Evil, a consequence of boundary

The problem of evil is often cited as an argument against a loving creator. But surely…

Boundary is necessary for our experience. We understand “loud” by contrast to “soft” and so on. Some of the greatest writers and thinkers express existence itself in this context. Jung sets up contrasts and enjoins us to struggle toward their integration. Buber’s existentialist view is expressed as a “two-fold entity” Ich-Du (or the alternative Ich-Es which allows evil). I read an article recently (teilharddechardin) which eloquently stated religious insight as “relational”. Experience is relative and depends on “the other”. Martin Buber as a catholic? (Indeed he writes that Jesus Christ is the epitome of the jewish ideal).

And surely experience is what creates existence. That is at the core of quantum mechanics – it is observation that crystallises out this particular reality from the infinity of potential. I think of our role here as “observation engine” creating reality. At the heart of observation, again there is separation – a boundary between the observer and that which is observed.

It seems to me that evil is something we create, tolerate and live with. It is the particular reality we choose. It is we who crystallised out the holocaust, not the loving creator. As a result we experience good, by contrast and in relation. We know something is good by reference to all of the evil in the world.

But what is this evil and good that we create? Jung would enjoin us to attempt their integration. What then? Perhaps – joy?

The world is right now saluting the passing of that great spirit – Nelson Mandela. He was, apparently angry and violent as a young man. Yet he transcended this and became something else entirely. His will almost alone seems to have delivered reconciliation and integration out of an almost certain bloodbath.

Perhaps, a thought only, the charity of the loving creator is of a wholly different order from what we think of as the good and evil which we create. In that case, is the path back to our spiritual home (the loving creator) – the integration to which Jung refers? The living in the duality Ich-Du rather than the chimera of Ich-Es?

Hypocrisy and Political Correctness

Political Correctness. What a distasteful phrase.

What is it ? A system of morals – no more no less; but what underlies and underpins it? A belief in God, the sanctity of the individual, a humanist philosophy ? Who knows. Strange then that western society is increasingly bound by its repellant ways. Yes, repellant because it stifles freedom of speech and it makes an outcast of the eccentric. And it does this without having a stated core set of principles that can be rebutted or engaged.

So where is its well-spring? I have a hunch that it flows from socialist atheist cognoscenti. The archetype would be gathered in the Hamstead Borough of Gemuetlichkeit.

I have no problem with many of the apparent mores. I support fairness, equality, loving-kindness. But I can’t abide the dead hand it lays over debate. To be honest I also suspect a hypocrisy at the centre. Socialism espoused by those living in multimillion pound houses, atheism standing on the shoulders of a society won by believers, cognoscenti who perhaps don’t know what they don’t know.

There are good old fashioned systems of morals with well stated values.

Buddhism, Christianity, Judaism to name a few…..