"The sad truth of the matter is that most evil is done by people who never made up their minds to be or do either good or evil." — Hannah Arendt, The Life of the Mind
There is something about what we think of as an "evil" personality -- they tend to deny their own darkness. In Jungian terms humans becomes more whole and complete when we acknowledge our unconscious/subconscious desire and beliefs which regularly are dark and disturbing -- by bring the darkness into the light, by acknowledging and incorporating it, we ascend to another level of personal and spiritual development.
By denying their own darkness, though, these "evil" types tend to subconsciously project their own traits onto their hapless enemies. As Scott M. Peck states in People of the Lie, p.73-75, "A predominant characteristic, however, of the behavior of those I call evil is scapegoating. Because in their hearts they consider themselves above reproach, they must lash out at anyone who does reproach them. They sacrifice others to preserve their self-image of perfection....Scapegoating works through a mechanism psychiatrists call projection. Since the evil, deep down, feel themselves to be faultless, it is inevitable that when they are in conflict with the world they will invariably perceive the conflict as the world's fault. Since they must deny their own badness, they must perceive others as bad….In The Road Less Traveled I defined evil "as the exercise of political power - that is, the imposition of one's will upon others by overt or covert coercion - in order to avoid...spiritual growth". In other words, the evil attack others instead of facing their own failures. Spiritual growth requires the acknowledgment of one's need to grow. If we cannot make that acknowledgment, we have no option except to attempt to eradicate the evidence of our own imperfection....Utterly dedicated to preserving their self-image of perfection, they are unceasingly engaged in the effort to maintain the appearance of moral purity. They worry about this a great deal. They are acutely sensitive to social norms and what others might think of them....the words "image," "appearance," and "outwardly" are crucial to understanding the morality of the evil. While they seem to lack any motivation to be good, they intensely desire to appear good. Their "goodness" is all on a level of pretense. It is, in effect, a lie. This is why they are the ‘people of the lie.’”
Also, p. 119: “Evil [is] defined as the use of power to destroy the spiritual growth of others for the purpose of defending and preserving the integrity of our own sick selves. In short, it is scapegoating. [The evil] scapegoat not the strong but the weak. For the evil to misuse their power, they must have the power to use it in the first place. They must have some kind of dominion over their victims.”
Peck....that takes me back some decades ago. I don't know...I have a hard time believing that evil people are worried about appearing good. Do they worry about that? I guess in normal, everyday experience, people can get very defensive when called out on something wrong they've done (myself included), but do the Soros and Gates and others of the world think about that? Did Stalin think about that? I would lean toward....no.
Thanks! Michael Nehl's book will get added to my future reading list. All too often things are written that I never seem to find time to read, but this sounds like one that should rise above that.
On the broader topics you discussed, the banality of evil, and the description by Bonhoffer definitely hit home. So many minds these days are flooded with distraction, unsubstantiated fear manipulated so as to require more distraction ... a vicious circular addiction. It reminds me of the mother/wife character in Kurt Vonnegut's short story "Harrison Bergeron".
And lastly, the conflict between creation and evolution has been a challenge for many. You, and I, are not alone in that. For me the conflict between them has been to ponder that possibly the answer is both, and that the real conflict is being anchored to the premise that the human printed, and profusely translated "word of God", may not be the definitive answer to all questions. There are so many conflicting ideas, stories, histories and interpretations, that for me, the words of the bible are a guide to the truth, and not always "the truth". As to evolution, why is it impossible to believe that God did create the universe, and ultimately man, but not necessarily the current versions that we experience in our short lifetimes. Why can't the evolution of man, mankind, humanity, simply be the plan that He put into motion? For me it isn't a dichotomy, but two connected ideas, that have been made to be conflicting, by some.
I agree with you. I don't have a problem with the idea that God set evolution in motion...if that is in fact the case. My issue is that many interpretations of it leak into other areas of life where it has no business....
I like what you say: 'the words of the bible are a guide to the truth, and not always "the truth".' I do think strictly literal interpretations of the Bible can get people in trouble.
