Thursday, July 28, 2005

Evil.

It’s 6:30 P.M. on a Thursday night, and I’m staring into the eyes of Lucifer, the Morning Star cast from heaven for attempting to usurp creation. I hate staring into the eyes of Lucifer at 6:30 on Thursdays. I could have sworn I included avoiding this very situation in the New Year’s resolutions, along with smoking and vacationing in Darfur.

“Write…a note…to the register,” Satan commands. Although it is my custom to succumb to temptation and do things I’m not supposed to do when there’s something in it for me, Satan is presenting a situation that can be of no possible benefit to myself, my store, or my coworker Mike, who got me into this mess. More on that in a bit.

The arch-fiend isn’t sporting leathery bat wings and cloven hooves or smelling of sulfur and brimstone these days, in which such ostentatious displays of masculinity might offend the neo-eighties, (WARNING POLITICALLY INCORRECT COMMENT), faggy pink shirt ethos that has so lamentably re-descended upon us. He’s camped out, in all his puissant, diabolical might, behind the unwavering brown eyes of a retired, horrifically insane physics professor named Leona. She’s made a request of me that there is zero, zip, nada, rien chance that I will accommodate, and now we’re locked into a struggle of wills that I really could have taken a pass on.

Leona is like something out of a dark fairy tale: a tall, gaunt, wrinkled black woman, who, seemingly to add the requisite fairy tale touch of outlandishness, carries with her at all times a wooden cane that she neither needs nor uses. She used to teach at the university across the street, before her mental condition deteriorated into its present, heavily medicated state, at which juncture she was politely asked to retire. Her story is something of a parable around these parts, principally about the psychological risks of trying to foist advanced math upon nineteen-year-old American college students.

As to the mental condition bit, I should clarify: she’s usually heavily medicated. She is clearly med-free today, and I’m reaping the harvest of it with the joy of a 1984 Ethiopian subsistence farmer staring in horror at his scorched, foodless, lifeless plot of earth.

But like any story that climaxes in the middle, or any story at all, this one starts at the beginning: I was walking back from my restocking duties in the cooler to the front of the store, only to find Mike engaged in a debate of sorts, with Satan, which he kindly redirected toward me.

“It’s his shift and not mine, so I can’t make that decision,” Mike generously deflected, “so he’ll have to decide it for us.” Understandably, I became immediately apprehensive: Mike and I have the same rank, an identical unimportance. Neither of us are managers, and so, with this little lie, his passing the buck onto me could only mean that he felt it was my duty to lift a weight that he had neither inclination nor means to lift himself.

“So it’s your shift,” the Evil One, in Leona guise, replies, to me, as powerful and yet wanting as John Milton wrote him. “I have a cappuccino, and need two packs of Marlboro 100’s. Ethel lets me run a tab until I get my check.” Ethel is the store manager; Ethel is on vacation. Nowhere in the employee handbook or in my training is it said that I can extend tabs to regular customers: you pay for your stuff, or you get your stuff when you have the ability to pay for it. No advanced degree in economics is necessary for an understanding that five-year-old children already have come to fathom. My company, and hence my place as its representative is not a bank: it does not evaluate your credit-worthiness, or discern your likelihood to repay a loan. It offers many, small, relatively inexpensive products and then requires that you pony up for them, immediately, on the spot. We do not engage in a layaway program for nicotine and caffeine; we live in the old world barter system by which we exchange product for money, instantly and finally—a transaction as clean as a scalpel, as done as death. The only way I can extend her a credit is if I pay for her items myself, and as she’s making my evening decidedly unpleasant, my prevailing winds are not blowing in that direction.

“Ma’am,” I say, searching for words too evasive to immediately collar, “Ethel’s on vacation, and I haven’t the authority to loan you merchandise or the money to pay for it on your behalf. These cigarettes and that cappuccino don’t belong to me, and therefore I don’t have the ability to give them out without payment. Have you got a credit card or checkbook?”

“No,” Satan/Leona retorts, “WRITE…A NOTE…TO THE REGISTER,” as if raising her voice at me will have the same effect that it might on children and animals. I am telepathically telling Mike at this instant what he can go do with himself.

All the while, we are locked in a terrible, mutual gaze of unflinching eye contact. I’m, I must self-indulge, very good at this game, as someone whose inherent curiosity about other human beings often overpowers my fear of them: I occasionally, through this modest asset, wordlessly send people away blushing and frightened who could buy and sell me or kick my ass. This is the nearly boundless power of eye contact—the hammer of the awakened.

But at this moment, Leona and the intensity of her madness-laden stare are overpowering my resolve. Her otherworldly dementia is trumping my Zen; the dark side is stronger some days, whatever Yoda said to the contrary. I am looking into two torches from the nether world, not twitchy and irresolute, like the flickering, dancing eyes of my crackhead patrons, but fixed and still as the eye of a storm, frozen and patient as sedimentary rock.

Leona cannot win this battle, in the material sense, of course, but I can certainly lose it. She isn’t getting squat from me without shelling out the obligatory ducats, but she can make me flinch. Physically, I am as steady as a glacier, but Leona is making me flinch on the inside, where everything that matters occurs anyway.

“You aren’t getting cigarettes without giving me money,” I reiterate, for what I hope will be the final time, knowing full well that a physically unintimidating, sixtyish woman has, in fact, driven spikes into my soul. My patience is exhausted; I want this to simply end.

And then a strange thing happens; Satan slowly unscrews the top of her cane, reaches into its caverns, and produces a five-dollar bill. Khrushchev has blinked; the missile crisis is over.

“I’ll buy this cappuccino, and take one pack of cigarettes,” the Lord of the Flies proclaims.

That’s right; the Enemy had the money to pay for most of what it was requesting from the get-go. We have gone through this entire, arduous process unnecessarily, as a tacit exercise in lunacy, because Leona hasn’t kept up on her prescriptions. I am bereft of words. I simply ring up her purchase and send her on her merry, utterly depraved way.

And after Leona leaves, after the shift has ended, after I’ve graciously thanked Mike for leaving me to deal with a deeply unbalanced person, I am left to ponder the idea of evil. One might argue that Leona isn’t evil, but instead that she’s merely disturbed, but I would maintain that these are simply two different ways of describing the same quality, with ignorance being the third. Right conduct in life arises from clarity of perception, the ability to see the right path and avoid the pitfalls deriving from perceptual error; evil and madness, blindness and ignorance are the pollutants that muddy the perceptual waters, the perversions of the will, as Augustine described them, that sully our motives and lead us astray in our actions. Evil is a sandstorm and a blizzard, hiding us from reality and goodness as clear as the air.

By this measure, from a certain perspective, no one, not your serial killers or pedophiles or war criminals is ever really evil, in the common sense of the word, which is a creature to be despised and abhorred. People are, rather, simply mistaken, choosing unwisely for lack of the ability to do better. We can understand this concept more fully when we look at certain phrasings: when one has done something evil, it is frequently described as having done something wrong. The individual has been presented a riddle and answered it incorrectly; from an objective point of view it is the same nature as a teen failing to correctly answer an algebra problem. Hence it makes little sense to hate lunatics and murderers alike; they suffer from an illness that has corrupted their better nature and compels them to perform acts that are repellant to those less afflicted. They are, in their fundamental essences, sick, things to be pitied and helped rather than scorned—there but for the grace of God go I.

So, for the better running of society, we take corrective measures: we prescribe medications and build prisons and hire police and fund schools, so that people can be guided correctly in life and not fall into the darkness and folly that is error, the identification with unworthy principles that leads individuals to cause harm, to inflict suffering on themselves and others. Leona isn’t a great danger to anyone, and that’s why she’s simply prescribed meds and not locked in a cage like some rabid animal. But there is, nevertheless, something quintessentially unnerving about looking into the swirling chaos and hellfire just beneath the surface of that unwavering glare, as disconcerting as free-falling down a well: it is looking into a funhouse mirror, seeing a distorted but recognizable version of your very self.

