How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 Philosophy 101
 Dark vs Light   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  ]
 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Transferred from pipTalk Lounge Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Dark vs Light

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
kif kif
Member
since 06-01-2006
Posts 431
BCN


25 posted 07-02-2006 07:13 AM       View Profile for kif kif   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for kif kif

My question; how can 'you' know that it's dark, if 'you' have never seen the light? Or, how can you know that it's light, if you have never seen the dark?

A paradox, like 'how can you find something, if you don't know what it is.'

I wonder what makes some people go looking, and are 'they/we' open to the possibilities of what it might be, or do 'they/we' imagine what it is, already?  

I have the words 'intention' and 'revelation' rapping around, now...
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


26 posted 07-02-2006 09:31 AM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

Light and darkness are variations of the same thing.  Just like life and death, truth and lie, soul and body.  One is simply a "brighter" shade and the other is a "darker" shade of that same thing.  Light is the brighter shade, darkness the darker.  Life is the brighter shade, death the darker, truth is the brighter shade, lie the darker, soul is the brighter shade, body the darker.   Everything is thus a variation of the one and the same thing:


   Darkness   >   Death   >   Body  >   Lie  =  Truth  <   Soul  <   Life  <   Light
       (darkest)    (darker)   (dark)     =    (bright)   (brighter)    (brightest)      
                            `.                           .`
                           (darker)                (brighter)
                                    `.          .`
                                        Oneness


[This message has been edited by Essorant (07-02-2006 10:14 AM).]

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


27 posted 07-02-2006 01:17 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Essorant,


Those who have suffered evil first hand, know better than to say that all shades are really variations of the same thing.  Am I saying that evil cannot, by God's grace, turn to a bright result?  No.  But that does not make them the same thing.  


Some things in life are not good, and never will be, even though we may overcome them.


Kif Kif,


Are you speaking of spiritual light primarily?  I kind of felt that you were only using physical light as an analogy.


Stephen.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


28 posted 07-02-2006 01:47 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

To comment on the original question:


I think "dark" poetry is fine, if the darkness gets put (to at least some degree) in its proper context.  I'll give you an example.  The Bible (not a namby pamby book of "warm fuzzies") has a book of poems called "Psalms", and Psalm #88 is one of the darkest poems I have ever read. And yet it starts out "O LORD God of my salvation".  That's really the only ray of hope in the whole poem.  God seems (from the writers perspective) to have turned away his ears negatively, and to have unleashed anger and punishment upon him positively.  And yet the writer does not succumb to the temptation of utter despair, though tip-toeing to the brink.  Actually I think these kind of poems can have a positive impact, because we relate to those who have been in dark places spiritually, and see that they still had hope, even if it seemed like a candle in a windstorm.  We can see that if others made it out of the gloom, perhaps we can too.  



What I don't like, or don't think is legitimate:


1) Evil pictured in the wrong context of omnipotence or invincibility.  (No matter how genuine the feelings of pain, this feeling is not a legitimate one -- light a candle)


2)  Evil portrayed in crass or vulgar terms, for the sake of trivializing or glorifying evil.  


3) Dark poetry becoming a way of life.  Instead of a room in a house, it becomes the house itself, or even the world.   (I guess this is just a restatement of #1, though here I mean that the darkness sometimes can be a thing of style or fashion, not always genuine)  


Stephen.    
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


29 posted 07-02-2006 08:55 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

Stephanos,

The ord and the end of my belief about this is that the shades are all variations of the very same existance and universe.  It is not at all that I believe we should not make sharpest distinctions though about those "shades".  

Digital_Hell
Member
since 06-05-2006
Posts 193
Amidst black roses


30 posted 07-03-2006 12:01 PM       View Profile for Digital_Hell   Email Digital_Hell   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Digital_Hell

"how can 'you' know that it's dark, if 'you' have never seen the light? Or, how can you know that it's light, if you have never seen the dark" i have seen the light. i spent the first part of my life blindly in the light... then i swung wholly into the dark. now im neutral. So i have seen both sides. I went in search of truth and threw myself into hell... I wont stand for either side now, i have seen both. And i honestly believe that both are blinded and filled with illusions, however in a versus i must support the dark.

"Light and darkness are variations of the same thing" as sad as it, Essorant you are right. Though our perception changes if we follow "dark" or "light" the simple truth remains, whether you are supporting light or dark you are still seeing the world in terms of those 2 shades. Your world is still split into black and white no matter what side you are on. I am not saying that they are samne shades of something, but that your wider world view is still broken into the same classes.

"some things in life are not good, and never will be, even though we may overcome them." I have to agree here though. Some things no matter how you view them, no matter how the results are interpreted are evil.

The interpretation of evil or the "dark" is interesting, it should here be noted in context with what Stephanos said about the bible. In greek mythology when pandora opened the box and let loose all the worlds evil, the one thing she managed to keep in was hope... So is hope an evil then? And does that not raise an interesting question about evil and morality.

