While on LSD a week ago i came to a conclusion:

Life, being our ultimate struggle, is centered around our own individual consciences (the thoughts, the perception, the reality). I ask myself why must we endure this struggle, and what are we struggling against and what for?

When we our hungry, who do we feed? Ourselves. When we are upset, who do we try to uplift? Ourselves. When we are wrong, who do we blame? haha not Ourselves, even though ones self is to blame.

Each individual will always have one constant conflict, themselves. Man vs himself, and Man vs Man are constant conflicts. Man vs nature, Man vs Religion/spirituality, and Man Caught in the Middle are intermittent. The struggle of life is not only to survive, it is to overcome our natural evil, aka our wrong doing "ego."

We may be born evil, but we have a lifetime to overcome it. Through experiences, effort, psychedelics, love, tolerance, acceptance, etc., we can overcome our core of evil.

Spice and LSD are two very influential tools that have led me to this conclusion. My thought process would have never conducted such a beautiful conclusion.

I disagree that our ego is a “natural evil”. I disagree that we are born evil. I disagree that we have a “core of evil”.

Just my opinion.

This is a good question. The impulse to develop ego and selfish desire does seem to be a common condition. For example, how often in history are we told of a child who grows to adulthood without developing a sense of individual self? (I'm loosely equating ego to 'evil'

Perhaps an imprint or initial nature of ego has the purpose of providing something to climb out of. As winter in the northeast makes the arrival of the spring sun such a moving revelation.

So, I'd agree, in a certain sense or aspect we are both the problem and the answer. And both the seeker and the Goal.

Ego, superego, and Id are primitive psychological concepts. Ego is the only one that has any real meaning although not really in the Freudian sense.

The human brain evolved to survive. It filled a cognitive niche in the web of life. We have innate characteristics that make us both altruistic and cooperative as well as selfish and focused on our own survival. This can vary tremendously in people to the point where you get cold sociopaths and people who would sacrifice themselves for another. Without these traits the human race would not be very good at surviving. These traits provide an evolutionary benefit. They allow us to function socially in groups and increase the odds of generating successful offspring.

Modern evolutionary psychology has so much more to offer on these issues then old school psychological theories that are way outdated.

Evil is a human construct it does not exist in nature.

Don't you think "evil" occurs in nature...? Animals that kill for fun being an example?

I've recently been exploring the possibility that evil is caused by some sort of Demiurge per gnosticism, whereas the peace which we seek above the physical plain is harmony with the more conventional godhead.

Any thoughts?

BananaF,
Will you elaborate a bit?
I'm intrigued but have no idea what you're talking about.

I watched a cat torment and slowly kill a bird once. Its just training its instincts. Only a human with a mind (or some other intelligence with a mind) could declare such a thing an evil act if the mind has a concept of evil.

There is no universal good and bad.

In my opinion there is no impulse to develop an ego, it is taught and/or subjected upon us by society. All behavior is learned and is not who we truly are. There is no self, no "I", and everything we "think" we are is but an illusion. There is no past, nor is there a future. There is no experiencer, there is just experience, perception.

Cats are at the upper top of the list when it comes to intelligence among other species of life. Do humans have the exclusive rights to love and hate? i personally dont think so. animals show compassion.



Wouldnt evil also apply to the development and evolution of humans. Is evil not able to evolve? we face modern forms of evil due to our environment, development, and date in time. i agree at the time when we needed the ego the most, we were outfitted with. i also agree with the fact of what modern psychology has developed, but socially and biologically morality is really tough explain through means of science.

All quite agreeable.

The question remains however that, impulse, nature or nurture; even if not necessary, ego development seems to be mostly inevitable. Of course it is quite unreal, and based in the fiction of a story of past and projection of future. Yet it seems certain that a child builds such a unreal understanding, an error, as a usual part of development; and often a lifetime without full correction.

So, there is this experience (no experiencer as you say) of raising children, whom must (?) interact with others in society. Either by subjection via society or programmed by genes; with a tear in one parent's eye, we witness the ego in the child emerge; it is the seed of suffering. Necessary? Inevitable? or just unfortunate circumstances the world 'round?

