Light or Shadow?

FraterDavid wrote:

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

That's the exact problem David. You're trying to look for a "point" in what I am saying far apart form the actual words I have used. I am not attempting to prove, disprove, agree with, or contradict anything. It's all very simple language that I am using. But you're claming ignorance as to what they mean. why? It's simply a tactic to offend me and cajole me. Claiming ignorance is fighting talk FraterDavid. Also, it is a very good quality to not to have the problem that people do not know what you are talking about. So really, if you don't know, please don't tell me directly.

You're apologies and doubting observations really are a way of saying that everything is just an idea. It's worthless.

Just to make a point, I'll say this: everything depends on our mind. So please could you refrain from talking about my feelings and thoughts so readily, and also with so much doubt. Talk about the actual objects that we can both agree exist, from there we can both divine each others feelings becuase as I said, everything depends apon the mind.

Jackofalltrades wrote: That's the exact problem David. You're trying to look for a "point" in what I am saying far apart form the actual words I have used.

Your words have been very unclear (to me) as to your meaning. This may be a failing on my part. If anyone else reading this has understood Jackofalltrades better than I have, please let me know what you think he has been trying to say.

Jackofalltrades wrote: I am not attempting to prove, disprove, agree with, or contradict anything.

Then why have you been saying things that indicate disagreement and contradiction, such as:

Jackofalltrades wrote: This isn't entirely true FraterDavid.

Infact no

But not in the same category.

Jackofalltrades wrote: It's all very simple language that I am using.

The simplicity of the language (i.e. words) you are using is not the issue here, so much as your choice of grammatical arrangement of them, and in some cases, there have been confusing misspellings. Now, everyone else here can see from having read my posts that I will always do my best to at least take a guess at what a misspelled word was intended to be, and respond from there.

But there have been too many confusing/ambiguous misspellings and phrasings crop up in your writing for me to feel comfortable writing back without first getting clarification from you as to your meaning. Otherwise I would have no way of knowing if what I'm writing is even applicable to your posts.

Jackofalltrades wrote: It's simply a tactic to offend me and cajole me.

If you think I have nothing better to do with my time than offend and cajole people, then you are mistaken about me. All of my statements have been genuine, and my confusion, real.

Jackofalltrades wrote: Claiming ignorance is fighting talk FraterDavid.

The only alternative to admitting I didn't understand you would be to ignore you completely. Would you prefer that? Either way, my intention was never to fight with you. Did I ever call you names or denigrate your intelligence? No. I simply said, "I'm sorry my Brother, I really tried, but I don't understand what you're trying to say here." How in the world is that fighting words? You might want to examine within yourself why you interpreted it that way.

Jackofalltrades wrote: Also, it is a very good quality to not to have the problem that people do not know what you are talking about. So really, if you don't know, please don't tell me directly.

This sounds like you are indeed saying that if I don't understand you, that you prefer I just not say anything, and basically ignore you. Is that true? And if so, is that really what you want?

Jackofalltrades wrote: You're apologies and doubting observations really are a way of saying that everything is just an idea. It's worthless.

I think you are attributing me with more intelligence or subtlety than I actually possess. My apologies were genuine, and my "doubting observations" were my way of directly letting you know that I didn't understand what you were trying to communicate. They were an invitation to rephrase what you said in some other way that I might understand better. It was really as simple as that.

You notice I responded to your question about that specific Dark Side philosophy. Why? Because I could understand what you were saying there.

Jackofalltrades wrote: Just to make a point, I'll say this: everything depends on our mind.

If you are speaking of mind as a singular reality, then I agree. The basis of everything is mental substance. If you mean reality depends upon our perception of it, I disagree. Even if any of us were to cease to exist, no longer possessing a mind at all, the universe would still keep on functioning exactly as it does now. True Reality does not depend upon our awareness of it.

Jackofalltrades wrote: So please could you refrain from talking about my feelings and thoughts so readily, and also with so much doubt.

