Dark side?

When one applies a title like that to themselves, I only hope they do not apply it lightly. And I must say I'm dubious to as to this "Draconic's" merit.

I assure you, he is quite dubious as to yours.

Say rather he shakes in terror that he may be confronted by a *real* Darth, and not know how to handle it.

DaathMenace wrote: Barrera- Now you've had to resort to putting words in my own mouth. Who said "evil can be positive"? Your post only demonstrates that you become frustrated when you are refuted, and refuse to learn from that refutation, or at least reason with a genuine counter-argument... a sign of immaturity. It also shows a lack of discipline with the Force.

Oh, blah. I didn't mean to click Thank You to this post of his. That's just awesome.

Perhaps subconsciously you achknowledge that you owe me thanks?

There is a better place to talk about "dark" things: http://templeofthesithorder.com/

DeathStar wrote: Perhaps subconsciously you achknowledge that you owe me thanks?

I had a feeling that was you, DaathMenace. I'm surprised that you would be willing to reveal yourself after having just gotten banned under that account. I don't think the admins here are going to take kindly to that kind of evasive behavior.

But yes, brother, of course I owe you thanks. It need not be subconscious. I am thankful for the opportunities for self-regulation that your existence has presented me and others with. I just hadn't meant to express thanks for that specific post of yours. It would appear that all such seeming mistakes serve good purposes after all, though.

Oh, by the way, if you're going to claim to have more knowledge than other people, you should probably also aim to spell words like "acknowledge" correctly. Just sayin.

He didn't reveal himself, I revealed him

ren wrote: He didn't reveal himself, I revealed him

Right! So I note, after the fact. Good vigilance, at any rate. I'm a little slow tonight in catching up. It's been a long day, but a good one.

These were some interesting comments you made, Wescli. Let us explore them a little more in-depth.

Wescli Wardest wrote: The “dark” side, the “light” side; they are all a part of the same whole. Can one draw a line and show me the point where the two are separate?

This is applicable if you are trying to divide the Force like you would cut cheese. But the Light Side and Dark Side are not destinations; they are directions.

Yes, they exist along a continuous spectrum where only the very outer extents are absolutes, and everything in between is a mixture of both to some reciprocal extent. However, there is no magic line upon crossing over which you have arrived at the Dark Side or Light Side. This is the same as how "Jedi" is an ideal, not a label. An ideal can be strived towards indefinitely in ever greater measure without resulting in failure, whereas a label is either lived up to exactly or we are immediately cast as failures instead.

The two factors that matter are the direction you are facing, and the direction you are moving. Preferably they should be in alignment with each other, but if they are not, the most important one is direction of movement. If you're wanting to serve the Light, and you're looking/thinking in the Light direction, then this could be called intention to seek the Light Side.

But intention is only the beginning. We must acknowledge present conditions and ensure that we are actually moving in the direction of our intention. Even Yoda refers to the Dark Side as a "path", not a state of being that one can draw lines around. Inversely, if we are moving in the desired direction but looking/focusing in the opposite direction, this will either eventually reverse our progress or at the very least, slow it down. Can you run backward as fast or as easily as you can sprint forward?

Wescli Wardest wrote: The real question I see is, what are your views of the now?

Well, my view is different now than it is now. Or than it is now. But it is always the experience of a perspective based in being a center of expression for the Force, in one predominant way or the other. The spectrum may be One, but the directions of focus are mutually exclusive. We cannot focus completely in two opposing directions (or upon two opposing polarities) at once. This should be self-evident. Hence one meaning of the three faces in the Mask of Eternity.

Wescli Wardest wrote: Imagine there are two circles. One, you are in the center of and it has no definable borders. It stretches out in all directions…. Infinite.

Barrera: I think he means here that you are standing in the center of a circle with infinite radius, which is mathematically describable, to an extent. The interesting property of a circle with infinite radius is that all points within it are each its center. This is a symbolic example of why direction is more relevant than location.

Jestor: Pi is infinitely non-repeating in its decimal resolution because Pi is a ratio attempting to convert the area of a curvilinear space to an area in rectilinear spatial terms. It is describing how many squares with sides of length r (the radius of the circle) are contained within the circle. This is easily discernible from examining the equation, Area of a circle = Pi * r^2.

Since curvilinear areas cannot be exactly represented numerically in rectilinear mappings, the result of trying is an approximation in the form of an infinite progression of non-repeating digits. (Non-repeating because of the fractal nature of filling the successively smaller border spaces within the circle with smaller and smaller squares in the attempt to map all of its space rectilinearly).

Wescli Wardest wrote: The other is clearly defined; you are not in it but rather one with all.

This is actually the part that caused me confusion. You say the second circle is clearly defined, but you do not say how, or in what relation to where I am standing or to the first circle. So in a roundabout way, I fail to see the point you were trying to make, even by circuminference.

Wescli Wardest wrote: One can chose to be the center of focus… stretching out in an attempt to influence all.

We are all centers of focus within the sacred Circle of infinite radius. That is one thing about which we have no choice. We can choose what we create or influence, but not whether we do. We influence everything all the time to some degree, whether it is discernible or not, whether we realize it or not, regardless of any attempting. Even modern science supports this.

There is an equation in chemistry that calculates the effect that one electron has on another electron. In order for any two electrons to have zero effect on each other, they must be an infinite distance apart! That is a powerfully insightful bit of math. And imagine how much more so this must be true for us as aggregate beings? As an aside, there are those who would instead call the Circle an Ellipse, as it has two foci and thus better represents the dualities of this relative manifestation we call the physical universe.

Wescli Wardest wrote: Or, one can accept and become a part of it all.

We are a part of it all whether we accept it or not. Conscious acceptance does transform the nature of the relationship, but does not create it.

Fraternally,
-David