Do you ever think...

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

JLSpinner wrote: True. Vigilance has died in our comfortable lives. I'd like to think that through love and outreach we may touch a life and alter it's course. It could never be proven either way unfortunately. Not until the act is done. But if these people had support, if they had a healthy way to express themselves and their problems, then maybe, just maybe, things could have been different. Or maybe not. But I will continue to try.

Maybe its best to believe that both courses can cause change. After all this is the stuff of hope, right!

Yes....................!

STOP AND REVIEW

Take a moment to look back at the messages here. Where has this topic taken you?

Emotion, point of view, personal feelings, past experiences, your own interpretation.

Are you right or wrong? Is this about the universe, the world, or the person? Did anyone have the true answer? Would anyone know the truth if it was here?

I'm often curious how discussions go especially if/when someone gets offended. Why were you offended and what action did you take to that offense?

Life is what it is, we are what we are in it.

JLSpinner wrote: True. Vigilance has died in our comfortable lives. I'd like to think that through love and outreach we may touch a life and alter it's course. It could never be proven either way unfortunately. Not until the act is done. But if these people had support, if they had a healthy way to express themselves and their problems, then maybe, just maybe, things could have been different. Or maybe not. But I will continue to try.

Theres countless stories of people whose lives were chaotic, out of control and just basically heading for disaster at the speed of light, and it was the love of some other person in some capacity which helped change their course. Love has saved many a soul from the abys. Maybe its the only thing that ever has. I dont know. But I do know without a shadow of doubt that giving whatever love youre capable of giving can make a huge difference in peoples lives, including your own (understanding that its not love if it doesnt respect the best interests of the other person).

Look! Another multi-page post where we get into heated argument over semantics! :silly:

I'll address the questions from the OP:

ནའдհдཀ༑ནკ wrote: Have you ever considered that the world we live in is in a state of balance? Media shows us all the darkness that would set to unbalance us, but that there are equally as many good and just things happening that are not publicized in the same manner?

While I agree that the media paint a very ugly picture of the world, and leaves out the good, I don't see why you conflate media perception with "balance", nor do I really understand what you mean by it. Furthermore, the world we don't see includes much darker, heinous atrocities that are completely left out of mainstream media, including but not limited to: human trafficking, mass genocide, child pornography networks (deep web). It may give us warm tingly feelings to remember the good stuff (in fact, it's good to remember what is still worth defending). But it's not helpful to use this beautiful image as a curtain to cover the window looking out into its ugliness.

ནའдհдཀ༑ནკ wrote: Obi-Wan: "Luke, you're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view."

I like this quote, and to a degree it is true. Perception however does not negate fact. An optimist might think "it's a beautiful cool day" while the pessimist says "damn, I hate this cold weather". But put both of them in Antartica and no amount of feeling good will save them from frostbite.

ནའдհдཀ༑ནკ wrote: Sometimes I wonder that all the effort to make something better will only be met with something more worse to keep the force in balance.

Well, we might as well give up on all pursuits of science, medicine, education and technological advancement. Hey, it's not like we've greatly reduced extreme poverty and the rate of infant death, right?

"Balance" strikes me as a meaningless word in this particular context (rephrase: please tell me more about what it means to you, personally, in order to understand it). I see danger, destruction, death... I face it. And I will continue to face it, despite the fact that it will eventually kill me.

Valar Morghulis. Valar Dohaeris.

The Universe will maintain balance by design. The fact that there can be no understanding of the concept of entropy without also creating the opposite signifies that the paradoxical nature of all things begins and ends with understanding of their being and non-being.

In the case of the media reporting so much bad news in diametric opposition to the contrary, we must accept the probability that an equal amount of good goes unnoticed. If a soldier stops a terrorist from taking lives by ending his first, was this a good deed or a bad? Is not the taking of life considered bad by those who profess love? The balance is in the perception of the act. It is right to also say that there is no good or bad because it is relative to your perspective. The universe does not care whether we live or die because ultimately, all bodies cease and decay. If the consciousness continues eternally, then what matter is it that a single body dies? Why should the universe be concerned for what is essentially just an errant thought? If our illusion of individuality limits our concept of eternal consciousness and the indestructible nature of our shared soul, then does it not also color our perspective of good and bad?

The Jedi are guardians of the innocent, while the Sith are conquerors of the weak. Both attempt to create balance through force and surrender in unequal measure. The Jedi use Force when actively defending the weak against attack, but Surrender in the majority of time in between. The Sith use surrender only when it achieves them tactical advantage, and Force the majority of time.