Please understand, I wasn't doubting your thoughts and feelings. I was simply not fully understanding what your thoughts and feelings were, based on what you were saying, or perhaps the way you were saying it. It's just as weird for me as it is frustrating for you -- I am not used to this occurring (fortunately!).

Fraternally,
-David

Jackofalltrades wrote: That's the exact problem David. You're trying to look for a "point" in what I am saying far apart form the actual words I have used. I am not attempting to prove, disprove, agree with, or contradict anything. It's all very simple language that I am using. But you're claming ignorance as to what they mean. why? It's simply a tactic to offend me and cajole me. Claiming ignorance is fighting talk FraterDavid. Also, it is a very good quality to not to have the problem that people do not know what you are talking about. So really, if you don't know, please don't tell me directly.

You're apologies and doubting observations really are a way of saying that everything is just an idea. It's worthless.

Jackofalltrades...it really was quite hard to understand what you were trying to say...I mean no disrespect by that, but I think that your words to FraterDavid were undeserved as he seemed to be trying his best to answer what he could.

I was completely misunderstood over a series of PMs earlier today...in the end I went back to the beginning and rephrased what I was trying to say and we laughed about the misunderstanding...

These things aren't personal, they just happen sometimes and we have to go back and try to find a clearer way to explain...it happens to everyone at times, as it did with me earlier

Jackofalltrades wrote: That's the exact problem David. You're trying to look for a "point" in what I am saying far apart form the actual words I have used. I am not attempting to prove, disprove, agree with, or contradict anything. It's all very simple language that I am using. But you're claming ignorance as to what they mean. why? It's simply a tactic to offend me and cajole me. Claiming ignorance is fighting talk FraterDavid. Also, it is a very good quality to not to have the problem that people do not know what you are talking about. So really, if you don't know, please don't tell me directly.

You're apologies and doubting observations really are a way of saying that everything is just an idea. It's worthless.

It was also hard for me to understand it...

One thing we should ALL be wise to remember is that interpretation of words online, what we're trying to say, it's rarely ever personal...especially in a place like ToTJO...so don't take it personal...a misinterpretation of a single word can bring about an entire war...not everything we say is as obvious as we may think it might be...So we shouldn't get offended if someone doesn't understand us or we don't understand someone...

I understood it perfectly, for some reason.

/jk, I didn't read it.

Desolous wrote: I understood it perfectly, for some reason.

/jk, I didn't read it.

I really did laugh-out-loud just now...

Ahhhh...simple things to entertain a simple mind...haha

Desolous wrote: I understood it perfectly, for some reason.

/jk, I didn't read it.

LOL! You know, there's a lot of wisdom hidden in this remark. I mean, sometimes, if we can't laugh, what can we do?

Thanks, Brother!

Still laughing,
-David

Allow me to attempt a shot at translating this mess. And Jack, I really don't care if you don't like me placing words in your mouth- because at the end of the day you didn't take the time to clarify your own points. Therefore, you can suffer the consequences.

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...

Alethea's Translation wrote: You can only qualify someone's impact on the galactic scale if you disregard the idea of balance. Taking the idea that Anakin Skywalker was suppose to bring balance to the galactic level is an entirely different concept- however, it is not a contradiction to the idea that local balance and galactic balance are different concepts entirely.

Alethea's Response:

Actually I have to agree with this. One person can only effect so much of the "pie". Even in the Star Wars Universe, Anakin/Luke's (which ever one you want to attribute to actually bringing about "balance") influence only impacted the government. Plenty of people live within the systems of their government and the government itself has very little to do with the way they live their life in the here and now, unless a drastic change comes about. But even then, it's up to individuals the problems effect to adapt and overcome, or get lost in the new chaos.

