Cautious Considering Of Ideas

Now look I have to be extremely careful about how I go about saying what I'm trying to take a look at here.

Saying a thing, is not the same as being able to completely accurately convey the necessary ideas in all of their complexity to everyone all at once. People 'hear' things in different ways, in the sense that we all have our own unique histories and fund of experiences. These things can make us either more sensitive, or sometimes less sensitive, even just to various 'ordinary' things in the normal run of affairs, and it becomes so much more critical if someone is attempting to intellectually 'look at' concepts in order to have some light shine on obscure matters. There is an overlap of where emotion and pure 'intellectualizing' meet for all things human; we cannot simply take some fictional 'Star Trekkie Vulcan' approach - because we're real humans. And that includes those of us who are 'Vulcans' - we wouldn't then be fictional Vulcans, if you understand what I'm saying.

Tim Robbins - 'Castle Rock.' lol. Just sayin' you know...

Aw gewd I can't just leave off the weak and fragile humour, right?

Anyway.

So the caveat with this post is for people not to leap to any 'obvious' conclusions.

Additionally, I need to make a slight reversal from what I appear to have said previously about there being no decisive complete disposal of 'evil' in ancient texts - that is not, once again, exactly the right way to express the concepts entailed: you see, there really is a 'Satan' actual person... Now what this means is that material physical, let's call them 'human' beings, for want of any better expression right now, are the active agencies of hypothetical or putative 'good' and/or 'evil.' And there will be 'peak expressions' of that; ergo 'Satan.'

The way that the typical Parmenides style of Greek philosophy looked at 'evil' is in the form of the metaphor about the sun shining on objects, and people's minds being like an eye, but an eye that could only with difficulty distinguish the silhouette of the actual object as reflected light, from the silhouette formed by the shadow falling behind the thing. It's like someone used to living inside a cave, and then they went out into the sunlight so that when they returned back into the cave they couldn't 'see' properly for a while - so they could still make out silhouettes from a distance, but not which of those were the hard objects themselves, compared to their shadows.

A human moral agency, can perfectly well use the shadows, to exploit other people who were not able to see. This is then an example of 'an evil personality.' An actual example of such a thing would be an 'evil person.'

Come with me down this little lane, it'll be all right...
Trust me. ; ) ...Depends, really, on your own
self-confidence, surely?

If we take this 'idea' into a futuristic sci-fi scenario, much like the kind of thing our 'Stanley Kubrick' did a bit, we could in theory have some future civilization that had more or less overcome physical degeneration or even found some way to 'bottle' individual consciousness and keep it going timelessly in cyber systems or non-carbon and synthetic 'life forms' or something else even more exotic.

Now there's nothing obvious in our world that suggests we really have 'Darth Vader' out there somewhere, directing the traffic of evil.

This has all taken me a really long way from where I wanted to go with this particular article/post.

Where I wanted to go, since I had already said I would go here - and I can't leave the video clip up for any length of time in context of the preceding articles - was to point out Kubrick's informed 'moral sense' as it were, and the European 'higher cultural' perspective. And by 'higher cultural' I just plain do not mean anything even remotely connected to academia, professional mindsets, the so-called modern European aristocracy or any of that.

And so I will just show the clip and leave it with 'no additional comment' except to say 'don't rush to conclusions.' This is not meant for the desperately unwise...