Epistemology of Evilization

angry-33059_1280The question of evil is typically posed as a matter of ontology and it is unsurprising that Communists in representing a nefarious totalitarian ideology that has spread so much mass evil will typically deny the very performance of evil by curiously for historical materialists claiming that the question of evil must be cast as a metaphysical question of ontotheology.

This leads us to open the question of evil as a transdisciplinary inquiry of epistemology. Evil from the perspective of zoology is simply parasitism. Evil from the perspective of philosophy is simply performativity, i.e. something that is acted out yet is neither true nor false. Evil from the perspective of sociobiology is seeking attachment as a survival strategy. Evil from the perspective of game theory is simply more or less rational self-interested calculus. Evil from the perspective of anthropology is in today’s jargon simply “diversity”. Evil from the perspective of sociology is simply social construction and so on and so forth.

To deny evil seem in fact pretty evil itself. Meat-eating Communists surely would want to relativize the suffering of the victims of totalitarianism, including billions of innocent, enslaved persons suffering in the totalitarian Animal Industry of Evil. It is in fact interesting that an ideology as evil as Communism would want to deny the very performativity of evil.

The significant influence of the ontology of historical materialism in academia has in fact severely inhibited research with respect to the issue of evil. This is quite peculiar since this is a very essential question indeed for politics, academia and society generally. There is no reason why science should not be able to identify evil epistemologically, measure evilization of persons ontologically (medically, zoologically, psychometrically etc.) and indeed discern evil hermeneutically in discourse. There is no reason why biology, genetics, medicine and zoology should not be able to study biological factors behind evil performativity and processes of individual evilization. The fact that these issues are extensively discussed in traditional discourses of all traditional religions is obviously no reason for science to refrain from studying this or anything else for that matter on account of Para-Christian apophatic epistemology.

E.g. why is that human persons with antisocial personality disorders known as ADHD in legal minors and as psychopathy in legal adults are far more prone to committing crime and thus usually clearly evil acts than are indeed other human beings? Answering this question requires understanding how lack of tribal social structures fail to psychologically inhibit criminal psychopathic behaviors. From the perspective of gender science should the fact that men are on average far more psychopathic than are on average women be essential to understanding why relatively more egoistic men tend to severely misbehave towards relatively more altruistic women.

Of course this is not intended to imply either biological determinism or social determinism but rather that better science and better knowledge can help us disrupt structural oppression, including the structural evils of performative determinism.

We should rather assume that evil is performatively ubiquitous. This is not to imply that everything is evil but rather that evil as defined in humans as exaggerated pursuit of self-interest is implicated in virtually every human social practice, including in academia itself in for example academic bullying and experimentation on enslaved and caged non-human persons.

Once we recognize the ubiquitously intertwined performative nature of evil can we thus commence disentangle not only evil from non-evil on a measured scale of relative degree of evilization of persons but indeed disentangle the epistemological question of performative evil itself. Evil importantly needs be studied zoologically on a scale of evilization as ranging from herbivores (least evilized) over predators (moderately evilized) to parasites (highly evilized). Evilization in both species and individuals is thus a matter of relative degree of evilization.

It would be difficult to deny that psychopaths tend to be more evilized than non-psychopaths, that men tend to be more evilized than women, that heteroculturals tend to be more evilized than non-heteroculturals, that gays tend to be more evilized than lesbians, that many human persons become increasingly evilized with growing age or for that matter that Pandas persons tend to be less evilized than Brown bear persons.

Anyone with extensive social experience from social interaction with hunting Cat persons has surely observed their combination of highly emotionally intelligent capacity for loving others as combined with their cunning focus when hypnotizing a prey person in order to calm it as a practice of anesthesia. While most Western humans mistake this for cruelty and clearly so by means of human projection do murderous predator behaviors clearly qualify for placement in the middle of the scale of evilization.

The Animal liberation movement is understandably focused on liberating non-human persons as abused, exploited and tormented by humans but what about abuse, exploitation and torment between non-human persons? As we clearly need phase out so called ecosystems which is just a euphemism for relative degrees of evilization is an interdisciplinary scientific understanding of performative processes of evilization essential indeed to reinventing and reengineering nature, the nature of relations between human Animal and non-human persons as well as importantly structural relationships between embodied classes of humans Animals. In recasting the Para-Christian ontological question of evil into the epistemological question of evilization can we also commence reinventing and reengineering the socially constructed “nature” of distinctly Para-Christian science itself.

The purpose obviously should not be discursive determinism but rather to open up interpersonal structural social practices to change, innovation and transformation. Hence is the epistemological question of performative evilization essential to Intersectionality and generally interpersonal relations of every kind. It is impossible to even try to understand the dynamics of interpersonal structural relationships whether in terms of psychology, sociology, anthropology or otherwise without rigorous scientific epistemological inquiry into the ubiquitously intertwined zoological phenomenon of individually relative degrees of evilization indeed.

The Eurolect – Politics of the Para-Christian documentation project

Screenshot 2017-12-01 at 23.30.32