So before we go further, what exactly are we saying by refering to "dark" and "light"?

hells gate reads Abandon hope all ye that enter here
shall we go?
the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Will you walk with me?

kif kif
Member
since 06-01-2006
Posts 431
BCN


31 posted 07-03-2006 01:50 PM       View Profile for kif kif   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for kif kif

Essorant; you say that the soul and body are variations of the same thing. I'll have to think about that. To follow your argument, good and evil would be a variation of the same thing, too.

Stephen, I'm talking about spiritual light/dark, but an exact parallel can be found in the literal. Getting to evil, and the soul, it is religiously noted that evil appears when the soul is 'lost' in the dark.

Your question about evil and morality, Digital (I'm floundering to see where I can link in hope). Is evil a social tool, like morality? Is hope a social tool? I don't believe that morality (abiding by the rules of society) is inherent, I think it's a learned characteristic. I'm wondering whether evil is naturally there, or whether it's a learned response to nature?

Morality is a learned response.

I think hope is inherent, but I'll have to think about the exact definition...anticipation of belief doesn't quite catch those butterflies.

As for what *evil is; action by the lost in the dark soul keeper, listening to obscurely bent intuition, missed and wrought from translation. Ciphering through frightening echos, this holder spills his guts, and blood-lets, so his head can rest, or so he thinks.

*Good; is action by the found in the light soul keeper, listening to clearly sent intuition, through language stealth, true representation. Heightened by releasing shadows, the old anchors of grief will just repress, so this keeper turns, and looks to sing what makes the shapes of Beauty.

(*In humans, but also in the context of spiritually dark and light.)

My interpretation would therefore be that evil is a crooked shadow of good. Not the same thing, an echo, or a sillouette that's been tampered with.

Whether it(the good), is naturally tampered with, like a different genetic brain pattern, where the code has produced warped shading, or whether society has tampered with a 'normal', brain pattern, warping the code to produce tampered shading, I don't know. Perhaps both things, inherent and learned behaviour can produce evil, for both can make you lost.  

  

[This message has been edited by kif kif (07-03-2006 02:34 PM).]

Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


32 posted 07-03-2006 02:37 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

"To follow your argument, good and evil would be a variation of the same thing, too."


I agree.  I believe good and evil are variations of pursuing a need or a want.    
I don't believe that needs or wants are naturally good or evil in a moral sense.  But the way we behave about them may be good or evil.  One man wants comfort and pleasure, and he tries to make it earningly and healthily.  Another man wants comfort and pleasure and he tries to make it by stealing and unhealthily.  Neither man is evil himself, nor does he seek something evil overall.  But it is in how he pursue that he seeks.  

Digital_Hell
Member
since 06-05-2006
Posts 193
Amidst black roses


33 posted 07-03-2006 03:45 PM       View Profile for Digital_Hell   Email Digital_Hell   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Digital_Hell

"Morality is a learned response" I am in full agreement here. Humans by definition are not born with a moral code. It is something that is forced upon them by society. It is a set of beliefs forced upon them by the group that raises them.

"I'm wondering whether evil is naturally there, or whether it's a learned response to nature?" By nature if a man is raised without human parents, he is selfish and brutal. Taking only what he wants with no concern for the means of getting it.

"My interpretation would therefore be that evil is a crooked shadow of good. Not the same thing, an echo, or a sillouette that's been tampered with." Hmmm... or perhaps good is but a shade of evil? (delving into spiritual here) Say that beings that were once evil decided that it was not right and that they could no longer stomach what was happening. That they in fact developed a conscience?

This raises another interesting question, Which came first? Good or evil?

So if i have you right Essorant you are saying that an act by itself is not good or evil. But rather that the means of getting to the goal, getting what we want determines if it is good or evil? The MEANS to the end rather than the end itself? Say that killing someone isnt evil say unless it was done to achieve a personal goal?



hells gate reads Abandon hope all ye that enter here
shall we go?
the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Will you walk with me?
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


34 posted 07-03-2006 05:53 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

DH:
quote:
I went in search of truth and threw myself into hell... I wont stand for either side now, i have seen both. And i honestly believe that both are blinded and filled with illusions, however in a versus i must support the dark.

In conflict you opt for darkness.  Isn't this proof that neutrality is an illusion?  I think ultimately you, I, and everyone will choose either light or darkness as destiny.  And I can't entertain seriously the proposal that they are essentially the same thing.  

I think the view that darkness/light are the same, is just another result of being in the dark too long.  When things are getting dark, our eyes can "play tricks".  And who isn't tempted to call good evil, and vice versa?


Of course, in Eastern religion and Western Materialism, monism has lead to the inablity to make an ultimate distinction between good and evil / light and darkness.  If all is "one", then any opinions based upon such distinctions are unreal.  That's why the Hindu godess "Kali" is the worship of death and destruction.  If all is is one, then such things must be elevated and deified as much as any other thing.  Our preferences, our "holy" things are only imaginary, thus they are finally equalized and desecrated.  It's a sad commentary on the nihilistic despair which such a philosophy leads to.





G.K Chesterton painted this picture by saying that that "the Cross, though it has at its heart a collision and a contradiction, can extend its four arms for ever without altering its shape... The circle returns upon itself and is bound. The cross opens its arms to the four winds; it is a signpost for free travellers."  

