Is it evil to err, is it an evil to err and never recognize the error?
What might be desired, is a world in which errors are detected -with haste- and with an understanding of personal effect.
This requires honesty -so much a habit- it may become instinctive, as a German Shepherds trained instinct (one must know themselves, in order to see themselves clearly) one must be honest with themselves (not necessarily easy, but if it does not come, how can one accurately view errors?) training this honesty requires one be honest with others, or it lacks natural integrity.
Still, one may be honestly wrong, honestly ignorant, honestly clouded in intense emotion (is honestly repeating something mere honesty, or vindictive refusal to seek change?) honesty is not stupid, even when it is true -a lesson learned or suffered.-.
Our ghosts are in the minds of others, who haunt each event, by knowledge of what has past (I do not know your view of me, but your view of me in given habits -the view of which must be partial- an aspect of all I am) the moment one changes course, the other loses sight of them, seeing only a phantasm without forgiveness -excising the past- some only speak with ghosts -the failure of integrity in viewing the eternal god- suffering comes from both good and bad images.
We each have our trials, they are to be successfully overcome, or survived (willed failure is an evil, to fail one must continually will error -excused as a weak mental collapse- or maintain it) is loss evil or trial?
To survive in loss is to show, what it is that endures -when the worst comes- what abides in integrity, as hardship brings good and fault to the foreground (revealing that which survives -shown in one’s response- revealing that which fails and falters -in motion words fade before action- survival only weakens when rested upon) honesty then reveals facets to the self; honesty takes the revealing trial, putting each aspect before the self-judgement (the word which crumbles -and that which survives- the integrity of one’s response, when motion loosens comfortably solid ground) is mercy always tender and soft (honesty simply shows what is -when one actively faults- the true worth is revealing the history -the cost- is that not apocalyptic?) mercy can flay one’s image, but guidance makes it merciful, by seeking to cease or ease suffering.
To err is human, the necessity is to recognize error -as a plane or ship corrects course- quickly/precisely and before one crashes -lost when they contact the rock- honesty is a human necessity, we are paralyzed without it, self-defeat.
Honesty remains a foundation -if one wishes- to quickly and precisely pinpoint error, the only alternative is to accept error -glossing it to kill the pain- or one must imagine a faultless world, possible when those who cause evil are vanquished, the solution roots evil in those who vanquish, seeking a world of imagination -it never existed now- the solution must arise from essence, now.
Considering error to be natural, considering evil to be cascading errors -war/famine/genocide- mutual failure of recognition escalates -without honesty the noosphere decays- clarity is lost among muddied/turbulent shallows, honesty is the natural/integral way, to return error to balance.
Is error the root of evil, in the same way anger may be the root of hatred (but is anger wrong, or unexpressed and thus poisoned?) but then what is justice?