Light or Shadow?

Hello, Wescli. I don't believe you've responded directly to one of my posts before. Greetings.

To be honest, after reading your reply, I'm not sure that you're disagreeing with the spirit of what I wrote... Which puts me in a bit of a perplexing situation. Kind of like if you had said, "No, I disagree that A = B. What actually is true is B = A." How to respond to that? Let's see what we can figure out here. At the very least, I can say that your reply did not seem argumentative, and that I welcome your words.

Guess I'll have to approach this piece by piece... But tomorrow. For now I must see to restoring a balanced state of restedness in my body. Hopefully you are doing well.

Fraternally in Justice and ZZZZZs,
-David

Wescli Wardest wrote: That was well put and well thought out FraterDavid… but I do have to disagree with your interpretation of justice and injustice. As to my understanding, what I feel you were describing, I would call balance and (what others might perceive as) imbalance. But I feel that what others see as imbalance is just a lack of understanding. To many, “knowledge” is the end result of a lifetime of study and the seeking of higher truth. But what I feel is my end game, is understanding. Knowledge on its own is just as worthless as ignorance. Without the understanding that comes from being centered and able to look at a larger picture the details are, I find to be, quite mute.

That was not meant to be argumentative, but explanatory to my understanding of injustice, or imbalance. Or, what some perceive to be injustice is what I see to be a rebalancing of the whole.

Mostly, I feel that our interpretation of the words in use, or used to describe our views, are used to describe similar concepts but from a slightly different angle. Freedom is an illusion governed by will; much like control. Justice is a dynamic of moral or legal president governed by faculties incapable of perceiving the full ramifications of limitation. Equilibrium is the movement of balance or the dynamic of the constant balance of all. (Which is never still)

It is not so much that I disagree with the overall message you were conveying as to the end point you reached and the terms in use. Of course, without quantifiable empirical data which might support either position all arguments made are merely circumstantial.

Most people searching for self-improvement, a better understanding or “enlightenment” often turn inward and focus their attention on ego or the banishment of ego. I offer an alternative… turn outward and open up to the possibility of the nonconventional. Lose focus, cease analyzing, ponder nothing, know nothing and understand all.

Just a thought…

Wescli Wardest wrote: That was well put and well thought out FraterDavid… but I do have to disagree with your interpretation of justice and injustice. As to my understanding, what I feel you were describing, I would call balance and (what others might perceive as) imbalance. But I feel that what others see as imbalance is just a lack of understanding. To many, “knowledge” is the end result of a lifetime of study and the seeking of higher truth. But what I feel is my end game, is understanding. Knowledge on its own is just as worthless as ignorance. Without the understanding that comes from being centered and able to look at a larger picture the details are, I find to be, quite mute.

That was not meant to be argumentative, but explanatory to my understanding of injustice, or imbalance. Or, what some perceive to be injustice is what I see to be a rebalancing of the whole.

"I should think that you Jedi would have more respect for the difference between knowledge and wisdom" - Dexter Jettster in "Attack of the Clones"

Haha -- sorry, that's what I thought of when I read that line. :lol:

MTFBWY,
LTK

Wescli Wardest wrote: That was well put and well thought out FraterDavid…

Well, first of all, thank you for saying so.

Wescli Wardest wrote: but I do have to disagree with your interpretation of justice and injustice.

I see.

Wescli Wardest wrote: As to my understanding, what I feel you were describing, I would call balance and (what others might perceive as) imbalance.

I recall saying specifically that "All is balance"... And yes, balance is intrinsic to all higher expressions of the Force. Justice is certainly no exception. That does not mean that we can substitute the word "balance" for "justice" and have it mean all the same things. Balance is a state of being, and is a very broad term. Justice refers to activity serving to restore or enforce balance, but specifically the balance of freedoms.

Wescli Wardest wrote: But I feel that what others see as imbalance is just a lack of understanding.

On a universal level, that is true. On a localized level, not so much. Imbalance occurs all the time within specific systems. (And I consider "system" able to describe bodies, cities, countries, planets, galaxies, etc.)

Wescli Wardest wrote: To many, “knowledge” is the end result of a lifetime of study and the seeking of higher truth.

I was unaware of such a perception. The words "wisdom" or "being wise" would come closer to fitting the context you have created in that sentence. To me, knowledge is simply what is observably true (empirically, experientially, etc). We can acquire more knowledge all the time. It does not require a lifetime before we can consider ourselves to "have knowledge". And it's all relative. If we lived to be 1000, we would still look back on how silly we were at 500.