So from a Christian perspective, the seemingly benign belief that good and evil are "one", is itself part of the darkness, not the light.  Remember the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?  It represents the refusal of God's absolutes, the assumed autonomy in deciding for oneself, and finally the inability to distinguish one from the other.  It's all the same fruit, one might say.  But in Christian theology, this is characteristic of the Fall, and the root of original sin.


"God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness." (Genesis 1:4)


"I saw that wisdom is better than folly, just as light is better than darkness."(Ecclesiastes 2:13)


"Woe to those who call evil good
       and good evil,
       who put darkness for light
       and light for darkness,
       who put bitter for sweet
       and sweet for bitter.
"(Isaiah 5:20)


"The eye is the lamp of the body. If your eyes are good, your whole body will be full of light. 23But if your eyes are bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light within you is darkness, how great is that darkness!"(Matthew 6:22)


"See to it, then, that the light within you is not darkness."(Luke 11:35)


"In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it."(John 1:4,5)


"This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.  Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed."(John 3:19-20)


"I have come into the world as a light, so that no one who believes in me should stay in darkness."(John 12:46)


"What harmony is there between Christ and Belial" (2 Corinthians 6:15)


"You are all sons of the light and sons of the day. We do not belong to the night or to the darkness."(1 Thessalonians 5:5)


"This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all."(1 John 1:5)


I was really surprised when I looked at scripture, at how often the antithesis between light and darkness is mentioned.
more later,

Stephen.
kif kif
Member
since 06-01-2006
Posts 431
BCN


35 posted 07-03-2006 06:18 PM       View Profile for kif kif   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for kif kif

Digital; if we are to follow my Good as what highlights the shadows, then good must come first, for there would be no shadow without light.

I'm not a Christian, I wouldn't define myself as anything, but I must agree with Stephen that there is no dark in light, rather, there are graded shades of darkness. Light is just light.

I will disagree that the tree of life is 'original sin', rather, Christian theology is frightened that their blueprint will be exposed as unoriginal. To suggest that the tree of life disregards absolutes is a shocker to me...I'll be back, but for now, I'd say that the tree of life represents the universe, formed by the absolute truth of Ideas, like an echo.

The tree of life is map/echo of our ultimate conciousness? Like all maps, open to misreading...and palimpsest.  
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


36 posted 07-03-2006 06:22 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

DH:
quote:
"Morality is a learned response" I am in full agreement here. Humans by definition are not born with a moral code. It is something that is forced upon them by society. It is a set of beliefs forced upon them by the group that raises them.

I'm not sure that our moral sensibility is not inbred to some degree.  Just because we lack language and cognitive power at infancy, does not mean that moral conscience may not be present though latently.  More incredible to me, is that there has never been a society that has not developed a moral code.  And survival only begs the question, since the survival of oneself and neighbors still harbors a moral question.  From a Judeo-Christian perspective, it is God who put the moral conscience within us.  And though it may differ somewhat through imperfection, sin, and differing environments, it all has an overwhelming similarity, like attempted copies of the same very thing.


Therefore there is a stronger argument that morality is universal in nature ... even if not in all particulars.  To say that it is "forced" upon us by those who raised us, is almost like saying the interpretation of light and darkness is forced upon us by our parents in giving us eyes.  
quote:
Hmmm... or perhaps good is but a shade of evil? (delving into spiritual here) Say that beings that were once evil decided that it was not right and that they could no longer stomach what was happening. That they in fact developed a conscience?

Have you noticed that "evil" is not very original?  It is always a perversion of a good thing, never an independent idea.  Rotten apples are ontologically dependent upon good apples.  Murder is only anger (a legitimate emotion) uncontrolled, and physical forces set to the wrong task.  Lust is only a legitimate physical desire, met in the wrong path outside of committed monogamy.  Greed is only ambition grown beyond it's proper bounds.  Selfishness is only self love grown to ugly proportions.  Being crippled is losing one's legs.  And even darkness is only the absence of light, not a thing in and of itself.  Those are clues that evil is not original, but a diversion.  Hence the Judeo-Christian doctrine of the Fall, which denotes a loss of something positive, or a standing position.    


kif kif:
quote:
To suggest that the tree of life disregards absolutes is a shocker to me.

To clarify ... I didn't suggest that at all.  The Tree of the "Knowledge of Good and Evil" involved a denial of absolutes on the part of humanity, not the Tree of Life.  The Tree of Life was a separate tree altogether, which represented living within the proper authority of God's absolutes.  


Stephen.
kif kif
Member
since 06-01-2006
Posts 431
BCN


37 posted 07-03-2006 07:12 PM       View Profile for kif kif   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for kif kif

Or, the proper authority within Truths absolutes. Yet, to suggest that God means Truth  gives the impression that one doctrine must be followed to attain understanding of Truth, especially in the Christian faith, where it's 'Our Father'. One. Perhaps there is this one pattern of Absolute energy creating a reflection of it's life on Earth, but I can't believe it's in the shape of a man.

A tree, maybe...and that holds shade for the life under it's boughs without differenciating, unless of course, the life becomes parasitic. I've heard of trees developing poisons...  
Digital_Hell
Member
since 06-05-2006
Posts 193
Amidst black roses


38 posted 07-03-2006 07:46 PM       View Profile for Digital_Hell   Email Digital_Hell   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Digital_Hell

"In conflict you opt for darkness.  Isn't this proof that neutrality is an illusion?" NO i only opt for darkness because in my experiences of both light and dark i have sadly found the dark to be more accepting and understanding of a persons faults. They do not seek to judge you on how you act or what you stand for but rather accept you for the person you are.I was saying if forced to choose i choose darkness over light for that simple fact...

"is just another result of being in the dark too long.  When things are getting dark, our eyes can "play tricks".  And who isn't tempted to call good evil, and vice versa?" I say that good is evil, because i have been in despereate need, and who came to save me? a saviour enrobed in white and spreading love and peace? No, rather a soul just as dark as mine, just as corrupt, just as evil. So by not helping the poor,the weak, the innocent the light is evil.

"God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness." (Genesis 1:4)" then by the scriptures own words thay were once the one and the same? and had to be forcefully seperated...

No dark in light? So God in his all seing all knowing wisdom has us here for what reason. I quote "And 1000 years is as one day, And one day as 1000 years" So god exists outside of time and things such as "Alpha and omega" "beginning and end" All signify that he already knows who goes up or who goes down. Not that you are fated to go to one or the other, i am not implying pre destination, but rather thatn he can see the "end" if you will. So having seen this end the point of watching us suffer meaninglessly towards that end would be?

'original sin' This is not the tree of life, Original sin started in heaven with the fall of lucifer. When he first bade a desire for gods power that would be oiginal "sin".

"To say that it is "forced" upon us by those who raised us, is almost like saying the interpretation of light and darkness is forced upon us by our parents in giving us eyes."  But it is forced upon us, Left to our own devices, You would not have a formed picture of what is right or wrong. Society tells you these things. Take for example people of old laid to rest the dead, While in certain tribes they were burnt. For the other group, Burning was a heresy as was burying likewise. So is either of these "evil" or "wrong". Or cannabalism, considered abhorrent by western society it was commomn practise among tribes in souther america. These tribes were then hunted down as "Savages" and "demon Worshippers" therefore society determines what is wrong. Taking more thant one wife now  is frowed upon, whereas it was common practise. Same with slavery etc... The social times determines what we percieve as right or wrong.

"Have you noticed that "evil" is not very original?  It is always a perversion of a good thing, never an independent idea." And what about true evil? Noy just simple minded cruelty But real evil, the will to drive others to destruction for no reason other than a whim. To destroy their lives simply because you can? What is that? A pervrsion?

"And even darkness is only the absence of light" Or light is but the absance of darkness... "not a thing in and of itself" Believe me when i say darkness can be more real than light. Yes a single ray of light can destroy the deepest darkest darkness. But you must have that ray of light. Darkness is a very real thing, a very menacing power. not just a simple phantom lurking around the edges.

And as to the fall, Both of lucifer and of man. The angels created as pure beings by god, how is it that one of the fell? Surely god is his omnipotence  would have seen this coming? And man was created in gods image, so to have them be evil and willing to do what they know is wrong, puts god in the same class would you not say?

Truth? truth does not exist, For the moment we grasp truth we make it our perception. If 100 people witness an event there will be 100 different truthfull acounts of what happened. So there is no complete absolute truth.

Oh its 2am again now so im out... respond again i dont know when. But will be asap... There is nothing like a good argument. Though i do wonder where the topic starter went...

hells gate reads Abandon hope all ye that enter here
shall we go?
the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Will you walk with me?

kif kif
Member
since 06-01-2006
Posts 431
BCN


39 posted 07-04-2006 02:13 AM       View Profile for kif kif   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for kif kif

Without going too much into your beliefs on darkness, Digital Hell, Good does not judge, it just is. It is us that judge against it, sometimes ignorantly...bringing me to your puzzle. If 100 people witness something true, then 100 different accounts will be produced by it. That's right, but it doesn't mean there is no absolute truth, it means that something real has been interpreted by 100 unreal opinions. Those 100 people will not know the exact reasons and circumstance, therefore filling in the gaps of their knowledge with opinion on what's been communicated by the 'others'. The absolute truths appearance in the finite world has been fragmented, through how it's recieved.

You say that your soul was corrupt, evil, and your saviour was another corrupt, evil soul. You also talk of Lucifer-*The Devil's Guardian Angel...pretty Gnostic to me (I wonder that the idea of 'Lucifer' is man-the carrier of light? I'm interested in what Blatavatsky says of Lucifer-the phosphorous force. The idea of Lucifer and The Devil is not evil, it's man's translation, and actions on those translations, again.)

My opinion is that you're not evil, but a pessimist. (I know that's a personal comment, but you're giving personal thoughts of yourself.) Let me explain. You're in the cave, and talking about the rumour of shadows-"What? They're not real? I don't believe you. Look, I've spent my whole live finding meaning in the shades, to look away would be a waste of time. My friend, the fire-stoker, thinks I'm on to something..." It is not The Good that can 'save' you from a lifetime in a cave, it's the person, or thing that comes back from the light to show you the way out, into *Good. The 'fire-stoker' will only maintain the flames for your shadows. (But, watch out! you might confuse one for the other. My rule of thumb-good is indifferent to whether you follow it, because it's always there, albeit brighter/sharper/more accessable if you do, and evil will do anything to hold your attention, because it dissapears without it.)

