Categories > Books > Relic
Evil is Relative
3 ReviewsDiogenes Pendergast's letter to Santa.
Diogenes Pendergast's Letter to Santa Claus, 1969 (?)
It is generally supposed that that Diogenes Pendergast destroyed all documents related to him before leaving the family home, but the only source we have for that statement is his brother, whose powers of recall aren't entirely trustworthy.
In fact, documents have been recovered from time to time, and handwriting analysis has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they are genuine. This is the latest discovered. It had been carefully folded up in the bottom of a small purse belonging to Mrs. Isabella Pendergast, Diogenes's mother, which she loaned to a friend on the eve of a ball, when said friend (who has chosen to remain nameless) discovered her own purse had been inexplicably filled with freshly harvested opossum gall bladders. One might draw the conclusion that Mrs. Pendergast felt obliged because she suspected her son was responsible.
- Your Editor
Dearest Santa Claus,
It has recently come to my attention that my name might have been incorrectly entered in your 'naughty' list. I sincerely hope this is a misunderstanding. As your omniscient powers certainly have revealed, Aloysius and I had quite a lively altercation after this pronouncement, which I am sure you will chalk up to boyish high spirits and not intrinsic naughtiness on my part. You will also assuredly be aware that afterwards my brother attempted an even crueler psychological twist (a deliberate and inarguably naughty act) by claiming that you did not, in fact, exist, and that Mother and Father were responsible for purchasing our Christmas gifts.
Although the source of this information, to wit my elder brother (the quintessence of naughty, in my humble opinion), is not the most reliable informant, I admit that I have plans after the new year absolutely requiring some of the items requested of you. I simply cannot trust Mother and Father to provide them. In fact, in some cases I would rather they not be aware that specialized items were in my possession. I believe I can prevail upon you to keep this a secret. I would not trouble you for these specific items, but my own meager allowance is inadequate for my means and in certain instances my parents and other relatives have refused me outright, therefore I appeal to you as my only remaining channel of acquisition.
If it is indeed true that I have been included in the naughty list and this is not the result of a clerical error, it saddens me greatly that your definition of nice and naughty is so shallow and uninformed. Please allow me to defend my actions in the past year. As Shakespeare cleverly noted in /Troilus and Cressida/, "Modest doubt is call'd the beacon of the wise.".
Niceness and naughtiness grow up together almost inseparably. The knowledge of niceness is so involved and interwoven with the knowledge of naughtiness, and there are so many cunning resemblances between the two that can hardly be distinguished. How can one be good, in a world in which so much is naughty?
I lay some of the blame squarely on God, with whom you seem to be somehow well acquainted (the details remain unclear to me, but I will respect your privacy by not inquiring further). For if God is benevolent, he should abhor the presence of naughtiness in the world, and if he is omnipotent, then he should be capable of removing it from the world. Since he does not, that leaves us with one of two conclusions: God does not exist, or naughtiness exists for a reason. So even if you must conclude a few of my unconsidered actions might by some stretch of the imagination be considered naughty, can I, a mere child, be wholly to blame when God himself allows naughtiness to exist?
To refer to me, as my brother insists on doing, as pure evil is to deny the reciprocal causality of violence - that is, that there are two sides to every story. I admit to certain moral failings, but a moral failing in one context does not reveal anything profoundly important about my entire character. There is no pure sin or pure virtue. The dividing line between nice and naughty cuts through the heart of every human beings, and though the stated goal may be to destroy naughtiness, who would destroy a piece of his own heart?
Although I may have committed naughty acts, I am myself not naughty. I am like every human being caught in a causal net of determinism. My brother has referred to me as an inhuman monster on several occasions (Mother asked him not to, but he continued when she was not present, the naughty imp) but I would submit to you that even Hitler's atrocities were not inhuman, but as they were committed by a human being they must be considered part of the human behavioral repertoire, albeit on the far side of the bell curve. Am I, then, worse than Hitler?
Because I cannot believe you would be petty enough to take personal factors into your consideration of niceness or naughtiness, you must use a scientific process of sorting your list. Therefore, you are aware that in science, claims are not true or false, right or wrong in any absolute sense, but merely confirmed to a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.
I would point out that naughty is not even ultimately definable, rather it is a descriptive term for a range of qualifiable human behaviors. We are taught that stealing is naughty, yet a man who steals bread to feed his starving family is considered to have committed a lesser evil. For another example, my brother's attempting to spy on me was a violation of my privacy and therefore naughty. And despite the general hue and cry after he ran back to Mother and tattled (also naughty), I was only quietly amusing myself at the loss of nothing more than a few of the neighbor's chickens, which were destined for the pot anyways. I merely added a little excitement to their dull, barnyard-constrained lives, a delicious frisson of terror before the end, and also educated myself about the avian neurological system. The end result would have been the same whether or not I was involved.
After all, moral principles are not absolute. They apply to most people, in most cultures, most of the time. We are free moral agents responsible for our own actions because we can never perceive the totality of the causal net that determines our individual lives. To rely on an outside agency such as yourself for moral absolution denies human beings free will. I cannot eschew reality and thus let myself live in the grip of such a transcendental illusion.
And if there is no absolute moral standard and instead only relative values, how can we realistically speak of good or naughty? An action may be wise or unwise, prudent or imprudent, profitable or unprofitable within a given system. But this is not the same as good or naughty. Without moral absolution, good must be defined by the pleasure principle.
All I is seek is to devour life, to gulp down life, to look, experiment and record. How can this be naughty, I ask you? Is it not naughtier to refrain from savoring every experience life offers when one's time upon the earth is circumscribed by humanity's span of years? I submit to you, it is. Good is what it titillating, what is available, what is seductive, what is exciting, what is fun.
And Santa, I have been having fun . . . therefore, by any reasonable definition, I have been very, very good.
As you cannot possibly disagree with these truths, I will reiterate my requests in case my former itemized list was accidentally discarded:
(1) bottle of chloroform and a supply of clean rags
(2) stout locks fitted to my bedroom and bathroom doors
(1) pair thick, insulated rubber gloves
(1) 20 square foot tarp
(1) Acetylene torch
(3) Stainless steel child sized sets of manacles (note: not the 'trick' kind you brought me last year - a egregious breach of trust! I gather that I was not the one who was supposed to be tricked, and because of this, an important experiment was almost ruined.)
(5-10) Minox cameras with telephoto lenses suitable for long distance reconnaissance
(1) Junior Secret Agent Deluxe Disguise Kit. Specifically the one advertised in the back of "Shock Suspen-stories" magazine. Although my meager funds are adequate for the dollar fifty asking price, I sadly do not have the required three cereal box tops also required for purchase because Mother claims - quite spuriously, I might add - that sugar makes me 'hyper'.
(1) puppy and/or (1) kitten. Gender unimportant, any color or breed acceptable. Don't bother bringing a collar, basket, toys, food, etc. They will not be required.
(Editor's note: the rest of this list has been rendered illegible by an odd, crusty reddish-brown stain)
. . . accept this /apologia pro vita sua/. Much love to your darling wife, the elves, and the reindeer.
Sincerely,
Diogenes Pendergast
Ps. Please disregard any missive you might receive from my elder brother. Everyone knows he's a liar, a bully, and an obsequious little prig.
It is generally supposed that that Diogenes Pendergast destroyed all documents related to him before leaving the family home, but the only source we have for that statement is his brother, whose powers of recall aren't entirely trustworthy.
In fact, documents have been recovered from time to time, and handwriting analysis has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they are genuine. This is the latest discovered. It had been carefully folded up in the bottom of a small purse belonging to Mrs. Isabella Pendergast, Diogenes's mother, which she loaned to a friend on the eve of a ball, when said friend (who has chosen to remain nameless) discovered her own purse had been inexplicably filled with freshly harvested opossum gall bladders. One might draw the conclusion that Mrs. Pendergast felt obliged because she suspected her son was responsible.
- Your Editor
Dearest Santa Claus,
It has recently come to my attention that my name might have been incorrectly entered in your 'naughty' list. I sincerely hope this is a misunderstanding. As your omniscient powers certainly have revealed, Aloysius and I had quite a lively altercation after this pronouncement, which I am sure you will chalk up to boyish high spirits and not intrinsic naughtiness on my part. You will also assuredly be aware that afterwards my brother attempted an even crueler psychological twist (a deliberate and inarguably naughty act) by claiming that you did not, in fact, exist, and that Mother and Father were responsible for purchasing our Christmas gifts.
Although the source of this information, to wit my elder brother (the quintessence of naughty, in my humble opinion), is not the most reliable informant, I admit that I have plans after the new year absolutely requiring some of the items requested of you. I simply cannot trust Mother and Father to provide them. In fact, in some cases I would rather they not be aware that specialized items were in my possession. I believe I can prevail upon you to keep this a secret. I would not trouble you for these specific items, but my own meager allowance is inadequate for my means and in certain instances my parents and other relatives have refused me outright, therefore I appeal to you as my only remaining channel of acquisition.
If it is indeed true that I have been included in the naughty list and this is not the result of a clerical error, it saddens me greatly that your definition of nice and naughty is so shallow and uninformed. Please allow me to defend my actions in the past year. As Shakespeare cleverly noted in /Troilus and Cressida/, "Modest doubt is call'd the beacon of the wise.".
Niceness and naughtiness grow up together almost inseparably. The knowledge of niceness is so involved and interwoven with the knowledge of naughtiness, and there are so many cunning resemblances between the two that can hardly be distinguished. How can one be good, in a world in which so much is naughty?
I lay some of the blame squarely on God, with whom you seem to be somehow well acquainted (the details remain unclear to me, but I will respect your privacy by not inquiring further). For if God is benevolent, he should abhor the presence of naughtiness in the world, and if he is omnipotent, then he should be capable of removing it from the world. Since he does not, that leaves us with one of two conclusions: God does not exist, or naughtiness exists for a reason. So even if you must conclude a few of my unconsidered actions might by some stretch of the imagination be considered naughty, can I, a mere child, be wholly to blame when God himself allows naughtiness to exist?
To refer to me, as my brother insists on doing, as pure evil is to deny the reciprocal causality of violence - that is, that there are two sides to every story. I admit to certain moral failings, but a moral failing in one context does not reveal anything profoundly important about my entire character. There is no pure sin or pure virtue. The dividing line between nice and naughty cuts through the heart of every human beings, and though the stated goal may be to destroy naughtiness, who would destroy a piece of his own heart?
Although I may have committed naughty acts, I am myself not naughty. I am like every human being caught in a causal net of determinism. My brother has referred to me as an inhuman monster on several occasions (Mother asked him not to, but he continued when she was not present, the naughty imp) but I would submit to you that even Hitler's atrocities were not inhuman, but as they were committed by a human being they must be considered part of the human behavioral repertoire, albeit on the far side of the bell curve. Am I, then, worse than Hitler?
Because I cannot believe you would be petty enough to take personal factors into your consideration of niceness or naughtiness, you must use a scientific process of sorting your list. Therefore, you are aware that in science, claims are not true or false, right or wrong in any absolute sense, but merely confirmed to a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.
I would point out that naughty is not even ultimately definable, rather it is a descriptive term for a range of qualifiable human behaviors. We are taught that stealing is naughty, yet a man who steals bread to feed his starving family is considered to have committed a lesser evil. For another example, my brother's attempting to spy on me was a violation of my privacy and therefore naughty. And despite the general hue and cry after he ran back to Mother and tattled (also naughty), I was only quietly amusing myself at the loss of nothing more than a few of the neighbor's chickens, which were destined for the pot anyways. I merely added a little excitement to their dull, barnyard-constrained lives, a delicious frisson of terror before the end, and also educated myself about the avian neurological system. The end result would have been the same whether or not I was involved.
After all, moral principles are not absolute. They apply to most people, in most cultures, most of the time. We are free moral agents responsible for our own actions because we can never perceive the totality of the causal net that determines our individual lives. To rely on an outside agency such as yourself for moral absolution denies human beings free will. I cannot eschew reality and thus let myself live in the grip of such a transcendental illusion.
And if there is no absolute moral standard and instead only relative values, how can we realistically speak of good or naughty? An action may be wise or unwise, prudent or imprudent, profitable or unprofitable within a given system. But this is not the same as good or naughty. Without moral absolution, good must be defined by the pleasure principle.
All I is seek is to devour life, to gulp down life, to look, experiment and record. How can this be naughty, I ask you? Is it not naughtier to refrain from savoring every experience life offers when one's time upon the earth is circumscribed by humanity's span of years? I submit to you, it is. Good is what it titillating, what is available, what is seductive, what is exciting, what is fun.
And Santa, I have been having fun . . . therefore, by any reasonable definition, I have been very, very good.
As you cannot possibly disagree with these truths, I will reiterate my requests in case my former itemized list was accidentally discarded:
(1) bottle of chloroform and a supply of clean rags
(2) stout locks fitted to my bedroom and bathroom doors
(1) pair thick, insulated rubber gloves
(1) 20 square foot tarp
(1) Acetylene torch
(3) Stainless steel child sized sets of manacles (note: not the 'trick' kind you brought me last year - a egregious breach of trust! I gather that I was not the one who was supposed to be tricked, and because of this, an important experiment was almost ruined.)
(5-10) Minox cameras with telephoto lenses suitable for long distance reconnaissance
(1) Junior Secret Agent Deluxe Disguise Kit. Specifically the one advertised in the back of "Shock Suspen-stories" magazine. Although my meager funds are adequate for the dollar fifty asking price, I sadly do not have the required three cereal box tops also required for purchase because Mother claims - quite spuriously, I might add - that sugar makes me 'hyper'.
(1) puppy and/or (1) kitten. Gender unimportant, any color or breed acceptable. Don't bother bringing a collar, basket, toys, food, etc. They will not be required.
(Editor's note: the rest of this list has been rendered illegible by an odd, crusty reddish-brown stain)
. . . accept this /apologia pro vita sua/. Much love to your darling wife, the elves, and the reindeer.
Sincerely,
Diogenes Pendergast
Ps. Please disregard any missive you might receive from my elder brother. Everyone knows he's a liar, a bully, and an obsequious little prig.
Log in to rate and review this story