Perhaps for my own self satisfaction (yes ), I'd rather perceive ego development as part of the plan, in the end to be transended. Or perhaps it is the case; for what joy in leaving it behind - best we might.

Peace

Now as synchronicity would have it, I had to chime in on a thread on synchronicity before posting to this thread due to synchronicity. (So grateful for this Nexus!)

Just caught a documentary that detailed an experiment with dogs and another with wolves. It was clear that within three generations aggressiveness (fair proxy for egoism or 'evil' in animals?) could be selected out in three generations. Only one percent of the first 'natural' fox generation showed neither fear or aggression. Using this as the selection, the third generation was very tame and interested in serving the 'other'. In this case the human master. Maybe egoism, ,self centeredness, is partially genetic.

Apologies to the OP if too off topic. Just food for thought. If we are the problem, one wonders how much is it a factor of DNA?

Peace

Yes, I think this is a wise post. The point about not blaming ourselves for the feeling of wrongness was set up nicely. I have had similar experiences on ayahuasca. In my experience, the message I get is something like, "if there is such a thing as sin, if there is such a thing as evil, it is potentially within you, and only you. You are the one who experiences a sense of evil. You are the one who responds to that burning negativity. Only you can take responsibility for your own state of being. You can be guided to light, but only you can choose the right path, and the same is true for all others. If you feel wronged by a person and you react with hate, then hate is within you. You are the one. You are the sinner." I guess ayahuasca has, in a way, called upon me to turn the other cheek.

I agree with burnt that evil is just a construct of the human mind. Some see drugs as evil, or television, or beer, or religion, or atheists. Some people see these as the key to human destiny. This doesn't mean we should label them as "good" or "bad", they are amoral-having no particular moral qualities themselves until given so by mind, just like everything really.

"could WE be the problem and the answer?"
I really resonate with this. I think the problem is within us, but is not necessarily our fault. Just that its all an unfolding natural process. And i disagree with the idea that this is problem in us is "evil".

"we are the ones we've been waiting for"

I sometimes think that the whole reason we are going through history is so that we each could develop a sense of self..of individuality and personality.. to then return back to that oneness state of equilibrium with the earth/universe. Otherwise were all just bland robotic black and white nodes of the cosmic mind... when we could really be beautifully multicolored, cantankerously psychedelic nodes

I realize that there is no universal good and bad, and understand your point about the human mind being what conceives evil. And I wasn't referring per se to a cat tormenting a single bird-- rather the tendency of stoats to massacre an entire henhouse. I too used to firmly think in terms of the complete objectivity of existence, but realized that the common tendency in ancient philosophies towards moral dualism must spring from somewhere... the question, where?

It's not that I believe evil doesn't originate as a concept of the human mind, but I think it is still important in its existence as a concept of the human mind. At heart, there's some sort of abstract negative force tied to some courses of action and to some entities... "evil"? How to define it? It's one question I pondered with aya recently.

To answer other questions:
In gnostic belief systems, the united God of the universe (Tao/Vishnu/Holy Spirit) is different from the force/entity who created the physical plane of existence as we know it, and entity known as the Demiurge (semi-creator). Ideally, at least in my interpretation, the goal is for one to break free from the Demiurge and become one with the Godhead and achieve a state of gnosis/nirvana. Now, my question, (which some gnostic sects believe firmly) is perhaps does the root of evil lie within the Demiurge? Does the concept of "evil" spring purely from the (purely psychic?) entity which also created the physical human experience?

This is factually incorrect. The concept you are drawing on is commonly known as the blank slate. Meaning that our brains our born blank with no innate traits and everything is a social construct.

This concept is a myth. There is a great book written on the topic by Steven Pinker called the Blank Slate. Basically the conclusion of years of evolutionary psychological research is that we have innate traits. Those innate traits can apply to behavior. However behavior is also influence by the environment. We are part our genes and part our environment.



Nature has been killing and slaughtering for billions of years before we came around. Just because we showed up and have this brain capable of saying "oh this hurts me" or "oh this hurts my friends and fellow human beings" and call that "evil" doesn't mean anything to nature. It has meaning to us.