There is something about what we think of as an "evil" personality -- they tend to deny their own darkness. In Jungian terms humans becomes more whole and complete when we acknowledge our unconscious/subconscious desire and beliefs which regularly are dark and disturbing -- by bring the darkness into the light, by acknowledging and incorporating it, we ascend to another level of personal and spiritual development.
By denying their own darkness, though, these "evil" types tend to subconsciously project their own traits onto their hapless enemies. As Scott M. Peck states in People of the Lie, p.73-75, "A predominant characteristic, however, of the behavior of those I call evil is scapegoating. Because in their hearts they consider themselves above reproach, they must lash out at anyone who does reproach them. They sacrifice others to preserve their self-image of perfection....Scapegoating works through a mechanism psychiatrists call projection. Since the evil, deep down, feel themselves to be faultless, it is inevitable that when they are in conflict with the world they will invariably perceive the conflict as the world's fault. Since they must deny their own badness, they must perceive others as bad….In The Road Less Traveled I defined evil "as the exercise of political power - that is, the imposition of one's will upon others by overt or covert coercion - in order to avoid...spiritual growth". In other words, the evil attack others instead of facing their own failures. Spiritual growth requires the acknowledgment of one's need to grow. If we cannot make that acknowledgment, we have no option except to attempt to eradicate the evidence of our own imperfection....Utterly dedicated to preserving their self-image of perfection, they are unceasingly engaged in the effort to maintain the appearance of moral purity. They worry about this a great deal. They are acutely sensitive to social norms and what others might think of them....the words "image," "appearance," and "outwardly" are crucial to understanding the morality of the evil. While they seem to lack any motivation to be good, they intensely desire to appear good. Their "goodness" is all on a level of pretense. It is, in effect, a lie. This is why they are the ‘people of the lie.’”
Also, p. 119: “Evil [is] defined as the use of power to destroy the spiritual growth of others for the purpose of defending and preserving the integrity of our own sick selves. In short, it is scapegoating. [The evil] scapegoat not the strong but the weak. For the evil to misuse their power, they must have the power to use it in the first place. They must have some kind of dominion over their victims.”
Peck....that takes me back some decades ago. I don't know...I have a hard time believing that evil people are worried about appearing good. Do they worry about that? I guess in normal, everyday experience, people can get very defensive when called out on something wrong they've done (myself included), but do the Soros and Gates and others of the world think about that? Did Stalin think about that? I would lean toward....no.
Thanks! Michael Nehl's book will get added to my future reading list. All too often things are written that I never seem to find time to read, but this sounds like one that should rise above that.
On the broader topics you discussed, the banality of evil, and the description by Bonhoffer definitely hit home. So many minds these days are flooded with distraction, unsubstantiated fear manipulated so as to require more distraction ... a vicious circular addiction. It reminds me of the mother/wife character in Kurt Vonnegut's short story "Harrison Bergeron".
And lastly, the conflict between creation and evolution has been a challenge for many. You, and I, are not alone in that. For me the conflict between them has been to ponder that possibly the answer is both, and that the real conflict is being anchored to the premise that the human printed, and profusely translated "word of God", may not be the definitive answer to all questions. There are so many conflicting ideas, stories, histories and interpretations, that for me, the words of the bible are a guide to the truth, and not always "the truth". As to evolution, why is it impossible to believe that God did create the universe, and ultimately man, but not necessarily the current versions that we experience in our short lifetimes. Why can't the evolution of man, mankind, humanity, simply be the plan that He put into motion? For me it isn't a dichotomy, but two connected ideas, that have been made to be conflicting, by some.
I agree with you. I don't have a problem with the idea that God set evolution in motion...if that is in fact the case. My issue is that many interpretations of it leak into other areas of life where it has no business....
I like what you say: 'the words of the bible are a guide to the truth, and not always "the truth".' I do think strictly literal interpretations of the Bible can get people in trouble.
Great, comment. Thanks.