I'd just like to get something straight in my mind from a theoretical/intellectual point of view. Would it be fair to say that there are two kinds of "evil" described in MBT?
1. Intents that raise the entropy of the system
2. Intents that lower the entropy of the system through control and force
The second is a more limiting form of entropy reduction when compared with Intents that lower the entropy of the system through love.
Both types are the result of fear.
For the first, what would you append to the end of the sentence if I was to add the word "through"? Chaos? Also control and force?
My usage of the word "evil" is only a metaphor. Bad and immoral might be two synonyms, to give you an idea of what I'm getting at.
I remember that in my previous reads of MBT I was unclear as to whether the "anti-rats" were doing 1, 2, or both.
These are just my thoughts on the subject as of now. I would appreciate any expansion on the topic.
I think evil is too un-TOEish a word to be working with in the first place, too much baggage. TOE-wise, I think you only get to something like evil if you think in terms of all bump, and no sheet. Evil is merely the absence of sheet-ness, or empathy, such that the PMR rule set of dominance and control, for selfish intent, completely dominates.
you seem to presume that control and force itself is somehow "evil" or bad
like a gun, control and force is dangerous, but it is a tool, a necessary tool
Ted skillfully uses control and force to optimize efficiency on this forum.
AUM creates controlling rulesets by force, with good intent.
As in Moral Code, one may constrain the decision space of another, for their benefit and the benefit of the community
the key is what is the intention of the control or force.