There is no good or evil. These are brands. There is only desire or its antipathy “un-desire”. Where desire and its antipathy are not present, ambivalence reigns. Ambivalence is a state of not knowing, perhaps ignorance. Law makers count on ambivalence when they express legislation couched in rhetoric personalising fanatical desire. Other views neither have influence nor are accepted, however cogent. Desire will win at any cost.
People, on the other hand; regular folks who are viewed only as pawns by the political machine, flit from circumstance to circumstance as butterflies pollinate flowers. The in-group and the in-group views are always good or, at least, were good until the in-group changed as with its opinions. Thus, this leads to a supplementary battle between old and new good which becomes and is the current state of tension. The out-group is the producer of designer evil. That is, until the out-group joins the in-group and old evil is new good. Of course there are the standard issues which seem to affect opinions throughout society. Should sexual expression be overt of covert? What age should people be allowed to marry? Is the sexual union between male and female the only partnership blessed by God?
There is room to consider drugs and alcohol, murder, theft, blackmail and a host of other modern conditions. Nevertheless, this post is considering the mechanics. Symptoms are unimportant. In order to personalise their fanatical desire, law makers concocted brand good and brand evil. However, without a champion that transcended the legal due processes, they knew the brand would fade into oblivion. People would work it out. They would realise they were being conned. The champion needed to be so powerful it, he or she would be beyond access. It would need to be beyond physical and so huge, so awesome, so overwhelming it not only is beyond contact, but all would fear direct contact. Of course, when the fear waned the great pretenders would emerge, but they would only ever be able to speak figuratively in light of some unimaginable expressive force. That champion and necessary invention was God.
Having an all-powerful force beyond reason blessing brand good would soon unhinge without an almost equally powerful arch-enemy; the bastion of brand evil. Without the Devil, Satan, Beelzebub or the host of other labels for the precise same concept, brand good would unravel. Exponents of brand evil could argue their brand was good. As the people are ambivalent or ignorant, opinions could be swayed in favour of the out-group given the right personalisation. The same forces behind the clandestine “all powerful” God created the almost powerful Satan. Satan, of course, always needed to be trumped by God so the in-group and its greater good would remain the favoured option of the mindless masses.
There is the analysis of macro desire. Micro desire works very differently. The term parasite is well known and both used to describe blood sucking creatures and analogic one sided relationships. Parasites do not just suck blood. A parasite is an individual who may combined to form a group strategy where the targeted body is deliberately kept alive, where possible, to ensure a constant supply of sustenance. The targeted body receives no deliberate payment or benefit and usually is unwitting. This amply describes micro desire. Just as with macro desire, good, evil, God and Satan have roles to play. However, the rules are rather different.
Good and evil are functional blocks that can be used to influence. God and Satan are the carrot and stick which, scientifically, might manifest as the empirically possible or impossible. Micro desire is as likely to manifest as support for or from. Parasitic and reverse behaviour is possible. Both have conditions. The conditions are simple are can be summarised in two words – no conflict.