How Do STS's View Other Selves?

[anagogy]

Someone can perceive itself as evil and can be considered evil by others, in this I think evil is an actual thing because it is a construct through which the creator misperceive itself. But to see evil is still just inability to see good. There is no evil in that in full awareness of other-self you would see no evil but instead good, always. Evil basicly is good that has been twisted and is made hard to recognize as good.

At the risk of splitting conceptual hairs:

Evil is just selfishness, and selfishness certainly exists within the context of the illusion, as I've said ad nauseum in this thread. But I wouldn't necessarily say that seeing selfishness is a failure to see self-lessness (what I'm calling good). To me that is like saying seeing green is just a failure to see red. The white that both colors extend from is neither of them. To me, evil and good are just a natural consequence of the reality of a relationship between self and others. When self and others are seen as one (and not in a psuedo pretend spiritual sense), then there is no good or evil, STO or STS, just the creator. But I just don't personally believe denying the apparent manifestations of our 3rd density illusion leads one to a greater illumination, in fact, I think it stunts our evolution in the short term to fail to recognize these things. It is sort of like playing a game, but you refuse to even acknowledge the programmed elements -- the characters attacking you, the life bar, the powerups, and just sitting there, pretending its not happening because, after all, its just a game. You might be right from a broader perspective, but that behavior and thinking won't win the game, just keep you stuck on the same level until you begin to play and pay attention to the elements of experience.    

But if anything, I've come around to conceding that evil is, indeed, an absolutely terrible choice of word in any conversation.

Not because I'm wrong about the equivalency of the word with its sympathetic polarity, mind you, but simply because this thread has made it painfully clear to me that no matter how much reasoning or logic is offered, people will continue, in 99.9% of the cases, to see it in the same way (as a judgmental label rather than a simple descriptive characteristic) because they are accustomed to understanding it that way. People will always default to their dominant conceptual programming. I can't fault them for that. It's human nature (and also religion has, for thousands of years, pounded into peoples heads that evil was not an option for spiritual evolution, and did a grade A job of brainwashing the masses into seeing it that way).  

I don't deny that evil can be a useful term for growth, but still, so long you seek to see evil you seek to look at the illusion and not what is underneath. You make your idea about the surface but don't look beneath it, because evil ever is a mask that hides what's underneath. I can recognize the archetype of evil but that does not mean I need to distill it as evil within myself. If I see the creator hurthing others, then I see the creator hurting itself, separating from itself, burrying it's light self deeper and deeper within until it is lost sight of.

I don't seek to see evil any more than I seek to see selfishness, or unselfishness. I simply look out at the world, and I try to see 'what is'. I see green, I see red, I see cold, I see warm, I see pleasure and I see pain. I don't make assumptions about peoples behavior. Or, at least, I try not to. If I see what looks like evil/selfishness to me, I try not to assume what their intentions were, maybe their intent was good for all I know. All I can look at is the end result. I just don't pretend that something looks like 'goodness' to me when it doesn't. I don't look on all that manifests in our world and see it all as love and light, and to be honest, I don't think the Logos does either. It's just my opinion, but there it is. I personally don't think it looks at suffering and says, 'mmmm yeah, good stuff there.' it just recognizes it as the price of illumination ("you gotta risk it to get the biscuit!". A means to an end. A natural consequence, or potential, reflexively generated by the exploration of duality. We needed something to contrast What Is, and What is Not just happens to be the fickle and transient moving cloud that the unmoving and changeless mountain uses as a frame of reference to comprehend, measure, or otherwise KNOW its own existence. And I think some portions or beings move too far into their exploration of that attenuation of light, or resistance to unity, and experience terrible suffering as a result (but the resulting positive karma generated grants them faster evolution later on).

I'm sure a lot of the disagreements in this thread with various concepts are probably, to a large extent, semantic in nature. But for the most part, I enjoy hashing out the fine nuances of their conceptual nature.