Don't get me wrong I believe we need moral framework. But WE make up that moral framework not god and not psychic forces.

Also I fully understand that animals can have feelings. Monkeys certainly do as a number of other organisms.



You can't base conclusions about morality on hypothetical beings.


There is a bright side however to the evolutionary fate we have been granted. In order to offer a solution to moral problems people need to recognize where morals come from and where our behaviors come from. In order to do this people need to accept that morals come from us as social beings. People need to recognize that we have innate traits that are genetically determined. Once people recognize these facts a stronger moral framework can be constructed based on what we decide, such as maximizing happiness for the individual without harming others.

The more you pretend that morals come from god or that morals come from made up beings or other imaginary forces the less likely it is you will find real answer. You will only repeat the mistakes of history.

Oh I agree that it is part of 'a' plan put into place for the last few thousand years, since we lost our intimate connection to nature and began to consider ourselves 'apart' from it. Man has become traumatized psychically and created a false paradigm to make him feel secure. I would say that it is an unfortunate circumstance the world over...the concept of self is the source of all suffering. There is no 'you' or 'I' there is only life.

I feel it is the epitome of evolution in our times to realize that 'I' or 'you or 'we' or 'us' do not exist as it is nothing more than an illusion generated to maintain something that we have allowed ourselves to become, but something that in no way benefits us.

Are you arguing that we are born with an ego? We are born with a 'self' already attached without having had any input or stimulous? I find this highly dubious.

As for certain behavioral traits, I can understand that...we see it throughout nature in animals born with knowledge about existence that is apparently 'hard wired'...a type of species memory that is apparently passed on through genetics.

I think we are born with the ability to develop a sense of self. It does take some time to fully develop but I do think its an innate human trait. There are parts of the brain that regulate the sense of self and the sense that you are separate from your environment (to a degree). We know this because when those parts are damaged or altered experiences of losing that sense of self can occur.

We do not learn need to learn this from society. It naturally develops in young children I think even before they can speak but I am not totally sure about that.



Calling it a species memory is not really the most accurate way to look at it. Our genes control aspects of our development. This development and the environment leads to the structure we or other organisms have. That structure and specific modules in the brain lead to certain behaviors. Its very rare that a single gene controls a single behavior but multiple genes certainly can. There are certain genes correlated with altruism for example.

Being told no as a child leaves quite an impact on the brain. It makes us desire, want. According to Sigmund Freud, the presence of your unconscious make you desire things that you shouldnt want. you cant admit - even to yourself- that you want certain things, because you have learned at some point (usually infancy) that those things are bad.

two principles that that influence our psyches: the pleasure principal and reality principal. the pleasure principal says that we pursue pleasure, in the form of physical gratification, from the moment we're born. the reality pricipal states we cant always get what we want and that even when we can have what we want, we have to behave approprately to get it. it is the fact that we want pleasure, combined with the face that we have to adjust both to find it and possibly do without it, that determines our development from birth. these influences shape our personalities and result in at least a certain amount of repression. Even though don't think about repressed desires, they have ways of letting us know they are there. DREAMS are one way; jokes are another.

Saying that something is so according to Sigmund Freud is akin to saying it is so because my Uncle Jerry said so. I'm sorry, but my Uncle Jerry has exactly zero empirical evidence to back up his claims and theories. See Crews' "Memory Wars" (among others) for why Freud is no better than my Uncle Jerry.

Regarding the original post, why fixate on life as some sort of struggle against our own evil nature? What kind of a narrative is that to walk around in your head with? This is my problem with Freud. It is an ugly narrative. We all have narratives about our own existence -- what it means, who we are, why we are here. They may all very well be B.S. But why choose to see ourselves as some sort of victim of an internal 'evil' nature? Especially when it isn't supported by any demonstrated developmental evidence? Personally, I have no patience for this narrative. I choose, instead, to sketch out what I can with empirical facts about brain development, evolutionary psychology, sociology and anthropology and fill in the rest with reasonable extensions of these facts and a few optimistic hopes such as the possibility of altruism, compassion, and cooperation.