Darkness the true good?

[Darth Necrom]

Man has always been afraid of the dark. He fears what he cannot see, what is beyond his own power. This is the reason why most and all things associated to darkness are considered evil. I find it interesting that man, a being that is surrounded in darkness for the first few months of his existence, cannot come to a better relationship with the dark and has no real interest to ever do so (except for a few, of course). I think the underlying problem is that man sees in stereotypes (light,dark, even grey). Why is the light considered so good? I believe I have found that answer. Man must have something to aid him in the conquest of that which he doesn't know. But is he really conquering anything? Yes it might seem that with the light the mysteries are understood, the problems solved. But what if the real mystery was in the darkness itself? How then can man truly understand? The answer is that he cannot (at least not using this strategy). Man must turn now to darkness. But he cannot be consumed by it. One must walk the dark paths of the universe and one must understand them and why they exist. We must learn not to limit ourselves in our beliefs. We must learn that,sometimes, in darkness there is hope and shelter. And in turn that,sometimes, in light there is suffering and death. If we are to solve any of the worlds problems we must learn that darkness has its purpose and we must not shy away from it (but not be consumed either). I guess what I'm trying to say is this: We must clothe ourselves in darkness, but be ready to jump head first into the light.

[Draco]

The reason light is good is because the soul needs light in order to thrive and be empowered the body lives on energy on all levels. And solar energy is one the most powerful forms of energy that is why the inner light is referred to as the inner sun. Also it was used in the form of attainment of knowledge.

But it is all upside down today, today light seems to be equal to nothing more then following sentimental systems of suppression from jesus to other forms of humanitarian nonsense. Those systems are in fact ignorance so are not "light" and will not lead to any enlightenment. In fact they bind the soul and cause death.

I think people are taking dualism of the light and dark too seriously a balance in my opinion a example is the left and right hand paths. You have a left and right side of the brain the ideal is to use them both in balance not unbalance of one over the other.

necrom said:

Man has always been afraid of the dark. He fears what he cannot see, what is beyond his own power. This is the reason why most and all things associated to darkness are considered evil. I find it interesting that man, a being that is surrounded in darkness for the first few months of his existence, cannot come to a better relationship with the dark and has no real interest to ever do so (except for a few, of course). I think the underlying problem is that man sees in stereotypes (light,dark, even grey). Why is the light considered so good? I believe I have found that answer. Man must have something to aid him in the conquest of that which he doesn't know. But is he really conquering anything? Yes it might seem that with the light the mysteries are understood, the problems solved. But what if the real mystery was in the darkness itself? How then can man truly understand? The answer is that he cannot (at least not using this strategy). Man must turn now to darkness. But he cannot be consumed by it. One must walk the dark paths of the universe and one must understand them and why they exist. We must learn not to limit ourselves in our beliefs. We must learn that,sometimes, in darkness there is hope and shelter. And in turn that,sometimes, in light there is suffering and death. If we are to solve any of the worlds problems we must learn that darkness has its purpose and we must not shy away from it (but not be consumed either). I guess what I'm trying to say is this: We must clothe ourselves in darkness, but be ready to jump head first into the light.

[Darth Necrom]

I couldn't have said it better myself.

[Alena]

necrom said:

I couldn't have said it better myself.

I also do not see Light = good and Dark = evil. It's just not that black and white--no pun intended.



~Alena

[Darth Necrom]

I hate thinking in stereotypes, but I cannot ignore the need for them every now and then.

[darthkrunoseil]

mystic said:

The reason light is good is because the soul needs light in order to thrive and be empowered the body lives on energy on all levels. And solar energy is one the most powerful forms of energy that is why the inner light is referred to as the inner sun. Also it was used in the form of attainment of knowledge.

But it is all upside down today, today light seems to be equal to nothing more then following sentimental systems of suppression from jesus to other forms of humanitarian nonsense. Those systems are in fact ignorance so are not "light" and will not lead to any enlightenment. In fact they bind the soul and cause death.

I think people are taking dualism of the light and dark too seriously a balance in my opinion a example is the left and right hand paths. You have a left and right side of the brain the ideal is to use them both in balance not unbalance of one over the other.

necrom said:

Man has always been afraid of the dark. He fears what he cannot see, what is beyond his own power. This is the reason why most and all things associated to darkness are considered evil. I find it interesting that man, a being that is surrounded in darkness for the first few months of his existence, cannot come to a better relationship with the dark and has no real interest to ever do so (except for a few, of course). I think the underlying problem is that man sees in stereotypes (light,dark, even grey). Why is the light considered so good? I believe I have found that answer. Man must have something to aid him in the conquest of that which he doesn't know. But is he really conquering anything? Yes it might seem that with the light the mysteries are understood, the problems solved. But what if the real mystery was in the darkness itself? How then can man truly understand? The answer is that he cannot (at least not using this strategy). Man must turn now to darkness. But he cannot be consumed by it. One must walk the dark paths of the universe and one must understand them and why they exist. We must learn not to limit ourselves in our beliefs. We must learn that,sometimes, in darkness there is hope and shelter. And in turn that,sometimes, in light there is suffering and death. If we are to solve any of the worlds problems we must learn that darkness has its purpose and we must not shy away from it (but not be consumed either). I guess what I'm trying to say is this: We must clothe ourselves in darkness, but be ready to jump head first into the light.

I am afraid I must strongly disagree with you, Jesus was not any sort of Humanitarian nonsense, the entire econoical and political system of the United States was inspired by His teachings. There is a reason many of the founding fathers put their trust in Him and Him alone for guidance. He was right when He claimed to be the Son of God, and there is no real eveidence to disprove that statement. Some say that His Disciples stole His body but consider that all the Disciples were all executed except for John, who was exiled. Now consider that very few people would die for a lie, especially if they knew it was a lie. I mean no disrespect, I only wish to state my point of veiw, as God is my King, I serve Him as a Sith, and He commanded His people to go into the world and teach others, which I will do with all my strength.

[Aeon]

This thread is already pretty old, but I would like to point out that in Taoism there is nonbeing (darkness) before being (light). Even in the Judeo-Christian tradition, God says,"Let there be light" and there was light, implying that there was only darkness before. So the Force (Tao,God,Buddha consciousness) IS the actual state (actually nonstate) of nonbeing and being, dark and light. Taoism and Buddhism talk about being empty, as a state of enlightenment. So in this context, becoming the dark (empty, nonbeing) is enlightenment, which is generally accepted as "good". What dark and light usually imply are thought and behavior patterns which are destructive to human society, like stealing, murder, and most selfish behavior which harms others. If these "dark" behaviors were left unchecked, then we wouldn't have a civilization in which to have this discussion. No technology...and no Star Wars...

[raizer]

"The way to enlightenment is not through visualizing the 'light', but by exploring the darkness."
-Dragon Rouge observation

[darthreignus]

I must agree with the Testimony of Christ. He is real, He is the Son of God and in Him is all power to save. But this is philosophy, not religion and it needs to be treated as such. We prefer the light simply because when we were in the womb we knew nothing else. When we emerged it hurt our eyes and stabbed our brains, but it was accepted as being far better than the darkness. Children who are so pure and so innocent don't like the darkness because they instinctively know the light is better. Light is a symbol for goodness because mankind instinctively knows that God is a god of light and truth. We can grow to love the darkness, but in doing we choose to love weakness and sin.

[Darth Draconis]

I suppose everyone's entitled to their own opinions. However, this ection is of the Sith train of thought, so if you would like to share your views on the Light, or the Jedi way, the best sections to post in would be the general Force studies section or the Jedi sections.

[ourdras]

Mar 10, 2007 18:00:11 GMT -5 Darth Necrom said:

Man has always been afraid of the dark. He fears what he cannot see, what is beyond his own power. This is the reason why most and all things associated to darkness are considered evil. I find it interesting that man, a being that is surrounded in darkness for the first few months of his existence, cannot come to a better relationship with the dark and has no real interest to ever do so (except for a few, of course). I think the underlying problem is that man sees in stereotypes (light,dark, even grey). Why is the light considered so good? I believe I have found that answer. Man must have something to aid him in the conquest of that which he doesn't know. But is he really conquering anything? Yes it might seem that with the light the mysteries are understood, the problems solved. But what if the real mystery was in the darkness itself? How then can man truly understand? The answer is that he cannot (at least not using this strategy). Man must turn now to darkness. But he cannot be consumed by it. One must walk the dark paths of the universe and one must understand them and why they exist. We must learn not to limit ourselves in our beliefs. We must learn that,sometimes, in darkness there is hope and shelter. And in turn that,sometimes, in light there is suffering and death. If we are to solve any of the worlds problems we must learn that darkness has its purpose and we must not shy away from it (but not be consumed either). I guess what I'm trying to say is this: We must clothe ourselves in darkness, but be ready to jump head first into the light.

It is a matter of perspective for the blind masses. In truth, there is no good or evil, but the terms help us understand cause and reaction within Human nature.

Evil is a term given by the weak. Because the weak cannot react to the cause that is inflicted upon them by the strong.

The destruction of the weak could be considered acts of Good, indirectly. Within each act of chaos and destruction comes life ten fold. For each life taken opens a job for someone else, less resources consumed, stimulation of local economy and progressive at that with the more that are killed. For destruction comes the need to rebuild; increased jobs, economic growth, industry, advanced education, technological leaps and on and on the list goes.

The Code of the Jedi is law, it is absolute and it promotes slavery. Not only to their members but their allies as well. Their act of 'Good' only weakens others through dependency and from dependency they are unable to react upon the cause of the strong. This allows the Jedi to maintain control and power.

The Code of the Sith is the overall accumulation of their teachings, an open ended understanding, freedom. The teachings themselves are stories that focus on one or more parts of the code, allowing the reader to grow based on his/her own perspective. Their acts of 'Evil' encourages life to flourish. The conquered become strong by their own means through the cause of the Sith, a belief.

Do not fret, for Human nature has never turned its back on darkness, it is what defines us as Human. Even those that dwell within the self righteous lies of their religions are masked behind blind eyes by the chaos and destruction throughout their history. As for the light within Human nature, heh, only when it is convenient.

Ourdras

[Mrs. Darth Vader]

ourdras

I do not consider the conquest of the weak as a "Good" doctrine or "Righteous" doctrine. It is just simple Natural Selection. This was discovered in the 1880's by Charles Darwin. You are idealizing an "is". You should read "Origin Of Species" by Charles Darwin. In this book Darwin explains how Natural Selection works. Another book you should read is called "Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors" by Carl Sagan. He also explains how Natural Selection works. Sagan uses modern lab results to explain when mass death occurs naturally to lower over population. Sagan also explains the necessary balance between the need for an organism or group of organisms to be aggressive and ruthless and the need for alterism in order to ensure survival. He gives examples of organisms that were too passive and lost the struggle to survive by being easily killed. On the other hand, which was surprising,was an example of an organism or group of organisms that were too aggressive and also lost in the struggle to survive. This over aggressive group ended up killing themselves and an outside enemy was not necessary for their extinction. This is a walk on a tight rope. Too passive leads to extinction. Too aggressive also leads to extinction. You need to balance the two.

The coming mass death that everyone is reacting to is because the earth is over populated and each person feels boxed in by that over crowding. Weather you react to this coming death as a Jedi and dread it or act as a Sith and welcome it is not relevant because according to lab tests it is coming weather you like it or not. This is a harsh lab proven reality. I do not look forward to it because I understand my Darwin very well and I am not so arrogant as to blindly assume that I will be one of the few who survive. I do not assume that I will be taken out either because there are MANY variables in this equation. Like how is the selection done? who is choosing? Is it out of chaos, like Liberia? is it systematic, like in Nazi Germany? Is it because of a virus that kills off billions? Are we invaded by a stronger nation? These few questions represent a small samples of the variables in the human Natural Selection equation.
This is why I do not ask for it but at the same time I do not deny the facts.

[ourdras]

Aug 4, 2009 22:26:00 GMT -5 Mrs. Darth Vader said:

ourdras

I do not consider the conquest of the weak as a "Good" doctrine or "Righteous" doctrine. It is just simple Natural Selection. This was discovered in the 1880's by Charles Darwin. You are idealizing an "is". You should read "Origin Of Species" by Charles Darwin. In this book Darwin explains how Natural Selection works. Another book you should read is called "Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors" by Carl Sagan. He also explains how Natural Selection works. Sagan uses modern lab results to explain when mass death occurs naturally to lower over population. Sagan also explains the necessary balance between the need for an organism or group of organisms to be aggressive and ruthless and the need for alterism in order to ensure survival. He gives examples of organisms that were too passive and lost the struggle to survive by being easily killed. On the other hand, which was surprising,was an example of an organism or group of organisms that were too aggressive and also lost in the struggle to survive. This over aggressive group ended up killing themselves and an outside enemy was not necessary for their extinction. This is a walk on a tight rope. Too passive leads to extinction. Too aggressive also leads to extinction. You need to balance the two.

The coming mass death that everyone is reacting to is because the earth is over populated and each person feels boxed in by that over crowding. Weather you react to this coming death as a Jedi and dread it or act as a Sith and welcome it is not relevant because according to lab tests it is coming weather you like it or not. This is a harsh lab proven reality. I do not look forward to it because I understand my Darwin very well and I am not so arrogant as to blindly assume that I will be one of the few who survive. I do not assume that I will be taken out either because there are MANY variables in this equation. Like how is the selection done? who is choosing? Is it out of chaos, like Liberia? is it systematic, like in Nazi Germany? Is it because of a virus that kills off billions? Are we invaded by a stronger nation? These few questions represent a small samples of the variables in the human Natural Selection equation.
This is why I do not ask for it but at the same time I do not deny the facts.

The study of natural selection is .. from nature or a controlled lab, a reference material. A basic understanding is needed but does not fully apply to the Human equation. Human equation is far to vast to determine an exact understanding and there are plenty of variables that do not apply to nature.

Example: If natural selection and human equation was truly one in the same, then the extinction of whales due to hunting would be .. natural.

Example: Destructive Environmental Contaminants (meaning, everything of Human) is natural. It is natural because Humans had taken a naturally created elements and we simply purified what nature could not. But today it is looked upon as toxic waste, landfills, oil spills, etc or unnatural. Thus it does not 'fully' apply to natural selection. It could be argued that nature simply needs to adapt or fade away, but to each their own.

Human equation is massed together and an understanding is fashioned from that, like your reference to Nazi. The word alone sparks an accumulated understanding of Human equation, that differs from one person to another, but generally it is all the same. Does natural selection apply? the core basics, yes, but that is far as it goes. I do not agree with what the Nazi's had done during their era, but I understand some finer details of the Human equation outside of Allied written history and propaganda. With 10 million less, created 10 million new jobs and allowed a third world nation to become a superpower within a few years. One would have to question the true meaning behind 'the ultimate solution'. The aftermath allowed life to flourish and everyone is exploiting that today, from those who suffered long ago.

Agreed, our world will hit the fan and only those strong enough will endure. The Human equation without the lab studies - cannibalism, genocide, torture, butchery, rape, slavery and on and on the list goes. A horrific future? no .. it is the balance within the Human equation. Those who seek solutions to prevent such or prolong it, are the weak, because they know they can not react to the inevitable.

[Mrs. Darth Vader]

Aug 5, 2009 4:34:56 GMT -5 ourdras said:

Aug 4, 2009 22:26:00 GMT -5 Mrs. Darth Vader said:

ourdras

Agreed, our world will hit the fan and only those strong enough will endure. The Human equation without the lab studies - cannibalism, genocide, torture, butchery, rape, slavery and on and on the list goes. A horrific future? no .. it is the balance within the Human equation. Those who seek solutions to prevent such or prolong it, are the weak, because they know they can not react to the inevitable.

You should not denounce scientific study so quickly because everything that you mention that will happen was in fact proven in the lab. Scientists can prove things and events in real life. They are chillingly accurate. The human equation is calculated in many Darwinistic studies. Sagan is a cautious scientist who does not cause panics or come to rash conclusions. He waits until each fact is skeptically analyzed, rigorously tested and lab proven before he gives his conclusions. You can take what Sagan says to the bank so to speak. When ever you talk about the strong taking the weak you are in FACT referring to the Natural Selection process or another term meaning the same thing as Natural Selection is survival of the Fittest. Both terms are interchangeable. This is not an emotional issue but a scientific one so the scientific method is necessary to use when dealing with this issue. That was exactly what I meant that the human equation is an equation with many veriables. For example before pollution in a given area the white moth was the best equipped to survive it's environment. When the same area became polluted with black soot the black moth became the best equipped to survive. Of course I know that we are not moths but my point is that any change in the environment changes who is the fittest in the now newly changed environment. Human examples would be; If America got a Lenin figure that took over this country than cooperation and loyalty would be the fittest survival traits. If America descended into total chaos like Liberia than he who has the fastest gun with the best aim would be fittest. If it lasted long enough than the most muscular men would be the fittest. If the Mob took over America than those best at crime would be the fittest. If a germ or deadly category 4 virus broke out than those who happen to have immunities to it's effects would be the fittest. The point is unless you know beyond all doubt which direction the environment will take you can not know who will be the fittest because each change in conditions demands a different skill on people. Some situations require more ruthlessness some situations demands more cooperation.

As to environmental destruction I am against it but I am not in power to change it. Sometimes extinction comes from an organisms unwillingness to change in order to save it self. So if people choose in mass to continue to do the behavior that will cause the destruction of the entire planet than extinction is inevitable. There is a joke that refers to when an individual does something so stupid as to cause his own destruction it is called "The Darwin Award". I am sure you have heard the phrase. Well when it comes to the environment so far at least the human species is getting The Darwin Award. Another weakness in humans is they at this time in history are so obsessed with the "Strong" they are acting too aggressive which will backfire on the very "Strong" that they are imagining that they wish to see survive. Acting half cocked is not the way to handle human problems and that is what those that have power are doing. No one is thinking.

I suggest you not just blow off scientists or the two above books mentioned in my post before this one. They are very knowledgeable people. It never hurts to learn from those with the PHD next to their name because it means just to graduate they went through 12 years of collage or university training. On top of that they did field study for years. In short they are experts. Unfortunately today's American culture teaches you to blow off anyone of intelligence but this is part of the systematic dumbing down of America to make us easier to control. I do my own reading because I wish to control my own mind not to let society dictate for me what to think and how to think it.

[Khaos]

I definately agree with you Miss Darth Vader, to a point. I believe you should never blow off any source of information without some degree of study. Having said that, even those with PHDs have been known to be wrong, or proven wrong given time. It is good to be skeptical of all sources of information, even science. What is proven in one era may be proven wrong in another. Technology, and understanding is ever moving forward and even as far as humans have come in the realm of science, really were just brushing the surface.

So while I would say its not good to denounce information out of hand, it is also good to take any information with a grain of salt. Too many I fear, attempt to make science the new religion. To make it simply another tool for society to tell people how and what to think.

[Mrs. Darth Vader]

Khaos
I do not just believe anybody. I too question authority but in this case ourdras was tossing proven knowledge out of hand. I read and trust certain scientists that have proven themselves worthy of that trust. Other so-called scientists I do not trust. Sagan to me is a very good source of information. Sagan is knowledgeable in both Astronomy physics and biology. Charles Darwin is very good to read to really understand evolution. There are things that Darwin admits that NO other scientist admits. Things that are too controversial that other scientists avoid talking about it so reading Charles Darwin gives the whole picture of Natural Selection since to this date he still is the only scientist that spells it out. Only science fiction will today broach the subject. What am I referring to is Devolution or the time when the environment causes an organism to degrade in order to insure survival. Only Darwin admits this fact straight up. Other scientists only hint at this fact affraid to anger society especially the powers that be.

[sciwiz12]

As the buddha once said "believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." Essentially, it is for each person to decide what they think of Darwin, I for one agree with his concept that certain species survive by adapting to the environment. Now to the issue at hand; I agree that nothing is good or evil, but I don't really think that darkness and light are here to balance eachother. To say that abstract concepts that really only exist as moral issues in the minds of the people who ponder them require balance is to say that human beings balance themselves. We created good and evil, light and dark, everything that is done which is bad is done by us or percieved by us to be bad because we do not like what it brings. To say that "culling the heard" so to speak, is a good thing, depends solely upon each person's perspective, and no can be right or wrong because the idea is so abstractually based in our own minds and is only as a result of the fact that we as human's value our own existence. Now, the word weak has been tossed around alot, but I wonder whose definition we are using, I would be more than willing to wager that I am physically weaker than someone in the military profession (as I have witnessed first hand) but then again, it doesn't matter how strong you are, if I can send a steady current of energy throughout your body causing muscles to contract, then all of that strength goes to waste, not to mention I am of an average build with strength that is buffered by years of study into philosophies such as the force. So then who is the weak one who should do, me or the soldier, my will is stronger, but my physical strength is lesser, I cannot use the same tactic that I would use on a human being to pick up a large object and carry it accross an even larger distance, but then again, that soldier doesn't have the health, and mental will power that allows me to preform amazing feats of my own. Neither of us in the hypothetical situation is truly weak, for we both carry our own strengths. It is not for us to decide whether it is the weak or the strong who die, it depends on each situation, each thing as it happens will carry its own set of circumstances that determine who will live and die. Darkness must also be determined by each individual, for me darkness is equally physical and emotional, I feel the darkness, hold it in my hand, and I feel it emotionally, or sense it might be a better way to put it. The way that darkness is interpreted here is just a synonym for what most would consider evil. What you are discussing is morally questionable and would therefore be considered by evil unless they were practitioners of semantic. If we as human beings chose who lived and who died, we would satisfy the need to do away with a person but as with everything, what you gain in one area, you lose in another. Everyone takes something with them to the grave. This is true for all things, when you start your own company and make a million dollars, you may sacrifice peace of mind, family time, trust of others. However, to achieve those things that you have lost is to sacrifice money. You cannot say that we should accept darkness because it can achieve good in any respect because good may stand alone, it can be initiated or bolstered by a bad thing, but it can also be genuinely noble. Just as darkness as it is presented here can be genuinely a bad thing in that it would help nothing. If we launched every nuclear weapon currently in existence and destroyed all life above and below the waters, that would benefit nothing, it would be dark, but not good would come to anything for there would be no reciever. Also, a good thing may be all together good, you can donate clothes to the homeless. Somebody will eventually do it, so you aren't really preventing someone from dying, it wouldn't factor into population growth, but it benefits someone in need, which would be considered by some to be good, but by no sane person to be evil without injecting a million what ifs. Good and evil have a heavy correlation, but like lime disease and deers, neither is the direct cause or the direct effect of the other.

[taeman3]

truely everything is good from a certain point of view.

[sciwiz12]

well said, certainly shorter, easier to read, ahahahaha

[Mrs. Darth Vader]

There is another reason man fears the dark from an evolutionary point of view and that is because in our early history before we invented Fire we were most often killed and eaten in the dark by predators. Once we invented fire and kept it lit through out the night the predators feared the flames and did not eat us. So in a very real way light is associated with "Good" because we survived that night not getting eaten.