I think i may be going over to the dark side

The Force is a neutral entity, one thats use is determined by the user. It's a matter of the person, not the Force.

Well put.

If \"neutral\" is the capacity for both, then I can accept that. Angelus offered in PM to debate this further in chat (I'd love to!), but I was distracted in another window (setting up my own site, takes a bit of concentration when I have to get my hands into the code). Really, I'll talk to anyone about this conviction, as it is based on deep-seated personal experience.

However, the point of the observation is that certain things lead us to our goals, and certain things do not. If we try to live outside of the ability to see that the goals that we have are desirable, then our goals are pointless, worthless, and of no utility. If we don't want to achieve them, then they are merely words and not goals at all.

But then, \"good\" and \"evil\" are just words. \"Light\" and \"dark\" are just words, too. As are words like \"peace\" and \"life\" and \"death\" and \"terrorist.\" All of these have meaning, and are linked to ideas, values, and modes of thought. If I say: \"Wo pu yao shue shuo zhong guo hua,\" then it doesn't mean a whole lot unless you happen to speak Mandarin.

So if I say that I perceive the capacity for both Light and Dark within a rock, does that make the rock either one? Yes. It means that both are present. It is a matter of how the rock is used. The thought of the rock being \"just a rock\" and having no capacity but that which we give it negates the ability of the rock to act on its own (such as, from gravity as it is pulled down a hill). But a rock is lifeless and has no will of its own, and so how can it possibly have any potential?

The potential is from what is done with it. Light can be used first, as the rock is picked up by a little girl who adds it to her \"cool rocks\" collection. But later, it might be used for Dark purposes, found by her brother who shapes it into a weapon for killing. The intent is Dark. But then the brother uses this weapon for the purpose of keeping people alive: let's say it's now an arrowhead, and its shot has kept the entire family from starvation. The act was Dark. But the result is Light. Was the intent Dark or Light? Intent alone cannot determine whether or not the act is Light or Dark--it's the result that shows the effect.

But then let's switch hypothetical gears again: let's say that instead, it's used to commit a series of crimes, used as a tomahawk to torture animals and then later as the weapon of a serial killer. The act is the same, and is Dark. The intent to harm and cause suffering is most certainly Dark. The result is suffering, and therefore Dark.

So then we switch gears again, and take a different track: it's now a weapon of war. Aggressors are advancing on the family. The stone is used again and again to take life, with the intent to do so. The intent is derived from a desire to protect, which becomes anger and hatred of those who are threatening this family. The anger and hatred are most certainly Dark. The intent to take life is Dark. The desire to protect is Light, as is the intent to only use this weapon as a weapon of defense. The result is that the deaths of those who would seek to end the family's life might be justified so long as the stone is used in a defensive capacity. Even in the hands of someone who has succumbed to the Dark Side, the result is defensive, and therefore Light. So long as that's what it is, and it's never used offensively.

But let's say that this is now the rock which was hurled by this little girl in defense at a Federal officer who is storming the compound at Waco, Texas, in 1995. The officer has a job to do. The compound is under siege because of some religious zealots who have been reported to have firearms (whether this is the truth or not is irrelevant to the point). The officer is acting in defense of those he feels are potentially innocent. The little girl who threw the rock is acting on the fact that armed men are trying to storm the building, and is defending herself with what she has. Neither side is acting out of actual malice. Is the stone Light, because it is used with the intent of defense, or Dark, because of the intent to do harm? This is something that we cannot determine without knowing all sides of the equation. It's a \"grey area\".

Intent is only one part of the whole: Light and Dark are balanced by intent, action, and result, just as good and evil are... so are wet and dry, etc., for all balancing forces in the universe.

Again, it's a matter of degree: nothing is purely good or evil, there are lots of grey areas between.

It's a heavy burden to carry around a light and dark side of The Force. You may have them but they don't come alone. You have to bear the red side of The Force and the blue Side of The Force and the green side of The Force and the yellow side of The Force and the violet side of The Force and the ....

I'm not making fun or being flip.

This is self evident.

Remember: (Yes Tao = The Force)

The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named is not the eternal name

...

When the world knows beauty as beauty, ugliness arises
When it knows good as good, evil arises

And here I thought that color was evidence that light and dark were working together...

Light is not white. Dark is not black.

All colors are evidence of light being reflected; darkness shows only the lack of light to see by.

If something appears red, then it is absorbing all other colors and reflecting red light. If it appears green, then it is reflecting green light. The sky is blue because of universal principles of reflection, refraction, and absorption of light.

Just because people say that something is so, that does not make it so. A Light Side doesn't mean that the colors are any less present. A Dark side doesn't connote their absence--merely the absence of the ability to see them. And in a world where Dark is destructive but not necessarily evil (as life requires some destructive processes such as digestion in order to survive), how can we live in a world where there is neither Light nor Dark according to our own beliefs?

Lao Tzu's book also said this:

The Tao doesn't take sides;
it gives birth to both good and evil.

Therefore, both exist within it. Something cannot come from nothing, or return to nothing. Energy changes; it doesn't ever get created or destroyed. For such a change to exist, the Dark Side must balance the Light Side: positive must balance negative, high must balance low, and all of the opposing, dualistic forces in the universe show us that the Force must likewise be allowed to have duality, balance, and moderation (as it is with all energies). The Force doesn't take sides; it is both sides and the middle. Our perceptions shape it into the capacities we call Light and Dark, and naming them doesn't change or diminish what the Force is.

Simply demonstrating that this unknowable, unfathomable \"thing\" we call the Force has a Light or a Dark is to show the capacities we label as such--the label itself is a means of helping us to understand, and requiring the lack of labels is not the central path of least resistance (nor is arguing the point, but I persist because this is really something I strongly believe and have a difficult time understanding the absence of... how can we live in a world in which light and shade cannot coexist because we fail to name them?).

RedHeron wrote:

The Force doesn't take sides; it is both sides and the middle. Our perceptions shape it into the capacities we call Light and Dark, and naming them doesn't change or diminish what the Force is.

Simply demonstrating that this unknowable, unfathomable \"thing\" we call the Force has a Light or a Dark is to show the capacities we label as such--the label itself is a means of helping us to understand, and requiring the lack of labels is not the central path of least resistance (nor is arguing the point, but I persist because this is really something I strongly believe and have a difficult time understanding the absence of... how can we live in a world in which light and shade cannot coexist because we fail to name them?).

ok....
So if I am reading all of the posts correctly, I think we agree that;

1) The Force is neither light or dark, as a whole.

2) The combination of the two (and the shades of grey) is what makes the Force.

3) It is the PERCEPTION of the person(s) involved as to whether or not the action is light/dark, wet/dry.......etc.

+5,+4,+3,+2,+1,0,-1,-2,-3,-4,-5 = where the force is zero and perception (as well as the intent I guess) are the integers.

Does this sum up our thread? Or did I miss the mark?