kokopelle: (Dark God)
I finished listening to "Dark Rivers of the Heart" by Dean Koontz today. His books always cause me to contemplate life, purpose, power and good/evil. This particular books featured two villains that had different motivations. Roy Miro was a government agent who was also a sociopathic killer. His angle was a strong sense of "compassion" that drove him to want to end the suffering of others. He killed often and randomly, with no sense of guilt. Instead he believed that he was fulfilling a duty to the world as a whole. The other villain was the hero's father. The father was a serial killer who indulged in the deaths as art. Now in prison, the father had previously killed two or three people a year.

The contrast between the two villains occurred at the end of the book. While both villains were evil personified as sociopathic serial killers, the father said that Miro was insane. He said that only insane people kill in a sociopathic way in the pursuit of purpose. Only those who killed for fun were sane. Who was the "worst" killer? Miro dreamed of killing off 90% of the population in pursuit of his perfect world. He was sanitary, caring and "compassionate" in this dogged pursuit of death. The father killed much less often in pursuit of "art" and fun. His crimes were sadistic, messy and had no inherent "redeeming" goals.

Who was more evil? Was one of the evil characters sane and the other insane? Before it can be said, "neither is more evil, both are equally insane", consider that there is a judgment call on people being "more good" (i.e. Mr. Rodgers and Mother Teresa). Food for thought...

IMG_6604_BW
kokopelle: Black Cat (Cat - Black)
I am finding a disturbing trend in the Dean Koontz I've read and listened to. The main villains are truly evil, but yet they have veins of sanity and "normality". Sometimes they seem more "normal" than the heroes. This is especially true in the book I am now listening to, "Dark Rivers of the Heart".

I am left wondering if regularl people are like this. Do we have things about us that push us to the edge of normality? Are we so unaware of these things that we believe normality surrounds us, but others see something very different? Food for thought...

IMG_7720
kokopelle: Horse Totem (Cat AntiGravity Diagram)
This is an article excerpt that speaks to the nature of personal shadow and the role of love in integrating the shadow. The much lengthier original article was about the Good and Evil. Nowadays I find myself wrestling with my shadow and find that these words give a clue on who I can deal with my guilt and self-sabotage.

Read more... )
kokopelle: Horse Totem (Shaman - Sun)
I am writing this article in response the discussions I’ve seen about the nature of Nature. Opinions range from "use it as you will" to "only good things will come from the earth when you’re in peace with it". The truth is somewhere in between, with bad things happening to good people and bad deeds seeming to go unpunished. What gives? I’ll approach my thoughts from the perspective that nature does have destructive power and a balanced response or understanding is required.

Read more... )
kokopelle: Horse Totem (Surprised)
Neither! Does this make me unpredictable? Perhaps...
Are you Good or Evil?
You are half evil, and half good. The perfect balance!
'Are You Good or Evil?'
(QuizGalaxy.com)
kokopelle: (Meatwad Cute)
I am getting ready to write a paper about the dynamics of sexuality. The core of my "morality" thoughts are in the following article. I would love to get everyone’s' opinions and feedback on this view of Natural Law vs. Man’s Law. This is being cross-posted on my blog so I can get the great feedback from my friends.

I think in the same vein as those who see the world being a place of connected spirit/energy/vibration. Dogma does not exist here. The rule is indeed survival. That said, we are spiritual beings in human bodies, and to survive a society/tribe makes agreements that are held to be harmonious to the society as a whole. Moral issues spring up from the misinterpretation of these agreements as being dogma instead of just the "really good idea" that they are.

An example is that it is a "really good idea" not to stick body parts into fire for extended periods of time. This can be moralized to state that fire is evil, and must be avoided because of its destructive nature. This kind of attitude comes about by those people who weren't smart enough get their extremities out of fires before harm befell them. Are there some people in every society that need protection that is "extreme" by other people's measures? Sure. Does that mean that society must vilify the things that are protected against? NO!

A last thought. In a diverse natural world that does not have dogmatic definitions of good and evil, and the measurement of the distance that you should put between yourself and something else is the relative harmony/disharmony that the object presents, there is the question of what society can/should do. In the natural law there is no "un-natural" act. How could there be? There are very destructive and disharmonious acts though. A mass-murder is is not un-natural. Killing is something that we are capable of, and who is to judge the motivations behind these actions? That said, a society can deem a mass-murderer as being destructive and dis-harmonious to a tribe/society, and the mass-murderer will be put down for the safety of the larger group. Is this "moral" or just good management?

Feedback? Opinions? Agreements? Disagreements?

April 2020

S M T W T F S
   1 23 4
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930  

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Apr. 14th, 2026 01:09 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios