Interesting comments. How about what we call evil is our misinterpretations of good?

@Tomm Good and bad are very subjective terms, something can be good under one set of circumstance and bad under another, something can be both good and bad at the same time, such as killing in defence of an innocent, it depends on the morality of the observer.

True evil as a binary, rather than direct opposite or absence of good, must have all the same qualities as good, but with different intent.
An evil act must be
without any redeeming quality,
be performed with the intent of being evil for the sake of being evil
Be without hope of reward
Must not be enjoyed or have any positive outcome or repercussion whatsoever
But must actively and negatively impact on the environment in which it is performed and facilitate further evil by example.

Given this set of circumstances it would be very hard to actually be truly evil, rather than bad, sadistic, cruel or wicked.

interesting and thoughtful comment. Thanx.

I agree, but exists in our conscious, as I understand it. Does evil exist as an idea a part from our self-consciousness. I say no.

@Tomm Of course neuroscience would disagree pointing to a blip, however I don't really trust them entirely at this point. However there is another way for an idea to have existence outside of an individuals conscious control and that is by how we come to mutual agreement about social things like currency. We invest objects with social values, based on social meanings and they exist in this form of reality. I guess you might say they exist pragmatically.

If ideas can exist outside of our individual consciousness, would these ideas exist, if self-consciousness didn't exist? If ideas existed outside of our consciousness, would evil ideas exist outside of our consciousness? Interesting thought. If ideas exist outside of our consciousness, it might be inferred that some individuals may be more amenable to consciously accepting some ideas that others may consciously reject. In other words, some individuals may be more amenable to consciously accepting evil ideas. Makes sense to me, as much as anything else.

@Tomm If language constitutes thought then it is clear that our shared ideas exist out side of any particularity. I mean you can go to a dictionary and look up the meaning of the word. Existence is not an easily defined term, but it is certainly more than a blip on a screen.

I find all these ideas interesting and confusing. I would say that language expresses.thoughts. If I go the the dictionary and look up unreality, does unreality exist, does the idea of unreality exist? Still, if there were no conscious to be aware of ideas, would ideas exist. Interestingly, Plato did say that ideas exist independently. So, I now thin\k that all of our thoughts are interpretations of ideas.Ideas are real but our interpretations of ideas are not.

@Tomm Yes, that's what Plato thought, but I think ideas only exist collectively as part of a narrative which we learn, understand an on which we base all our actions. John Searle, a West Coast philosopher (and old pervert) talks about social realities.

I agree to some extent, but if I understand you correctly you believe that 'ideas only exist collectively, as a part of a narrative" which is the basis of our actions, but -

       -   If there is no consciousness of existence, would this narrative , individually or collectively 
           exist outside of our consciousness. I believe your would say "No."
       -   How did this narrative upon which our actions are based originate. Is it simply part of                
           non-explainable conscious existence? Is it designed into our conscious existence? Are we 
           capable of changing the narrative? If we base our actions on this narrative, are we 
           accountable for our action,, or are we just following a narrative that we have no conscious 
           control over?

@Tomm All experience must be thought, without self-conscious thought everything is meaningless, valueless, oblivion like death. Complex thought is only possible because of the dynamics of language, which enable us to describe a shared reality and it constitutes that reality The words exist as something extra beyond the thing (thing...word..thought). Words span the mental physical/divide.

"Are we capable of changing the narrative? If we base our actions on this narrative, are we accountable for our action,, or are we just following a narrative that we have no conscious control over?"

No and yes. I think that we have built in assumptions, norms that we are not overtly conscious of that we can't change because they are fundamental to the way we have learnt to think, as well as meanings we can't change without agreement and a syntax which we also can change without jeopardizing understanding. You might say we have to paint reality with a limited palate, yet while the palate is limited its combinations are infinite, and we are responsible for what we paint.

You've obviously given much thought to this subject, more than I have, for sure. Let's see where we are at -

 - You say all experience must be thought. I would say all experience is the expression of thought. I 
    don't know if there is a difference, I'm not trying to be picky.
 - You say that without self-conscious thought everything is meaningless and valueless. I agree, I 
    would also add purposeless.
 - You say complex thought is only possible because of the dynamics of language. No 
    disagreement there.
 - You say words exist as something extra beyond thought. I agree, but why not say language 
    (composed of words) exists as something extra beyond thought.
  - You say that we have built in assumptions,norms that we are not overtly conscious of and can't 
    change because they are fundamental to the way we have learned to think as well as  meanings 
    we cant't change without agreement and a syntax which we can also change without 
    jeopardizing understanding. Again I agree to some extent, but -

                - How do you explain the existence of built-in assumptions norms that we are overtly 
                  conscious of that that we can't change because they are fundamental to the way we 
                  have learned to think, as well as meanings we can't change without jeopardizing 
                  understanding? If what you say is true, it seems to me that our ability to consciously 
                  ability to think thoughts is limited by an imposed structure of language. If that is true, 
                  we might claim a non-responsibility for our thoughts, and therefore our experiences. Do 
                  we control language or does language control us?

 - You say we paint reality reality with a limited palate. I would say that we interpret reality with 
   limited understandings. You say while the palate is limited, yet while the palate is limited,  its 
   combinations are infinite. Totally agree. You say we are responsible for what we paint. Totally 
   agree.

  Overall, I don't see much difference in the way we understand consciousness and existence. 
  we just use our own individually designed palates.