I think i may be going over to the dark side

Jasper_Ward wrote:

hmmm, since for a part of the year if I don't pick up any contracts I do not see sunlight for 2.5 months does this add darkness to me? I find darkness peaceful, serene, and even a great place for concentration. But when in daylight I do see wonders and feel the energy, but my life tends to keep me sleeping through the daylight.

I like that Jasper.

LMAO... Redheron, I did not want to seem as I was just arguing with you for the sake of arguing. I also have meditated a bit and in reality have no trouble continuing. I just wanted to not seem like a troll. This is my belief and you are DEFINATLY entitled to yours. I did not want to seem like I was being difficult. BUT, I am all in for healthy discussion...

RedHeron wrote:
Jestor wrote:

Ok, how about this math....+5, +4, +3, +2, +1, -1, -2, -3, -4, -5?

If the numbers cancel each other out, what is left?

The Yin Yang blend, the \"/\" line in it shows there is a mid-point. Yet it is still a complete idea. The zero is the line between the positive and negative.

Redheron wrote:
This implies that such a line can exist: if we light a candle in the center of, say a large (and darkened) gymnasium, the area next to the candle is light. The edges of the gym are dark. Is there really a point at which the light becomes dark?

If you believe it is, then stand at that point and look. You will find that there is not an actual line there, from the perspective you're standing on.

There is not an actual center. The candle is the light, the edges are the dark, and everything else is between. There is light and dark, but there is more \"between\" than there is either one. The \"between\" doesn't cancel out light or dark... it's all relative. Closer to the candle will be lighter, and closer to the wall will be darker. Even at the \"midpoint\" there isn't an actual line where it suddenly becomes dark or light.


ok then, as we walk away from the candle, we gradually move into the dark. If we start in the dark and walk toward the candle we gradually move into the light. (I am not being condecending, I am just trying to be clear in MY thoughts :laugh: )

At some point \"person A\" is more in the light than not, then it switches to more dark then light. The reverse can be said for \"person B\".

As infinitesimal a point as it may be, it still exsists where they exchange dominance. If that is true, then at the point where they meet and are equal must also exsist. You consider the area close to the candle, light. The areas in the corner, dark. All the rest are between, grey?

Granted, the line is small, faster than a blink. Its the point where a housefly stops flying right side up and flips to touch the ceiling. It's the point between wet and dry, where you have moved the plane of the water, but not broke the surface. It is where our Earths' atmosphere and space meet.

The line is so fine, it cannot be stood on. You made a reference to balance, a tightrope walker balances, not with a perfect upright stance, but with tiny movements in each direction. Trying to not give too much to either side. That is why when the top half of the body starts left, the bottom will try to counteract it.

Redheron wrote:
Intent, as I said, is only one of the many factors which determines the nature of the act. It is an important one, certainly, but if we go around trying to judge others' actions, we will go around in endless circles until we arbitrarily decide what their intent was. It's not something that can be determined from the outside.

I am the only one who really knows for sure what my intent is.

It's a pity you're deciding not to continue... I would have liked to have learned more about your perspective on this. My issue is that I really don't see how what you're saying can apply within my own experience... it raises doubt in me about my own experience, until I can figure out enough about what you mean to really understand it.
Anyone else want to field this in Jestor's place, perhaps help me to understand how there cannot be either side, when we see + and - on the list (which, if combined, do cancel one another out... but sitting there on either side of the \"zero\" as they are, they are quite separate and distinct, even if they are connected by the same number line).

I am not saying that the grey areas do not exsist. Neither am I saying they are not parts of the Force. They are all combined. I AM saying, that there is a midpoint. That all of it combines to create. It all combines to destroy.

I do not know your intent. You don't know mine. Most people try to guess the intent and end up sitting in judgement.

That is why the man stealing to feed his family, although he knows it is wrong, still does it for the good it will bring. But people will still judge. Some will say,\"Awww , I do not blame him. I would do the same if it came down to it.\" Others would say,\"But he stole. I don't care how bad it is. I could never.\"

Perception, priorities, points-of-view, judgement.... It is all relative.

Angelus wrote:

Well then, the capacity for using the Force (using, LOL) for good or evil is as diverse our viewpoints on the subject. ^^

Redheron wrote:
Well, I wasn't talking about good or evil, really, more just Light Side and Dark Side of the Force. Good and evil are generally determined by intent.


Redheron wrote:
Light Side and Dark Side are separate and distinct, and defined by our values... but simply saying they don't exist implies (to me) that the Force has no potential. It must have the ability to flow, which implies that there are different parts to the Force, if we stick to what we know about natural rules.

What one calls Light or Dark is determined by values, but that doesn't negate that they are there. Br. John says that he can't deal with the separation (for him, it's all one Force), but I don't understand how this can be, since I can't follow the reasoning used. The argument is one of colors, but all colors are of the Light. There is no burden to me, and so the idea of a burden is foreign (and though I accept Br. John's belief in this regard, I don't understand). We spoke for a bit on the topic, and I respect the belief... but what I really would like is to be able to \"get it\" enough to really see it, whether I change my mind to agree or not.

As I try to follow the reasoning, my own over-logical brain demands a basis in something familiar in order to draw a comparison. Even in water, there is a flow, expansion, return, and immobilization (think of water, steam, condensation, and ice). These have Light and Dark capacity.

I'm unable to find anything in Nature that I can't see as having both capacities, nor can I simply accept that the opposing capacities of creation and destruction are the same (as they are plainly not).[/quote]

Yes, the POTENTIAL exists for both, it is what is done with that potential. AND, how it is interpeted, the perception. (sorry, but my preview shows this line extremely large.. I don't know why...lol:laugh: )

This is a wonderful discussion. I hope nobody feels anxiety from this debate. We are addressing ideas not persons.

Yes Master John, no anxiety. I also was worried and was going to stop. RedHeron seemed ok and not taking it personal, so I am continuing.
If any of this does offend. I apologize as that is NOT intention.... All for bettering to broaden my horizons. I HAVE been known to discuss myself into a corner and have to change my P.O.V...... .... That can be really embarassing....... lol

Gotta say, this is a fascinating topic to read...

I HAVE been known to discuss myself into a corner and have to change my P.O.V...... .... That can be really embarassing....... lol

This, I know only too well. It is one of the reasons that I love debate. It is one of the best (IMO) ways to refine ones own opinions, or even truly learn where we ourselves stand on a topic. I have often been surprised by some unthought/unvoiced opinion I held subconsciously, when confronted with it by that very situation!

Now, on topic; I find that I agree with both Jestor and RedHeron, or at the very least I can see where you are both coming from. I do find some amusement in the fact that I am in the 'grey area' between you, yet still easily acknowledge the difference between you.

My own opinion of the topic is less verbose than your wonderfully thought out replies.

The Dark side, and the Light side exist in the manner that a mental concept exists, and is defined by the mentality that brings it into existence.
The Dark side can be said to hold chaos, the Light side can be said to hold order. Chaos and Order can both be viewed as good or evil, yet are truly neither, they are simply natural forces. The good/evil tint is overlaid by the mind experiencing the chaos/order.
At the same time, Chaos and Order are themselves mental concepts, and are again filtered through the mind that experiences them. A situation one mind finds chaotic can be a beautiful order to another.

Separating one from the other becomes almost impossible if one attempts to view them from more than one perspective.

Using the Gymnasium visualisation, One light in the centre of darkness. One person walks into the gymnasium and sees no darkness, but only the light the candle casts, his mind filtering the darkness as irrelevant to his perception of the room.
Another comes in and sees the deep shadows the light creates, his mind perceiving the room with greater darkness than his companions.
Where the light ends and the darkness begins, or vice versa, is dependent on not only their mental focus, but on how well their optic nerve functions in low-light.

One may see a very clearly defined border between the light and the dark, another may only see the gradual change from one to the other. Neither are necessarily wrong.

These are of course simply my opinions, I hope I didn't babble to badly.

i prefer to think of things as organized chaos as has been said numerous times now both and neither exhist...it's all relative to the perceiver's own perspective....lizzy's candle lit gymnasium analogy is an interesting one, though for me there would be no complete darkness as i tend to see extremely well in the night and the gymnasium would appear as almost entirely gray aside from the piercing, blinding, brightness of the light....in a way it's similar to how i see the world. lots of gray area very few/small dark areas and the piercing, blinding, bright light....

if i were in that gymnasium i would most likely be found somewhere in the shadows as bright lights hurt my eyes...this does not mean that i'm a dark person...just more comfortable in the shadows then most, and capable of moving back and forth freely without issue

Well then, what's the difference between the Light side and the Dark side, because it's certaintly not good and evil.

You know I was thinking that there is no such thing as total darkness. The background radiation left over from the Big Bang is about three degrees over absolute zero. That's small true but we can measure it even though our eyes cannot see it.

In levels of light where a human would perceive only dark an owl or cat can see.

Nature will not tolerate nothingness either. Even in the emptiest of space there are still virtual particles appearing and disappearing relentlessly.

How do we know something is truly random? 4159265358 looks random until you realize it's the 2nd through the 11th digits of Pi.

Do flowers fly? Yes they do. Many species of flowering plants cannot reproduce without bees and the bees cannot live without the nectar so a bee is a much a part of a flower as its stem, leaves and roots!

Two dimensional thinking is where these problems arise.

The Force is doing just fine and it's perfect. Only when we try and bind it with limited knowledge and the limits of labels does it get confusing and argumentative.

Labels and measures are wonderful tools but terrible masters.

Angelus wrote:

Well then, what's the difference between the Light side and the Dark side, because it's certaintly not good and evil.

Disclaimer: I am untrained and not of the order.. yet. The following is an opinion and I'll admit to not reading the rest of the thread save for Br. John's last post above this one.

The difference between light and dark is hidden within personal intention. An action can be in the name of the greater good but if there's ignoble personal gain within your intention, then it is not of the \"light side\".

Now that's not to say that all personal gains are of the \"dark side\" either. Everyone benefits from the greater good. I'll spare you the lecture about the evolutionary development of ethics and why \"good\" and \"evil\" became descriptors according to mythological scholars and evolutionary sociologists. But know that if you do the right thing in the context of more than just yourself, in most cases you engender trust and ensure the society continues to survive.

Actions against those two basic things, either subtly or blatantly, lead towards a \"dark\" path.

Thanks and hopefully this helps
Tatsujin

Br. John wrote:

You know I was thinking that there is no such thing as total darkness. The background radiation left over from the Big Bang is about three degrees over absolute zero. That's small true but we can measure it even though our eyes cannot see it.

In levels of light where a human would perceive only dark an owl or cat can see.

Nature will not tolerate nothingness either. Even in the emptiest of space there are still virtual particles appearing and disappearing relentlessly.

How do we know something is truly random? 4159265358 looks random until you realize it's the 2nd through the 11th digits of Pi.

Do flowers fly? Yes they do. Many species of flowering plants cannot reproduce without bees and the bees cannot live without the nectar so a bee is a much a part of a flower as its stem, leaves and roots!

Two dimensional thinking is where these problems arise.

The Force is doing just fine and it's perfect. Only when we try and bind it with limited knowledge and the limits of labels does it get confusing and argumentative.

Labels and measures are wonderful tools but terrible masters.

This post made me think. For me, thinking usually has mixed results

There's an old socratic/philosophy argument that goes something like this:

There are no absolutes.

(Problem is you just stated an absolute, thereby countering your argument).

There are no absolutes save the fact that there are no absolutes.

(Sounds nice in practice but to say that there are no absolutes save one still creates that absolute.)

When you think about it, logic dictates that there must be absolutes at some point in nature, but those points are temporary and thankfully elusive. \"The perfect annoyance\" would indeed be quite annoying if it lasted very long. The perfect Force no doubt exists, save for the fact that people are mucking about with it all the time, it's likely fickle since we don't understand it fully/never will, and the perfect thing would be so incredible that once people saw it they'd never strive for improvement any more.

We'd either be so awestruck into contrite abeyance never to try anything again or so enraptured with it that we'd never look outside again (kind of like World of Warcraft).. I jest. This obviously runs counter to about a hundred thousand years worth of technological innovation and the general concept of evolution.

Ultimately, it's these types of issues lacking congruence, that eventually lead to all things we don't like and strive to improve upon.

I'm sure there are other ways to look at your post as well. Quantum Theory comes to mind, but I'm not a physicist (yet) and not qualified to wax poetic in that direction.

Still, good stuff Br. John

Best,
3.14159265