Like Plato's cave allegory; I say Good as The ultimate object of Knowledge (an eternal Form that sheds light, attributing forms of virtue and beauty to this finite world.)


Sorry that took so long...to explain what I think Good is!

[This message has been edited by kif kif (07-04-2006 06:57 AM).]

Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


40 posted 07-04-2006 02:49 AM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

Digital Hell

"So if i have you right Essorant you are saying that an act by itself is not good or evil."

No, Because no act is ever "by itself"  


"But rather that the means of getting to the goal, getting what we want determines if it is good or evil? "

Yes because it is in conjunction with the rest of the universe, and how we serve the most important part of the universe: Life, in all her needs and wants.

"The MEANS to the end rather than the end itself?"

The means are not just the means though.  The end is too.  The end is a means to another end, and another and another and another...  

[This message has been edited by Essorant (07-04-2006 03:42 AM).]

Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


41 posted 07-04-2006 03:21 AM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

"Of course, in Eastern religion and Western Materialism, monism has lead to the inablity to make an ultimate distinction between good and evil / light and darkness. "

What do you mean by "ultimate"?


"all is "one", then any opinions based upon such distinctions are unreal."

Does that mean the distinctions Father, Son and Holy Ghost are "unreal", because they are all one?

Does that mean the distinctions of the "parts" that make up your body are "unreal" because they are all one in you?  

And the distinctions of the things that make up the earth because they are all one as the earth?

The distinctions of the things that make up heaven because they are all one as Heaven?


[This message has been edited by Essorant (07-04-2006 07:45 AM).]

Digital_Hell
Member
since 06-05-2006
Posts 193
Amidst black roses


42 posted 07-04-2006 07:18 AM       View Profile for Digital_Hell   Email Digital_Hell   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Digital_Hell

"Good does not judge" I have to say here that this is untrue, I have yet to find  someone who sees themself as trully "Good" who has not when i tell them what i do, instantly judged me.

"Those 100 people will not know the exact reasons and circumstance" but the seconds they interpret it, The second they grasp those exact reasons and circumstances it is changed from truth to perception. Which although they may be similar, one is warped by the persons mind and is now unique.
"through how it's recieved." So again, there is no absolute truth that we as humans can grasp. For the second we do so, it changes into perception and is no longer truth.

"You also talk of Lucifer-*The Devil's Guardian Angel" When i speak of lucifer, i am referring to the overlord of hell. The first angel to rebel and the one cast down by god. Here i want it noted that "satan" the "devil" are all different beings. When i am using lucifer i am refering to the ruler of hell and first angel to fall.

"I know that's a personal comment, but you're giving personal thoughts of yourself" there is no need to be worried, i dont get offended. pessimist? no i prefer the term realistic. a small distinction, but a distinction none the less.

"rumour of shadows-"What? They're not real?" No i say there are shades out there. But also that there are far more tangible "Shadows" out there."to look away would be a waste of time" i agree, but just dont be trapped in, It pulls you in deeper and deeper until you
can no longer get yourself loose.

"it's the person, or thing that comes back from the light to show you the way out, into *Good" She didnt show me into the light or "good" She didnt, she took me out of the deepest darkest darkness to a comfortable darkness. We are both not in the light. darkness saved me from deeper darkness not light.

"because it dissapears without it" pretending evil isnt there is the best way i can think of to fall into it.

hells gate reads Abandon hope all ye that enter here
shall we go?
the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Will you walk with me?

kif kif
Member
since 06-01-2006
Posts 431
BCN


43 posted 07-04-2006 07:50 AM       View Profile for kif kif   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for kif kif

I'm not saying 'pretending evil is not there (in this finite world-universe)', I'm saying 'filling in the gaps' with your imaginings of what the shadows mean creates an evil, by falling into the trap of believing evil to be a form of Truth, a thing in itself. I don't believe it is, I believe evil is an effect, not a cause.

Ps; as for a person who is truly good-it's not possible. Through our finite interpretations we have fragments of what good is, but I believe the whole essence is unattainable (not only is infinity not bodily possible) but mentally, through our character, and socio-political-religious constructs. That's just a quick thought, though. I've nothing yet to back that one up!
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


44 posted 07-04-2006 07:52 AM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

Digital Hell

"So again, there is no absolute truth that we as humans can grasp. For the second we do so, it changes into perception and is no longer truth."


All you are saying is that one part of the absolute truth becomes another part of it.  Perception is not a "vacuum" detached from the universe or "reality".  It is "attatched" to the absolute truth of it, just as much as the ground under your feet.

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


45 posted 07-04-2006 10:51 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

DH:
quote:
I only opt for darkness because in my experiences of both light and dark i have sadly found the dark to be more accepting and understanding of a persons faults.