What happens in Japan tends to have little effect on the daily lives of most Americans. I can prove this by citing what happened during the Tsumani last year- and I was living in Okinawa when it happened. The impact it had on me was minimal. I received phone calls making sure I was alright, and then one where my father-and-law was ready to petition for me to get on a plane to come home because I was pregnant (it didn't go much of anywhere), as well as placed on an extra detail to watch after a pregnant NCO that came down from Tokyo. But it didn't really impact my daily life. Just another day in paradise (and it was paradise, man I miss that beach view!). So really, we can't even find a way to have a major global impact, let alone galactic.

That said, we could go with the "Butterfly Effect" theory, and explain that what happens to one particle will ultimately effect other particles which all have a reaction to what happens with the particle next to it. In this sense of the understanding of balance, then yes we could have universal balance. Daemo, in this theory, we have no control over the first particle that set everything in motion, and it basically removes free will from the equation. Everything I am typing, is a result of the movement of that first particle, and it was all predetermined. Wrap your head around that one. lol.

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...

Alethea's Translation wrote: In order to understand the imaginary, you need to first understand it's opposite. For example, if you know anything about whales (and this is one of my hobbies to research), then you understand that a whale does not have an esophagus large enough to swallow a human whole. So when someone makes the statement that Jonah was swallowed by a whale, you begin to look at the situation as imaginary with the understanding that the esophagus of a whale is too small to accomplish such a feat (simplest example I can give).
Now, our predecessor storytellers probably did not understand this little tidbit. The person that wrote Jonah and the Whale probably saw the sheer size of a Whale and believed it large enough to swallow a human whole. So his imagination took off in order to create a story of one man's (Jonah) journey to disobey, obey, and then get angry at God and all the events that took place from point A to Z.
Now, this does not diminish the importance of the imagination, it simply puts it in it's proper place for the human mind to draw upon for inspiration.
That said, there is nothing stopping you from closing your eyes, and allowing your imagination to create some sort of mental image of something standing before you.

Alethea's Response:

I don't understand why it's relevant to the conversation. It does a poor job of proving your argument, really. And it doesn't really hit home on what the meaning of the "That which is Above is like that which is Below, just as that which is Below is like that which is Above" axiom (that's the only thing I can think of that you meant this entire paragraph to address, but I could be wrong).

That said...it is important to understand the difference between your imagination and reality. There are a lot of people that get lost in their own fictional universe, and it's one of the primary reasons the Abrahamic Traditions today are strongly against the practice of esoteric disciplines, because too many people get caught up in them. Not that many pastors understand that anymore these days, but hey, whatever.

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.

Alethea's Translation wrote: All of these conversations address different aspects of the liberal outlook, and undermine the discipline it takes to be a person that serves "the Force".

Alethea's Response:

My guess is that the last sentence ties in with the above translation, but I'm keeping it separate so I can address it on my own.

I don't agree with a liberal outlook of the Jedi Path. My understanding from the context clues, is that you believe most of the debates that have occurred in this 36 page thread are attempts to diminish the Jedi Path itself so that it can be tailored to anyone and everyone that walks into these halls. If this is correct-

Sure there are a lot of views of this sort thrown around. But not everyone agrees with this- obviously there are those of us in the camp that stand firmly against the excuse mill outside of the community. But take a good look through the thread and you'll see where the Brother John himself stood against the idea, once he realized this was the general feel that the discussion had turned into. He didn't want people to think that the path was merely "I get to say whatever, and still call myself a Jedi"- ToTJO has standards and they want people to live up to them. Of course, at the end of the day, that's really up to them to decide if they will. The only thing someone is doing by not living by the standards is hurting their own integrity if you ask me. But that's my personal opinion.

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

Alethea's Response:

This one requires no translation, it's plain, simple and to the point. And the answer is "Yes, I do know that there is a philosophy that the 'dark side' is merely expressed by the personality, rather than an actual facet of 'the Force'". In fact, I happen to be from that school of thought, I also attribute the "light side" of "the Force" as an expression of one's personality in relation to society's rules. To me, "the Force" is neutral and has no consciousness to speak of.

And on that note, I'll see you guys Tuesday- I'm off for a weekend vacation with my husband.