Yes, the river will erode the mountain. One beautiful thing will grow and become even greater while another will diminish in its wake. This is only perceived as good or bad depending upon which is more useful to the perceiver.

When we meditate, we sometimes feel anxiety when thoughts arise of our regrettable past, and sometimes over our hopeful future. It is equally important to accept these thoughts, acknowledge them, and release them to return to the stillness in the present. That place of balance between joy and sorrow where both exist in equal measure, but hold no weight.

All things rise and fall, come and go, happen and don't happen. Sometimes things are perceived by us to be good even though they have unforeseen consequences elsewhere that are perceived as bad. Rain falls and ruins a child's hope of playing outdoors, but waters the crops of the farmer who prayed every night of a drought. There is no measure of merit that determines whose prayers are answered and whose ignored. There is simply the movement of energy like the waves in the sea. The ocean waves rise and fall without steady rhythm as chaos contained within order. Such is life. We can achieve greater happiness by accepting that bad comes and goes, as does good.

Enjoy the good when it occurs, and persevere through the bad. Look for the silver lining in everything and be aware of the suffering that may be caused by your luxury. Breathe in, breathe out, and exist in the now as often as you can.

ནའдհдཀ༑ནკ wrote: STOP AND REVIEW

Take a moment to look back at the messages here. Where has this topic taken you?

Emotion, point of view, personal feelings, past experiences, your own interpretation.

Are you right or wrong? Is this about the universe, the world, or the person? Did anyone have the true answer? Would anyone know the truth if it was here?

I'm often curious how discussions go especially if/when someone gets offended. Why were you offended and what action did you take to that offense?

Life is what it is, we are what we are in it.

This discussion is not about right or wrong. It never was nor should it ever be when it comes to philosophy. Its about the discussion. Trying to turn truth into an absolute when it comes to these things is an exercise in futility because we can never know absolute truth. These things are not designed to better understand the world, they are designed to better understand our own self.

As for offense... or heated argument as Manu says, I would disagree. There was no offense nor heated argument. I thoroughly enjoyed the conversation and I believe others did as well. People are so quick to read more into the things I say that not most times. I am an intense person and I have a passion for life and discussions of these sorts. If you interpret that as offensive I'm sorry but that's who I am. take or leave it.

jaksinsnow wrote: The Jedi are guardians of the innocent, while the Sith are conquerors of the weak. Both attempt to create balance through force and surrender in unequal measure. The Jedi use Force when actively defending the weak against attack, but Surrender in the majority of time in between. The Sith use surrender only when it achieves them tactical advantage, and Force the majority of time.

Only in the comic books does this comment have any sort of truth. Realist Jedi are not guardians of a romanticized and idealized innocent society and the Realist Sith are not evil conquerors bent on violent destructive or forceful oppression of those masses. Honestly, (no offense meant :silly: ), but this comment really causes me to discount the rest of what you said. If we want to discuss fantasy that is fine but I thought we were talking real life here?

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: This discussion is not about right or wrong. It never was nor should it ever be when it comes to philosophy. Its about the discussion. Trying to turn truth into an absolute when it comes to these things is an exercise in futility because we can never know absolute truth.

Kyrin Wyldstar also wrote: Balance is a lie. There is no such thing. This is because the universe cares nothing about balance.

So how do these two statements exist in the same line of thought? Because it seems in the second you state what you'd describe as an "absolute truth", but then state we can never know that.

@arisaig, your quote mining - a fallacy. Let me fill in the blanks...

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: @Carlos, yes of course none of us can speak for any others. I speak only of my own opinion when I speak of such things. If it convinces others there is some truth to what I say then so be it but if not that is fine as well.

.

It was simply an example that I thought would be appreciated by the present audience. It wasn't however, the only one I made. If it caused you to discount the rest of what I said, however, then you missed the point entirely. You saw only a tree in the midst of a forest.

JaksinSnow wrote: It was simply an example that I thought would be appreciated by the present audience. It wasn't however, the only one I made. If it caused you to discount the rest of what I said, however, then you missed the point entirely. You saw only a tree in the midst of a forest.

Yes but my point was if I see an infected rotting tree in that forest how do I know the rest of the forest is not also infected? Your depiction of force realists is egregiously skewed thus putting into question your other points. I try to relegate discussion of the fantasy Jedi and sith to the fandom section of the board and I encourage others likewise. If you want to clarify however I would be happy to discuss!