18 Comments:

At Thursday, July 28, 2005 8:47:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I've been there, and it's not a pretty place. I'm afraid that your battle of wills was entirely within your own mind. It sounds creepy at first, but accepting that helped me to control such situations, until I gave up.

Somewhere, deep down, I realized that I was being paid $4 an hour to not only put up with that shit but indirectly encouraging it to continue. So I got a job at a bar, where the bouncers did an excellent job of keeping the peace, and even though the pay sucked, the tips didn't.

 
At Thursday, July 28, 2005 9:16:00 PM, Blogger Dublin Saab said...

When dealing with the wild beasts I find a overt dose of body language can cut through the fog of lala land. Remeber the power of arms crossed high onthe chest. "I'm not autorized to grant loans to anyone, so either pay now or wait for Ethel to return" then do the high arm cross with you hand under your arm pits. Try it out and feel the power

 
At Thursday, July 28, 2005 11:06:00 PM, Blogger Hawaiianmark said...

Oh Yeah..."the hammer of the awakend"

Damn that is great.

Ever notice the "look" in the unbalanced ones eyes?

Dead ass give away.

You can spock 'em a mile away once you have seen it.

Frickin' great post, per as usual.

Aloha.

 
At Friday, July 29, 2005 5:53:00 AM, Blogger St. Dickeybird said...

Evil is a 60-yearold woman making your insides flinch.
"Write a note to the register", huh? I'll remember that plan whenever things don't go my way.

 
At Friday, July 29, 2005 6:47:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It might make little sense to hate or to label these people as evil--but let me tell you why I do it even when I know I'm doing it. Self-protection. It is easier; that is, it takes much less effort to write off people in such a way. If I identify with them, if I feel for them, isn't the next logical step that I should do something? At the very least, shouldn't I address the dark side in myself?

Ugh, that's too hard. Too time-consuming. I've got to leave right now to make the train in time to buy my caffeine before I get to my cubicle. I'm not like that: I'm not "evil." Look at how highly functioning I am. Now leave me alone because I've got to get home in time to get to the gym before all the eliptical machines are taken.

I believe the ease of labeling explains a lot of prejudices: those about mental illness, race, age, education level, sexual orientation, weight. If I can label you with a tag that doesn't apply to me, I can spend much less time thinking about our similarities, and I can tell myself I will never be like you.

Oh, sorry, Gas Guy. You, of course, know this. Sorry for the long comment. Thank you very much for writing. Thank you for the time you take out of your day to convict us, like some kind of convenience store Holy Spirit.

That Mike sure is a slacker.

 
At Friday, July 29, 2005 7:32:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fascinating and elegantly written post.

However, don't you realize that your musings on society, self, and the evil/good dichotomy are meaningless? We don't really exist; our lives are leading to no purposeful destination. We are all just tiny plastic figurines in some alien kid's snow globe, shaken or cast aside at his whimsy.

 
At Friday, July 29, 2005 10:58:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Great post, don't fuck with old black women if you don't have to, and if you do be firm and don't give in. They're used to fighting for evry penny then suddenly acquiescing. They want a good fight.

The faggy pink shirt craze that's descended upon us. You should write about that more.

The problem is, this jack-off with the pink shirt, spiky do, and SUV pulling up to your lot, is going to be a lawyer

Speak up for manly desire well tempered my friend, as you do in your writing, BY writing. It is one of the forces of greatest good in our world.

 
At Friday, July 29, 2005 1:55:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I know how many drugs it takes to bring me to normalcy - three vodka sodas and a vicodin.

 
At Friday, July 29, 2005 3:10:00 PM, Blogger Scooby said...

I faced a similar situation today. There was a piece of a story that could be very damaging to the person I was writing about, but if I didn't include it, my audience would have wondered why it wasn't included. So I got bitched at for 15 minutes while I tried to explain (with little success, mind you) that I had to include this bit even though he didn't want me to. He had option to comment or not, and he chose not. Oh well.

 
At Friday, July 29, 2005 5:14:00 PM, Blogger Nightcrawler said...

One thing that was left out of your description of evil: those who knowingly do wrong things. People who know what the right thing to do would be but do the wrong thing anyways. Leona could not help her condition but many others can. They are not all one and the same. Some are innocent and others are simply evil.

 
At Sunday, July 31, 2005 2:17:00 AM, Blogger JPS said...

Nightcrawler,
I am going to address your comment specifically and at some length, because I'm not certain that you've fully grasped the implications of what I've written. You're free to disagree, of course, but I just want to make certain that we're on the same page first.

The reason that I left "those who knowingly do wrong," out of my description is from the point of view of mystical tradition, i.e, most Eastern traditions and early Roman Catholocism, they do not exist. Goodness and awareness are synonymous, just are evil and ignorance. Hence any Christian theologian would tell you that the condition of God being all-good and the condition of God's omniscience are inextricably intertwined: a being that is all-knowing is necessarily purely benevolent and vice-versa because these are simply two aspects of the same quality.

What you are talking about, as I take it, are people who have factual knowledge that the things that they do are evil, which simply means that they were once taught not to do it. By that definition, Jesus himself was evil, as he spent an entire life defying the mores of ettiquette and decorum established by his society, doing things he was plainly told not to do and then failing to even apologize.

What I am talking about is rather understanding of one's actions, something that no sinner, sane or insane, has. The offender is typically blinded to this understanding by the power of the ego: selfish cravings and attachments. Again, the pedophile that "knows" molesting children is wrong and does it anyway is operating under the same principle as the grotesquely obese person who "knows" that piece of cherry cheesecake is part of what's killing him and eats it anyway. The latter person's actions have fewer harmful consequences to others, of course, but he should feel fortunate for that, not judgemental. He lucked out on the bad cravings-o-meter, nothing more.

In short, merely factual definitions of evil are usually arbitrary, transitory, always subjective, poorly-defined, and frequently incorrect. As much as I like to avoid political contention here, Hitler or Stalin or Pol Pot didn't think of themselves as evil, as much as we like to do so now, and had the former won a war neither would the history books. They did what, from their perspective, was right. So much for codifiied good and evil.

Awareness, or understanding, of good and evil is, conversely, eternal--timeless and wholly objective; it is the ability to see right action from a higher perspective that is in no way associated with benefit to the self; it is the thing that every person who "knows right from wrong" and yet transgresses anyway does not have. In fact, to have this awareness and to still do wrong is by most standards a theological impossibility, as much as someone scanning your mind for a fact that you knew absolutely could find it transcribed their incorrectly. Those who truly know right can do nothing else, but these are souls so rare that you or I are possibly never to meet one.

See what I'm getting at?

 
At Sunday, July 31, 2005 1:49:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

With all due respect gas guy, that's too new-age for me. Of course some people realize what they're doing is wrong. Evil and ignorance are absolutely not synonymous. No way, no how. When a spouse cheats, it's because they don't know any better? Bank robbers do so becaue they don't know any better? Killers. Rapists. Thiefs. Liars. Nope. I'm not saying ever, but for the people who conduct such acts, be it in a gas station about money or something much bigger, aren't dealing in reality. And that, gas guy, is why they get off on the insanity plea. We're intelligent enough to know that if someone doesn't realize an obviously morally incorrect act is wrong, they're deemed unfit for trial. (I won't even go down the slippery slope argument of "but who decides what is morally wrong?")

Jesus was evil? Are you saying that going against any social norm is evil? I'm not up on my bible studies, but he never harmed another, but instead tried to spread his own/his father's gospel, and gained a following by doing so. Evil? Nope.

Those who truly know right can do nothing else? I just down't see it. I'm sure you've done that which is improper - in fact, you've mentioned instances before on this blog - even though you knew it wasn't polite or proper.

 
At Sunday, July 31, 2005 9:38:00 PM, Blogger Hawaiianmark said...

I was actually thinking that the most evil was a faggy pink ethos that has so lamentably re-descended.

But thats me.

It does not come across as to new age for myself, more tempted to say it feels new age. If we dont see in ourselves the touch of evil that we all carry, are not we doomed to let it infect us?

Seeing ourselves in the mirror carried by the evil, the twisted, the crazed; we put a human face that we recognize. It is our own. And in some small sense, empathy ensues. Some take the empathy bit and run a might too far with it. Others, have none, and do what they will with whatever it is they feel.

Common sense, sees the pedophile & murderer as evil. Most of us will. GasGuy, I believe the point of perspective you write of, ties the tale together. Unable to discren what is right vs. what is wrong, a skewed understanding of morals, behavoir, laws. That being, understanbly is albeit evil-lite, is Confused.

Reflection has its moments of pristine clarity, unlike my comments.

Aloha.

 
At Monday, August 01, 2005 4:37:00 AM, Blogger King of Helview said...

OMG

THAT IS SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO COOL

YOU ARE SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO IN TOUCH WITH YOURSELF

 
At Monday, August 01, 2005 4:51:00 AM, Blogger Stewed Hamm said...

I'm firmly with Hamel on this one. I'll even go him one further and say this post reeks of moral equivalence like a freshman applying "Axe" in anticipation of his first kegger.

There is good and there is evil.

Murderers and rapists aren't wrongdoers, my friend. They are, indeed, evildoers. The things that they do - stealing another's life or innocence, are unequvocally wrong. Not because society decided they are wrong, but because evil acts exist, and murder and rape are but two of them.

Equating a willing pederast to someone eyeballing the dessert cart is itself quite sickening. While they are both gratifying themselves, one does so at the expense of a child, and the other does so at his own, or at the very worst a medical bill down the road.
Cherry cheesecake doesn't require intensive therapy to recover, if it even does recover. Cherry cheesecake doesn't suffocate under the unbearable burden of shame and guilt for years before it can no longer manage the effort and kills itself.
Cherry cheesecake is a collection of sugars and dairy products, not a living breathing human child, once full of wonder and innocence about the world.

Chalking up evil acts to a bad cravings-o-meter is what allows Hitlers, Stalins, and Pol Pots to rise so easily to power in the first place. Call a spade a spade - evil exists and it is evil.

 
At Monday, August 01, 2005 11:59:00 AM, Blogger JPS said...

Folks, feel free to continue commenting, but I haven't the time nor 900 pages of text necessary to continue this discussion. Go read any spiritual literature whatsoever and then come back and tell me that that idiotic Jonah Goldberg/Fox News "moral equivalence" boogeyman dismissal carries more weight than the Buddha or Jesus. Morality as designated by humans is qintessentially relative, as lacking in absolutes as the nucleus of an atom is lacking in fixed position. Causing harm? Ask the moneylenders Jesus scourged in the temple if that hurt or not. The idea of moral absolutes is a simpleton's idea, a comfort for those who wish to think themselves righteous without the profound investigation and admission of never knowing that righteousness actually involves. So, outraged-at-this-post folk, you think that you understand good and evil? Good for you. Go and steamroll dogmatically through this world with your bad selves. The Inquisition and Oliver Cromwell and the Ayatollah Khomeini would be proud of you all.

I, for one, don't know, and think the journey is more important than the destination. So we're never going to agree here, since people who already, to themselves at least, understand such trite and elemental concepts such as, say, good and evil, aren't going to be talked out of anything by the likes of me. So we to agree to disagree. End of debate, at least from my end.

 
At Wednesday, August 03, 2005 6:12:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I didn't see any outraged-at-this-post responses, but you're not reading or responding, so you don't really care, I suppose, GG.

 
At Saturday, August 13, 2005 12:24:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Beware the a-historical.

Awareness, or understanding, of good and evil is, conversely, eternal--timeless and wholly objective;

 

Post a Comment

<< Home