Greetings all,

After my posting entitled "Good, Evil, The Nature of Consanguine" I have
been asked on many occasions to expand on my theories. I do that now and
here for all who may want to read of them. This post will later be made
into a book.

This post is a long one and it starts slowly, and with blatant
contradictions, so please read the entire post before deciding to speak
to me on it. In parts it deals in epistemological philosophy, you don't
need to know what that means to appreciate the post. It is just there
for fellow philosophers to understand how best to question it.
Incidentally please do, I am always eager to learn from wise minds.

There are those who would expound that the philosophies of evil written
here may corrupt the minds of those who would be innocent. Yet the
person who condemns this work as being evil has reaffirmed their own
belief that they are good in themselves. Therefore this work helps those
who would combat evil and in light of that, it is therefore a work of
good.

Evil and good are linked you cannot have one without the other. One
exists only because of its opposite, and yet at the same time it exists
solely to undermine its opposite, the destruction of evil will result in
part to the loss of what it is to be good. Yet a man can still do good
deeds without knowledge of evil. Why this confusion, why are there such
contradictions?

Evil cannot rightly be defined, because everyone has a different opinion
on what an act of evil is. So the answer is quite simply to ignore evil
as a tangible force demonstrated through action, and the perceived
result of said actions.

The answer is a simple one. Evil is not an action or its result; Evil is
a state of mind.

If an action leads to evil, but the intention was not for evil to occur,
could the person committing that action be considered at heart as an
evil person?
In my opinion, no. There was an honest if tragic mistake
If an action leads to evil, and the intention was for evil to occur,
then could the person committing that action be considered at heart as
an evil person?
In my opinion, yes. For the person knowingly committed an act he knew
could and would be perceived as evil.

So we know evil is a state of mind, yet read on.

Forget firstly all that you know to be truthful, on the basis that you
have been told it is. Even that which the Gods have spoken, for even
their words also can be lies, and that is not blasphemy. For all truth
when told is a lie. Perhaps that which I speak of is truth, and I intend
to say it truthfully, but once it is uttered it becomes a lie.
For explanations are the representation of truths you try to expound.
You know what you mean, but you have to put it into words. Let us look
at that word more closely. The "RE-presentation" when you imitate
something, by speech or action, you change its initial essence. This is
the reason that credence cannot be given to acts that are perceived to
be evil. It is only evil by your personal perception of the action,
rather than the intent of said action. Therefore the perception is the
lie and the intent of the action is the truth.

So when does a man knowingly set out to do evil? The answer is that only
he knows, you may only perceive. He may tell you he meant to do evil,
but that would be his representation of the action, which would then
become a lie.

To commit an act of evil you must know and believe it is evil. This is
the true nature of evil. Let people know you commit evil acts, and
immediately they add their own perception, based by your representation
of the truth of the action. It then becomes a lie to all others except
yourself. If you understand and appreciate your intention, then it is
truth.

The intent is evil. Evil is born in the mind. True evil exists only as a
state of mind. This is the nature of Evil.

I hope that this post has been enlightening, if you considered it a
total waste of time, then you really shouldn't have bothered completing
it.
E. C.

Penned by my hand on the 13th of Chakros, in the year 137 MA.