause and effect, that perceives not that it contains the exact same seflessness that the positive polarity sheds light upon. In the same manner, the positive polarity contains the same selfishness that the negative polarity sheds light upon, except that it is expressed positively within paramaters that allow this expression.

Polarity already fufills the role of measure fo comparison of the charge of the act, good and evil are something other born from a non-understanding of these charges.