Readers’ reactions to the first two essays:


A discussion of good and evil –
were the first two essays (published in DL7) a propaganda exercise for DL?
Because essay No. 1 was obviously, written by one of the Master’s pupils and
Essay No. 2 was, also obviously written by a reader who had not imbibed any of
the DL teaching. Essay One gave a clear definition, albeit with some proviso’s.
Like the writer, I don’t know whether it is right, but it feels OK and gives an
acceptable working hypothesis. Essay Two meandered (at length) through
orthodoxy and came to the conclusion that he/she couldn’t give a definition.
The moral of all this (if I may use the word) is READ YOUR DLs.


EDITOR: The first two essays
showed different viewpoints, but it may be that the writer of the above letter
has stepped into a trap of his own making. Because the first essay was (quite
obviously) written by a member of the Society of Dark Lily, he assumed that
that was the “right” definition, so any other must necessarily be “wrong”. A
new orthodoxy?


If good
is “balanced” and evil is “unbalanced”, as propounded in Essay 1, that raises
another question. The question “What is Balance?” which was considered, if not
answered, in another DL7 article, Extract from a Pupil’s Diary. Would
that be a more difficult question? In a way, it might be simpler because there
are fewer preconceptions. Every creed in the world has had a go at Good and
Evil (mostly showing their own imbalances in the process) but I can’t think of
anyone except DL who has discussed balance.


EDITOR: We have received more
contributions to the discussion of Good and Evil, but several have been too
long and the authors have not yet sent in their abbreviated versions. No
maximum length was stated, to avoid unnecessary limitation, but please bear in
mind the practical restriction of space in an issue.



Taken from the Dark Lily Journal
No 8, Society of Dark Lily (London 1989).