I'm sorry, I understood you to mean that you really preferred "darkness".  But what you are describing here, it seems, is mercy which is certainly a part of the light, not the darkness ... even though it may seem more common in dark places.  


However, there is something which is called "acceptance" or "mercy" which is really misnamed.  Being merciful toward someone despite their faults / sins is one thing.  Never speaking a truth that hurts, never speaking a needed criticism, never underscoring the need to repent or turn around, is another thing entirely.  It's not always merciful to "accept" everything about a person, is it?  Some of the greatest friends I've had, have inflicted needed "wounds".  Is there a hyper-critical, unloving, self-righteous counterfeit of what I'm describing?  Sure.  But that doesn't negate the real thing.  And I do recognize that for some, this has been little seen in practice.


quote:
I say that good is evil, because i have been in despereate need, and who came to save me? a saviour enrobed in white and spreading love and peace? No, rather a soul just as dark as mine, just as corrupt, just as evil. So by not helping the poor,the weak, the innocent the light is evil.



You are still praising the "light" by saying that these people are helpful.  This is light in darkness, or in spite of darkness.  But if they were in total darkness, they wouldn't care about you would they?  Unkindness, lack of concern, disregarding needs, are all forms of the darkness, not the light.  But you're right in saying that professed light becomes evil when it doesn't live according to the knowledge it has.  Saying "I'm light" and being light are different matters.  


Of course you must also ask yourself who you surround yourself with.  I don't think many people of "light" would have refused to help you, had there been some measure of contact.  Try asking for genuine help from a Church, or professing Christians, and I'll bet there will be some help.  I'm just asking you to analyze whether or not your assessment is fair, since you may avoid people of "light" and not really want their help ... even if subconsciously.  There was a time in my life when I didn't want the help of any Christians, because though I was fine with "help" I didn't want to hear about "holiness".  If you avoid someone like the plague, and are still offended that they don't come around, some of the problem may rest with you as well.  Not saying that that's your approach, but I do raise the question, because I've seen it before.


quote:
by the scriptures own words thay were once the one and the same? and had to be forcefully seperated...




Not exactly.  In the initial creation there was a formlessness and void, in which natural darkness and light had to be winnowed.  The spiritual "light" of God, which marked the ultimate distinction was already present from eternity.    


quote:
i am not implying pre destination, but rather thatn he can see the "end" if you will. So having seen this end the point of watching us suffer meaninglessly towards that end would be?



But there is another "end" for which all things were created.  Though sin was our choice, God still allows temporal evil with the promise of a restoration that supercedes even the original glory of things.  In spite of "evil" things in your life, don't you have moments when you are glad in heart to be alive?  There is something (in hope) which is still worth waiting for.  And I'm glad God didn't grind the universe to a screeching halt simply because he foreknew that there would be sin, pain, and suffering.  


quote:
'original sin' This is not the tree of life, Original sin started in heaven with the fall of lucifer. When he first bade a desire for gods power that would be oiginal "sin".



You're right, it's not the "Tree of Life", it was the "Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil".  Two different trees.


But in Christian Theology, "orignal sin" has always referred to the world of humanity, and thus Adam's fall.  But if you want to be technical, Lucifer represents the most original form of rebellion.  Either way, we were tempted by him, into a state of mind which is essentially the same.  


quote:
Take for example people of old laid to rest the dead, While in certain tribes they were burnt. For the other group, Burning was a heresy as was burying likewise. So is either of these "evil" or "wrong".



What I find more striking is that both groups believed that there should be done something sacred and honoring to the dead.  The external particulars as to what that might be are indeed different.  But this is like two imperfect attempts to express the same "vision" if you will ... the convictcion that there is much more to death than just an end of doing things on Earth.


Cross cultural morality is much more defined by similarity than by difference.  In fact the similarities are so prevalent, that we don't really even notice them.  This backdrop is perhaps the very reason we see the differences as so striking, forgetting that the backdrop is the more important question when it comes to universals.  It's kind of like forgetting that there is a sky because it's always there.


quote:
Or cannabalism, considered abhorrent by western society it was commomn practise among tribes in souther america. These tribes were then hunted down as "Savages" and "demon Worshippers" therefore society determines what is wrong.



Cannabalism has certainly not only been considered abbhorrent by Western society.  Even among tribes, it has been a marginal occurence.  There is also little doubt in my mind that for a culture to get to the point of widespread acceptance of such a practice, many lines of individual conscience had to crossed and violated ... until the common abhorrence was numbed by repetition.  So even among tribal societies, there may be moral evil and a falling away from their own sense of morality.  And the fact that such practices were connected with demon worship is a clue that they slipped into the dark side of things.  


If I am to take you seriously, it sounds like you're saying that cannabilism is not really wrong ... that we've only been preconditioned to think that it is abbhorent ... that it might be as innocent as drinking grape soda.  Aside from the fact that there's little evidence to support such a view, I will say this:  If that's really your view, you mustn't stop at tribal practices.  You must exonerate all the intelligent crimes of Western society as well, from Chain Saw Massacres to Child abduction and molestations.  Are these preconditioned notions as well, with no basis in any real morality?


quote:
And what about true evil? Noy just simple minded cruelty But real evil, the will to drive others to destruction for no reason other than a whim. To destroy their lives simply because you can? What is that? A pervrsion?



