Why choosing either darkness or light instead of balance?

[Orias]

In the literal sense no, but I would argue that some more esoteric forms of intuition use the literal definition of light, just in unique ways.

Mmm...I don't think so. Literal interpretations have little to do with intuition outside of evaluating the process.

But I was more refering to light in the symbolic representation of knowledge. If your in the darkness you have to gain knowledge(light) of how to find your phone without using the literal interpretation of light.

Yea you have to think "where did I last leave me phone?", light and dark don't really play a role in this.

Sounds kinda like the biophoton quantum holographic matrix.
new illuminati: The Biophotonic Quantum Holographic Matrix

Kind of, not really.

And on a side note and a threadjack, what does your book say about killing someone in your dreams. I had the weirdest dream where I killed someone last night.

Don't you think about your dreams? The answer should be obvious...dreams are actually fairly easy to interpret. The book I'm reading helps this, and it also helps determine the cause for most dreams, and if these dreams have any relation to something that has happened, or is about to happen.

 

[agorman]

I had the weirdest dream where I killed someone last night.

Let's hope that's not a premonitory dream! And we wen't way off topic already...

 

[nash8]

[/quote] Don't you think about your dreams? The answer should be obvious...dreams are actually fairly easy to interpret. The book I'm reading helps this, and it also helps determine the cause for most dreams, and if these dreams have any relation to something that has happened, or is about to happen.[/quote]

No I think about my dreams all the time, and I've researched different interpretations of symbolism and representations of dreams, but you said you were reading a book about dream interpretation so I figured I ask?

Let's hope that's not a premonitory dream! And we wen't way off topic already...

Naw, I think I figured out what it was about, and it was actually happening while I was dreaming, but it actually did help me out dealing with the situation a little bit.

Sorry, I figured the topic has been much been discussed thouroughly. Either you like the darkness because that's what you like, or you don't neccesarily view that LHP is all about the darkness.

 

[Adramelek]

In the outer realm all one need do is look at the sky by night and one will see with his own eyes that darkness and light are not balanced. The same holds true for the inner realm. We all live in a darkling universe which is illuminated only by the light of that knowledge and understanding which we have thus far attained. To the LHPather this is the actual landscape of Self-Aware existence.

Xeper.
/Adramelek\

 

[Orias]

In the outer realm all one need do is look at the sky by night and one will see with his own eyes that darkness and light are not balanced. The same holds true for the inner realm. We all live in a darkling universe which is illuminated only by the light of that knowledge and understanding which we have thus far attained. To the LHPather this is the actual landscape of Self-Aware existence.

Xeper.
/Adramelek\

Well said :clap

 

[nash8]

In the outer realm all one need do is look at the sky by night and one will see with his own eyes that darkness and light are not balanced. The same holds true for the inner realm. We all live in a darkling universe which is illuminated only by the light of that knowledge and understanding which we have thus far attained. To the LHPather this is the actual landscape of Self-Aware existence.

Xeper.
/Adramelek\

Well said :clap

My friend argues this with my on a regular basis. My argument to that is what constitutes the amount of darkness compared with the amount of light? Darkness is the absence of light, so if the light was not equally present how would we be able to recognize that there is more of an absence of light?

A person can have more muscle density containted with his body, but be smaller than another person. Who is stronger?

The amount of light within the universe may seem to be less then the darkness, but if that was so how would you be able to see the stars?

 

[idav]

My friend argues this with my on a regular basis. My argument to that is what constitutes the amount of darkness compared with the amount of light? Darkness is the absence of light, so if the light was not equally present how would we be able to recognize that there is more of an absence of light?

A person can have more muscle density containted with his body, but be smaller than another person. Who is stronger?

The amount of light within the universe may seem to be less then the darkness, but if that was so how would you be able to see the stars?

There is a lot more light out there but most of the frequencies we can't see. Its kinda sad we need light to see but we gotta get the data somehow.

 

[Adramelek]

The amount of light within the universe may seem to be less then the darkness, but if that was so how would you be able to see the stars?

Maybe its the way you worded it, but your argument sounds extremely flawed. One is able to see the specs of starlight in the blackness of the universe because they are there. :areyoucra Also, my post was more of a metaphorical statement on the metaphysics of the Left-Hand Path of Darkness and Initiation. I was not speaking in singularities of just darkness or just light, they both co-exist, but will never be balanced.

Xeper.
/Adramelek\

 

[nash8]

Maybe its the way you worded it, but your argument sounds extremely flawed. One is able to see the specs of starlight in the blackness of the universe because they are there. :areyoucra

But the only reason you are able to see them as being there, is because there is a constant stream of light coming from them in order for you to be able to see them. So in that regard, there is a constant stream of light coming through the darkness that reaches your eyes.

Also, my post was more of a metaphorical statement on the metaphysics of the Left-Hand Path of Darkness and Initiation. I was not speaking in singularities of just darkness or just light, they both co-exist, but will never be balanced.

Xeper.
/Adramelek\

I disagree, I don't think anything can exist except balance in the sum of things. But as far as personal perspective, things can definitely be out of balance.

 

[Adramelek]

I disagree, I don't think anything can exist except balance in the sum of things. But as far as personal perspective, things can definitely be out of balance.

You may disagree, but the fact is that not all things that exist are in equilibrium, for instance there will always be more that is unknown than that which is known, more ocean than dry land, more poor than rich, more sheeple than unique individuals, more christians and muslims than Satanists/Black Magicians, etc.

Xeper.
/Adramelek\

 

[Orias]

You may disagree, but the fact is that not all things that exist are in equilibrium, for instance there will always be more that is unknown than that which is known, more ocean than dry land, more poor than rich, more sheeple than unique individuals, more christians and muslims than Satanists/Black Magicians, etc.

Xeper.
/Adramelek\

I agree, equilibriums cannot wholesomely exist without those objects which put it off balance. Equilibriums are non-essential in the balancing of aspects, because it will constantly be off balance as long as there is discovery yet to be made, and even then...when a gas changes to liquid there is a change in the scale. The same applies elsewhere, whether its physical, symbolic, metaphysical etc. what have you...

As it goes, in a fight there is always a winner and a loser. The winner will fight the next winner, and then the winner will be a loser. The chain continues, if you have two columns, winners and losers, one variable will always be both, flip flopping sides until the variable ceases to exist.

On the scale of balance, it will never be at a "stand still", it will never perfectly balance, as it will constantly be swaying from one side to the other.

Edit: Unless your Floyd Mayweather.

 

[nash8]

You may disagree, but the fact is that not all things that exist are in equilibrium, for instance there will always be more that is unknown than that which is known, more ocean than dry land, more poor than rich, more sheeple than unique individuals, more christians and muslims than Satanists/Black Magicians, etc.

Xeper.
/Adramelek\

Indeed, I agree but all of the things you listed are a matter of perspective. And as far as known versus unknown, we would have to have some idea of what is known versus what is unknown to make that decision in my opinion. But in all the other aspects, I would agree that they are are out of balnace from my perspective as well, but will it always be that way, I dunno.

I agree, equilibriums cannot wholesomely exist without those objects which put it off balance. Equilibriums are non-essential in the balancing of aspects, because it will constantly be off balance as long as there is discovery yet to be made, and even then...when a gas changes to liquid there is a change in the scale. The same applies elsewhere, whether its physical, symbolic, metaphysical etc. what have you...

But when a gas changes to a liquid, if your were to keep it in a contained cylinder, there would be the same amount of atoms in the gas as there was in the liquid, that is until osmosis took effect.

As it goes, in a fight there is always a winner and a loser. The winner will fight the next winner, and then the winner will be a loser. The chain continues, if you have two columns, winners and losers, one variable will always be both, flip flopping sides until the variable ceases to exist.

Indeed.

On the scale of balance, it will never be at a "stand still", it will never perfectly balance, as it will constantly be swaying from one side to the other.

Edit: Unless your Floyd Mayweather.

Balance is not neccesarily a stand still in my opinion. As the small white circle grows, the large white half diminishes. The same goes with the small black circle, as it grows the, the large black half diminishes and vice-versa.

And as far as Floyd Mayweather goes, I gaurantee you theres some guy that's 0 - 45, he's probably half *** retarded, but rich as hell lol.

 

[crossfire]

I agree, equilibriums cannot wholesomely exist without those objects which put it off balance. Equilibriums are non-essential in the balancing of aspects, because it will constantly be off balance as long as there is discovery yet to be made, and even then...when a gas changes to liquid there is a change in the scale. The same applies elsewhere, whether its physical, symbolic, metaphysical etc. what have you...

As it goes, in a fight there is always a winner and a loser. The winner will fight the next winner, and then the winner will be a loser. The chain continues, if you have two columns, winners and losers, one variable will always be both, flip flopping sides until the variable ceases to exist.

On the scale of balance, it will never be at a "stand still", it will never perfectly balance, as it will constantly be swaying from one side to the other.

Edit: Unless your Floyd Mayweather.

Just look at the universe: if matter and antimatter were balanced, then the universe would be a soup of radiation from matter and antimatter cancelling each other out. There was/is some sort of mechanism that favored the formation of matter over antimatter, and without this mechanism, all of the elements heavier than helium (at best? maybe just hydrogen) never would have formed. Maybe the antimatter energy went into the formation of space during the inflationary period--but this is only a wild speculation on my part. I really don't know what that mechanism might be.

 

[Adramelek]

Balance is not neccesarily a stand still in my opinion.

Now here I think your right. Balances are constantly being tipped and equilibriums disrupted.

 

[nash8]

Just look at the universe: if matter and antimatter were balanced, then the universe would be a soup of radiation from matter and antimatter cancelling each other out. There was/is some sort of mechanism that favored the formation of matter over antimatter, and without this mechanism, all of the elements heavier than helium (at best? maybe just hydrogen) never would have formed. Maybe the antimatter energy went into the formation of space during the inflationary period--but this is only a wild speculation on my part. I really don't know what that mechanism might be.

Interesting enough, I was actually looking up antimatter today. Along with that you also have to look at "quantum foam" and dark energy as well. My argument would be that antimatter and such would be more condensended in specific areas, whereas matter would be more spread out. The same goes for energy vs. dark energy as well.

Dark energy, antimatter, and the such would be more concentrated in black holes and such, whereas light energy, and matter would be more concentrated in stars and the such. Quantum foam and regular matter would be equally represented proportionally the farther you traveled from each one of their respective galactic phenomenons. Even within the structure of an atom, the protons and electrons, would be equally present as would the quantum foam (empty space) between the nucleus and the protons and electrons extending all the way out to the end of the atomic structure.

Now here I think your right. Balances are constantly being tipped and equilibriums disrupted.

Indeed, I totally agree. A scale balances, it doesn't necessarily mean that the wieght on both sides is equal. But nonetheless there is still "balance".

 

[idav]

Now here I think your right. Balances are constantly being tipped and equilibriums disrupted.

There is constant flow and change. One extreme can counter act an opposite extreme but not going the extreme on either side to begin with doesnt leave anything to counteract so harshly.

 

[crossfire]

There is constant flow and change. One extreme can counter act an opposite extreme but not going the extreme on either side to begin with doesnt leave anything to counteract so harshly.

Some folks dig flash and bang. Others don't--and consider all the flash and bang to be a nuisance.

 

[Adramelek]

There is constant flow and change. One extreme can counter act an opposite extreme but not going the extreme on either side to begin with doesnt leave anything to counteract so harshly.

Yes there is a constant ebb and flow to things. When we tip balances and dissrupt equilibriums, when we cause new creations and changes to occur, these new creations and changes automatically become part of the new Cosmic equilibrium. And the cycle perpetually repeats itself. Hence, the Black Magical re-creation of the Universe. :bat:

Xeper and Remanifest.
/Adramelek\