Wescli Wardest wrote: But what I feel is my end game, is understanding.

Understanding is very desirable and admirable. But "end game"? It would seem to me that having understanding without also having wisdom to guide its use could easily result in misfortune or suffering. Personally, my end game is love.

"If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing."

"All the special gifts and powers from the Force will some day come to an end, but love goes on forever." (Hence my assignment of "Love" as the solution word for the fifth line of the Jedi Code.)

Wescli Wardest wrote: Knowledge on its own is just as worthless as ignorance.

I'm sorry to hear that you feel that way. All knowledge has value, because all real knowledge is based on what exists. As item 4 on the POTB says of the Force, "From the exhaustless riches of its Limitless Substance, I draw all things needful, both spiritual and material." Notice that the word exhaustless can mean both "inexhaustible" and "without waste" (lacking exhaust), thereby indicating that every part of the universe is a treasure that is never wasted. If this doesn't include knowledge, then it doesn't include anything!

Additionally, nothing in this universe is ever really "on its own". Everything is connected with everything else. Everything we think, say, or do has an effect on some level of manifestation, and similar effects are often cumulative.

We may become free in all aspects but one: we will always be co-creators of the universe. We can only choose what we create, not whether we do. Which means that whatever knowledge we acquire will alter our awareness, and in turn that will alter the world around us, even if only ever so slightly. This affirms that all knowledge does inherently have value, and power.

Sometimes in life it is more a matter of discerning the more useful from the less useful varieties of knowledge, determined by our needs. But we can never know how valuable any piece of knowledge may become to us later, even if it seems useless now.

As for ignorance, there is no ignorance. Ignorance is like shadow; it has no substance unto itself. It is merely a relative absence of knowledge, just like shadow is a relative absence of light. All is light (even when vibrating at a low enough level to be considered demonic). All is knowledge. All is the Force.

Wescli Wardest wrote: Without the understanding that comes from being centered and able to look at a larger picture the details are, I find to be, quite mute.

I'm assuming you meant "moot" here. Details are almost never moot. The Devil is in the details. And how can you be centered if not for at least some part of you knowing what it is to be centered? How can you look at a larger picture if you don't first have some knowledge of what "pictures" or perspectives are smaller than it? For that matter, can you give me even one example of understanding that does not require knowledge? But if you'll notice, in my Journal for IP assigment 1, I do assign Understanding as the solution word for the second line of the Jedi Code.

Wescli Wardest wrote: That was not meant to be argumentative, but explanatory to my understanding of injustice, or imbalance. Or, what some perceive to be injustice is what I see to be a rebalancing of the whole.

I understand, and I am thankful you gave of your time to say so. I will respond by saying that justice is the rebalancing of the whole; injustice is the imbalancing activity that makes justice possible. So in that sense, we are given another reason to love those who commit injustice, while still making sure to stop the injustice itself -- because without them, we would not be able to have the virtuous experience of upholding justice.

Now, again, on a universal level, I agree; there is no real injustice. Everything is able to be considered collectively as merely a bunch of change going on everywhere, within however many spectrums of dualistic expression, the polar bounds of which are equal in magnitude, albeit opposite in quality. Thus all changes summate into a balanced whole reflective of underlying unity. But this is true only on the universal level. When we examine localized systems, it is very much a reality that imbalance exists, even if just as a transitory state.

Such imbalance is the root of all human suffering, including disease, mental illness, fatigue, obesity, depression, war, starvation, premature aging, physical mortality, etc.

Wescli Wardest wrote: Mostly, I feel that our interpretation of the words in use, or used to describe our views, are used to describe similar concepts but from a slightly different angle.

I agree. I am definitely getting that feeling.

Wescli Wardest wrote: Freedom is an illusion governed by will; much like control.

I like to say that I control nothing, but I manage everything. In this world of Maya, everything is an illusion. But everything is also real, while we are here. That is part of the point. It is a divine paradox, the hallmark of all great truths. So yes, freedom is an illusion in this manifest universe just like everything else, but it is very real and can be experienced in ever-greater degrees if we apply the limitation of our focus to the solving of the problems causing our limitations. If this has not been your experience with your own life, then I am sorry.

Wescli Wardest wrote: Justice is a dynamic of moral or legal president governed by faculties incapable of perceiving the full ramifications of limitation.

