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).