Brookfield Basics

In The Inferno, Dante wrote “the definition of hell is to say – I belong to myself”.

I believe that the most fundamental explanation of what happened at Virginia Tech. can be seen in this statement. Surely Seung-Hui Cho could have accurately said, “I am my own”.

I am no expert in the areas of medicine, psychiatry or the human mind. But surely the roots of psychosis lie in personal isolation. Cho’s isolation was so complete that it bred an alternative and utterly dark reality. He lived without any kind of wholesome, positive, or restraining influence. His thought life had no objectively established points of reference, and lacking these, his mind became a dark and swirling eddy-pool; an endless labyrinth wound ever more tightly upon itself, the ultimate result of which was an inward implosion and an outward explosion.

But while it is appropriate to consider the prescriptions and content of modern psychology, these things by themselves are inadequate. What are we to make of what he did? To whom do we pose our questions? Where are we to put our anger and stunned mortification? What does it mean for us to say of Mr. Cho that, “he was his own”?

I don’t believe the answer to these questions can be given without the consideration of the word “evil”. Today we don’t like that word. It is too edgy, too definitive; and it smacks of absolutes that make us uncomfortable. But I don’t believe modern psychology alone is enough to tell us what happened on that campus.

We live in a world where evil exists. The evidence of this seems indisputable to me, and if we can agree to that, then the next question is “where does it exist”?

We all have the potential for great good and great evil, and the battle between these alternatives is waged in the human heart.

Alexander Solzhenitsen gave us a brilliant illustration of this in his classic work The Gulag Archipelago (which should be required reading in every high school in America). In an incredibly revealing and poignant passage, he tells if of a night of unimaginable distress as he lay in his cold, dark cell, on a bed of rotting straw. That night he came to understand the nature of evil. Evil, he realized, did not reside in the totalitarian regime that had imprisoned him, or in the sickening excesses of affluent democracies. “I came to understand that night that there was a thin line running down the middle of my own heart. On one side of that line lay evil - on the other good. The decision was mine on which side I would dwell”.

Mr. Solzhenitsen, despite suffering torments a thousand fold of Mr. Cho’s, chose the good. I believe that at some point in his life, Cho CHOSE evil. The origins of his choice may have been mistreatment and isolation. But I believe that at several key junctures he was presented with opportunities to move beyond the darkness of his isolation and into the light of civilized day. I believe he made choices that not only allowed evil to pour in, but also actually invited it. I believe even in the twisted and darkened maize that was his psyche, Cho knew that what he did was wrong. I believe that he knew what he did was evil.

It is entirely appropriate to wear clothing that represents Virginia Tech. University. These are outward and sincere expressions of our desire to stand with that community in its hour of anguish, and as such, are beneficial. And it is certainly appropriate to engage in discussions about what protections the civilized world should seek from such sociopaths. In fact, to not have these discussions would be irresponsible.

But before we engage in appropriate remedies for showing our compassion, and before we outline appropriate responses for the containment of such horrific action, we must do the hard work of wrestling with the NATURE and the SOURCE of such actions.

Evil exists in this world. Recognizing this reality and recognizing the place where it resides, is a beginning. To discount these things is to go into battle unarmed.

This recognition is not the end.

It is the starting point.