I'm assuming here that you meant "precedent". Justice, as a word, can be used in the way you have here. But that is not true justice; moral or legal justice is a human contrivance, based in judging (i.e. labeling) and punishing. It is inherently flawed. In order for anything to be applicable forever and everywhere, it must be based on universal law, not on human understanding or activities. That is why true justice cannot be a moral or legal dynamic.

Wescli Wardest wrote: Equilibrium is the movement of balance or the dynamic of the constant balance of all. (Which is never still)

I agree. And justice is specifically the equilibration of freedom.

Wescli Wardest wrote: It is not so much that I disagree with the overall message you were conveying as to the end point you reached and the terms in use.

I see. Well, the terms in use being varied, we've already addressed. But the end point I reached? Which one was that? I made several points at the end...

Wescli Wardest wrote: Of course, without quantifiable empirical data which might support either position all arguments made are merely circumstantial.

The application of reason can take us far, even when all else fails us. This is a philosophical discussion, so I doubt either of us would ever be able to "quantify" it. (What would that even look like?) But I am speaking both from observation of natural processes and from experience. So that qualifies as empirical, according to most dictionary definitions of the term I have encountered.

Wescli Wardest wrote: Most people searching for self-improvement, a better understanding or “enlightenment” often turn inward and focus their attention on ego or the banishment of ego.

I agree that banishment of the ego is a fool's errand, and a very counterproductive one at that. We need the ego to serve as an evolvable, tangible center of expression. But if you have turned inward and only discovered ego, then you need to look deeper or longer, with greater stillness. The ego is just another layer to be peeled away, if we wish to discover the nature of our true Self, which is one with the Force.

Wescli Wardest wrote: I offer an alternative… turn outward and open up to the possibility of the nonconventional. Lose focus, cease analyzing, ponder nothing, know nothing and understand all.

All of life is a meditation of mental substance upon itself. The essence of meditation is applying sharp focus (as a form of limitation) onto a single selected object or question. Memory is a duplication of what we focus upon, so losing focus accomplishes nothing but dull memory.

What is turning outward, if not simply directing our focus in a different direction? The way you say "cease analyzing" and "ponder nothing" makes me think what you are trying to say is to induce a state of "no mind", which I do agree with. But that's not the same thing as knowing nothing. It is simply ceasing to reflect upon what is known or believed.

Truly it is said, that "The ALL is in all, just as all are in The ALL." Turning within, if done correctly, can and will lead to an experience of universal understanding, or "understand[ing] all", as you put it. That is Samadhi; that is being One with the Force. Anyone who has experienced it for themselves will know whether I write from experience of it myself or not.

As for "opening up to the possibility of the nonconventional", the fact that I am taking the time to write all of this for posting on a Jedi Order website where people believe in the Force and are working to become true Jedi, would seem to argue that I am already quite open to nonconventional possibilities. Let's think about this for a minute.

Fraternally in the Force,
-David

FraterDavid wrote:

Wescli Wardest wrote: That was well put and well thought out FraterDavid…

Well, first of all, thank you for saying so.

Wescli Wardest wrote: but I do have to disagree with your interpretation of justice and injustice.

I see.

Wescli Wardest wrote: As to my understanding, what I feel you were describing, I would call balance and (what others might perceive as) imbalance.

I recall saying specifically that "All is balance"... And yes, balance is intrinsic to all higher expressions of the Force. Justice is certainly no exception. That does not mean that we can substitute the word "balance" for "justice" and have it mean all the same things. Balance is a state of being, and is a very broad term. Justice refers to activity serving to restore or enforce balance, but specifically the balance of freedoms.

Wescli Wardest wrote: But I feel that what others see as imbalance is just a lack of understanding.

On a universal level, that is true. On a localized level, not so much. Imbalance occurs all the time within specific systems. (And I consider "system" able to describe bodies, cities, countries, planets, galaxies, etc.)

This isn't entirely true FraterDavid. As far as Galaxies go, if you put them in the same category as bodies cities, and then specify the bodies as having their own lack of balence, then you're really spliting hairs. The galaxy usually minds it's own bussiness even when it is out of balence, and the local peoples differences right here on earth really aren't in the same catergory. Well they can be, but not in the question of balence.

Get it now?

Jackofalltrades wrote: This isn't entirely true FraterDavid. As far as Galaxies go, if you put them in the same category as bodies cities, and then specify the bodies as having their own lack of balence, then you're really spliting hairs. The galaxy usually minds it's own bussiness even when it is out of balence, and the local peoples differences right here on earth really aren't in the same catergory. Well they can be, but not in the question of balence.

Get it now?