It's a progression for sure.  But yes, all the original motivations ... the desire for power, significance, recognition, respect, and authority, are all good things gone awry.  Even the physical ability to kill, and the technology to do it with, are not "bad" things in and of themselves.  They are good things usurped and devoted to ill purposes.


So the most horrid evils, are not originals but copies.  Desecrated masterpieces.


quote:
"And even darkness is only the absence of light" Or light is but the absance of darkness...



Actually light is just the presence of light.  Darkness is not like a particle or a wave, it is emptiness.  This natural fact, only illustrates my point that darkness is defined by the light, and is ontologically dependent upon it.  


quote:
And as to the fall, Both of lucifer and of man. The angels created as pure beings by god, how is it that one of the fell? Surely god is his omnipotence  would have seen this coming? And man was created in gods image, so to have them be evil and willing to do what they know is wrong, puts god in the same class would you not say?

Not necessarily.  If God put the seed of possibility there to fail and turn away from good, in the free choice of man and angel, then that only tells me that he thought there was a value in doing so.  For one, those who choose good cannot be called automatons, and their choice becomes more meaningful.  Secondly God has promised that a greater good would be brought on the other side of the fall and redemption.  We don't have all of the information, therefore we cannot judge God as incompetent for what he allows.  Lastly we are sinners ourselves, so our own judgement is askew.  We are charging God with something he didn't directly do, and yet we are directly doing the same thing day by day.  I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.


quote:
Truth? truth does not exist.



Are you sure that is true?            


That statement is hopelessly self-refuting, being a truth-claim itself.  Truth does exist.


quote:
If 100 people witness an event there will be 100 different truthful acounts of what happened. So there is no complete absolute truth.



In your first sentence, by saying "truthful", you are making a distinction between true and untrue ... and with good reason.  There may have well been someone watching who is dishonest, or mistaken.  Your statement still underscores the concept of truthfulness.  


Your second sentence tells me that you might be making the mistake of confusing partial truth with untruth.  Truth need not be comprehensive to be true.  


Also what of the event iself in space-time, and God's omniscience?  Though you remind us of the imperfect nature of descriptions, you aren't acknowledging the whole nature of the thing described.

quote:
"Good does not judge" I have to say here that this is untrue, I have yet to find  someone who sees themself as trully "Good" who has not when i tell them what i do, instantly judged me.



"who sees themselves as truly good" and "truly good" are still separate ideas.


What kif is saying is that true goodness does not judge in the way you describe.  I agree, and encourage you to make that distinction.  But I would also say that someone shouldn't be automatically called evil, just because they offer criticism.  


I like the attitude Coleridge describes in his poem "Forbearance":


"If a foe have kenn'd,
Or worse than foe, an alienated friend,
A rib of dry rot in thy ship's stout side,
Think it God's message, and in humble pride
With heart of oak replace it ;--thine the gains
Give him the rotten timber for his pains!
"


quote:
"because it dissapears without it" pretending evil isnt there is the best way i can think of to fall into it.



Now this I can agree with, with absolutely NO hesitation.  


The only I would add, is this truth:  Denethor's demise in "The Two Towers" was that looked into evil to deeply (through the seeing stones), and was therefore decieved by it.  So there are two opposite dangers I suppose, ignoring evil and deifying it.



Essorant:
quote:
What do you mean by "ultimate"?



I mean that their view of ultimate reality is devoid of any distiction between good and evil, and therefore they view the distiction now as transient and without true significance.


quote:
Stephanos: "all is "one", then any opinions based upon such distinctions are unreal."

Ess: Does that mean the distinctions Father, Son and Holy Ghost are "unreal", because they are all one?


Of course not.  Eastern religion holds that ultimate reality is impersonal.  To them, individuality is an illusion and a part of the problem, rather than a gift from God (as in Christian Theology).  So of course there may be distiction within the Trinity, because God (and therefore the basis of reality) is personal not impersonal.


And the distinctions of all your other questions run the same.  Of course there are distinctions within my body even though I am one.  That's because there is a real and significant personhood to make those distinctions.  But we are questioning the very significance of our personhood, when we ask whether consciousness itself is an illusion ... only a byproduct of an ultimate reality which is itself impersonal.


I'm not denying that distinctions exist.


Stephen.
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


46 posted 07-05-2006 01:52 AM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

But they may say that your opinion or argument is "unreal" too for not being based on the distinction(s) they make.  To them, I think, outlining an "impersonality" is a distinction, just like outlining a "personality" is a distinction that you make.  And if they make out individuality to be an "illusion" so do you seem to make out all things being one thing to be an illusion.  

Digital_Hell
Member
since 06-05-2006
Posts 193
Amidst black roses


47 posted 07-05-2006 01:47 PM       View Profile for Digital_Hell   Email Digital_Hell   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Digital_Hell

"Of course you must also ask yourself who you surround yourself with" the sad thing is, the first person i went to see was my local priest and i quote him verbatim "We of the church of god do not help you hethen heretic sorcerers, your path is your own. For your folly you will burn in hell. May god have mercy on your soul" Nice hey? thius was more or less the same general response i got from all of them... I tried finding help in the light and i got nothing.