Hello, Jackofalltrades. Thank you for contributing.

In the context to which you are referring, I was only speaking of the fact that each of those systems can experience imbalance, regardless of their relationship to, or effect on, each other. Since you said above, "even when it is out of balance", then you are basically agreeing with my assertion, such as it was, that imbalance does happen. Sorry for any confusion that may have occurred due to my choices of wording.

Fraternally,
-David

Infact no, the only thing we can be sure of is that there is lack of balence; Local and galactic. But not in the same category.

Jackofalltrades wrote: Infact no, the only thing we can be sure of is that there is lack of balence; Local and galactic. But not in the same category.

Riddle me this: where does a body end and a galaxy begin?

There is no true separation. "That which is Above is like that which is Below, just as that which is Below is like that which is Above." That is one of the seven fundamental axioms of the Force, the Axiom of Correspondence.

Until there is a consciously-maintained balance of freedom (i.e. Justice) everywhere, at all levels, no one is truly free.

Fraternally in the Force,
-David

FraterDavid wrote:

Jackofalltrades wrote: Infact no, the only thing we can be sure of is that there is lack of balence; Local and galactic. But not in the same category.

Riddle me this: where does a body end and a galaxy begin?

There is no true separation. "That which is Above is like that which is Below, just as that which is Below is like that which is Above." That is one of the seven fundamental axioms of the Force, the Axiom of Correspondence.

Until there is a consciously-maintained balance of freedom (i.e. Justice) everywhere, at all levels, no one is truly free.

Fraternally in the Force,
-David

One can only qualify the individual persons as having any affect on the galactic order if one completly forgets the issue of balence in this context. The fact of one person crating balence in the whole is a totally different point; but not contradictory to the fact that local balence and galactic balence aren't in the same category...

It's kind of related to the fact that if one qualifies something as imaginary; Then they also bring the fact of a non-imagiary version of what they are imagining. Without the real version, the imaginary one cannot exist. This is not to destroy faith, or on the other way to be naive. It's not to say that imaginary things are without value. It is simply qualifying something as imaginary, in order to point out that there is a real version somewhere at a distance in space and time. That said, one can close ones eyes and imagine soemthing that is right in front of him...

But again; this is simply alot of spart debates that appeer to agree with a liberal outlook; but do infact simply undermine the dicipline that is at the forefront of a person that serves the force.

Did you know there is a philosophy that says that the dark side is simply part of the personality of the user?

Jackofalltrades wrote: One can only qualify the individual persons as having any affect on the galactic order if one completly forgets the issue of balence in this context. The fact of one person crating balence in the whole is a totally different point; but not contradictory to the fact that local balence and galactic balence aren't in the same category...

I apologize, Brother; I have really tried to understand what you are saying here, to no avail. Your writing does not make very clear what your point is. I mean no offense in saying this; I just don't know what you're getting at.

Jackofalltrades wrote: It's kind of related to the fact that if one qualifies something as imaginary; Then they also bring the fact of a non-imagiary version of what they are imagining. Without the real version, the imaginary one cannot exist. This is not to destroy faith, or on the other way to be naive. It's not to say that imaginary things are without value. It is simply qualifying something as imaginary, in order to point out that there is a real version somewhere at a distance in space and time. That said, one can close ones eyes and imagine soemthing that is right in front of him...

Again, I am even less certain what you are trying to say here... I will do my best to respond if you will be more clear as to what you are trying to prove, disprove, agree with, or contradict. As it is, I can only tell that you feel you disagree with something I've said concerning different categories of balance, even though I don't see how that relates to what I wrote in a way that would contradict it.

Jackofalltrades wrote: But again; this is simply alot of spart debates that appeer to agree with a liberal outlook; but do infact simply undermine the dicipline that is at the forefront of a person that serves the force.

I gather from this that you believe certain debates undermine a Jedi's discipline somehow... But I cannot tell what kind of debates you mean ("spart" debates?), or why you think this about them.

Jackofalltrades wrote: Did you know there is a philosophy that says that the dark side is simply part of the personality of the user?

Yes, I have encountered this philosophy before. The Dark Side is technically a part of personality, just like certain aspects of personality are a part of the Dark Side. The personality arises from the Force, so this cannot help but be true. But that does not make either one evil, and I disagree with any assertion that the Dark Side is only a part of our personalities. That is supposition and not based on experience. Anyone who has experienced resorting to the Dark Side to invisibly effect physical change over a distance knows that it transcends mere human personality.

Fraternally in the Force,
-David