"Unkindness, lack of concern, disregarding needs, are all forms of the darkness" Ah but she didnt care. She didnt save me from caring, she saved me for her own reasons... None of which were "good" or because of emotions she had...

"since you may avoid people of "light"" my avoidance of them springs from the day they scorned me, and my almost total lack of contact from when i was told i was going to hell... I had contact with them before i was in that hell hole. I only cut all ties afterwords after i saw how uncaring they were.

"You must exonerate all the intelligent crimes of Western society as well, from Chain Saw Massacres to Child abduction and molestations.  Are these preconditioned notions as well, with no basis in any real morality?" Ah but i do you see. That is the point. I Feel if a man chooses to murder someone i may not judge him. For in his situation what would i have done? It was his choice and he has to live with the consequences of that. I have no right to tell him what he did was right or wrong. I am no better than he, How can i presume some "Divine" knowledge that allows me to say what is right and wrong? While i may not approve of some things, That is my personal belief and i have no right to force it on another. What each person does is their own business and no one else should intervere with that too deeply. In the end that person has to deal with the consequences of what he ahs done and his conscience. That is punishment enough.

The perfect world is one of complete anarchy. For from a state of complete anarchy a naturally balanced society emerges, from those that survive.
history has proved to us the truth of this statement.

"Darkness is not like a particle or a wave, it is emptiness" Perhaps not in the physical word, But i am refering to the metaphysical where darkness is a very real substance. I speak of darkness that stands in the light and fights it as an equal. Of shadows that can push back light. Of the essence of it.  Of a real and true power, not the simple lack of light that science describes But of a palpable tangible darkness with life of its own.

"We are charging God with something he didn't directly do" Ah but to simply watch a murder take place and not do anything about it makes you almost as guilty... You see my point? Though not directly responsible for it, By creating it he has to take responsibility for it. If i start a war, then turn my back on it while millions get massacred i am still responsible for it.

"Truth need not be comprehensive to be true" Correct, but i was speaking about absolute truth. And that in itself must be comprehensive and complete to be absolute.

"looked into evil to deeply" Very true, i made this self same mistake...



hells gate reads Abandon hope all ye that enter here
shall we go?
the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Will you walk with me?
LeeJ
Member Patricius
since 06-19-2003
Posts 13093
SE PA


48 posted 07-05-2006 02:55 PM       View Profile for LeeJ   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for LeeJ

LeeJ i would agree that the light side as you put it "pure and raw human emotion as well" but the emotion captured in the dark is more real. It is more tangible and powerfull, it speaks of the beauty of things as well as the despair involved. It is not only of how icreadible beautifull and special love is, but also of the pain and despair felt when things dont work out. But i would say that yes perhaps some light is needed in the poem.

Consider this, if you will

imagine, one could not be without the other, amidst the dark, and from the dark, comes beauty…more tangible and powerfully speaking on a spiritual level, as well

Yes…I tend to agree but disagree in so much as like finding missing pieces of a puzzle, so to speak…ethereal, soulful and sultry, optical beauty of finding soul…perhaps just being on human values (to each his/her own) or a musical event as well as a visual…
I suppose whatever prompts emotions…the entire body, mind, heart spirit, wants to prompt a discernable description…yet from the deepest of despair comes a gravity of awaken ness….even if an instance of intellectual properties, serving comparison
A nuance of it’s own bereavement, becoming, pure????? Tears of joy…..
I don’t think, and this is simply my own perception, dark vs light, but I do believe they conjoin as one…however…like a recognition preserved, attribute igniting tangible essence, waning???
LeeJ
Member Patricius
since 06-19-2003
Posts 13093
SE PA


49 posted 07-05-2006 03:02 PM       View Profile for LeeJ   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for LeeJ

Hey Digital Hell

LeeJ i would agree that the light side as you put it "pure and raw human emotion as well" but the emotion captured in the dark is more real. It is more tangible and powerfull, it speaks of the beauty of things as well as the despair involved. It is not only of how icreadible beautifull and special love is, but also of the pain and despair felt when things dont work out. But i would say that yes perhaps some light is needed in the poem.

Consider this,
Regardless, one could not be without the other, and amidst the dark, and from the dark, comes beauty…more tangible and powerfully speaking on a spiritual level
Yes…I tend to agree but disagree in so much as like finding missing pieces of a puzzle, so to speak…ethereal, soulful and sultry, optical beauty of finding soul…perhaps just being on human values (to each his/her own) or a musical event as well as a visual…
I suppose whatever prompts emotions…the entire body, mind, heart spirit, wants to prompt a discernable description…yet from the deepest of despair comes a gravity of awaken ness….even if an instance of intellectual properties, serving comparison
A nuance of it’s own bereavement, becoming, pure????? Tears of joy…..
I don’t think, and this is simply my own perception, dark vs light, but I do believe they conjoin as one…however…like a recognition preserved, attribute igniting tangible essence, waning???
Walter Poe will be notified of replies
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> Philosophy 101 >> Dark vs Light   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors