The Philosophy of No Darkness

[Adonai One]

There is simply no darkness to be found as darkness is the lack of a thing. There is nothing to find in something that is dark for it is not even seen. When something is false, it need not even be mentioned for it is truly not even fathomable. If it is fathomable, then you have something that is true in some form.

If you fear something is not, then cease your fear for if it is not it will soon dissipate from even being potentiated, created from your being.

This has been the final teaching that has soothed me. It has returned to me my earliest childhood memories to where I now can think purely in emotions rather than words.

[cloud]

I agree

Literally everything in our existence is made of lightwave frequencies.

What boggles me is darkness, what the empty, dead space without any light, how can that such nothing exist...

[Minyatur]

To me darkness is but a facet of love/light and light/love and has it's own sub-facets.

But beyond how the concept is understood by most, do you believe there's an inherent meaning in using this term or another?

To me darkness is more of a need of light, wounds to be healed. Yet both in this world and above, there is a clinging to wounds, a clinging to the pain which becomes so often a pithole.

[Minyatur]

To quote a friend of mine:

"The entity with greatest negative polarity is probably the entity with the most tender heart at it's core."

[The_Tired_Philosopher]

Scientifically, Darkness is just the Absence of Light, and since no absence is possible (besides the illusion of such) its simply areas of less packed Light in terms of denseness-manifestation.

Not to mention because Light travels at the speed of Light, it is also Timeless, and perhaps does not Travel, but Manifests outwardly.

[Minyatur]

Scientifically, Darkness is just the Absence of Light, and since no absence is possible (besides the illusion of such) its simply areas of less packed Light in terms of denseness-manifestation.

Not to mention because Light travels at the speed of Light, it is also Timeless, and perhaps does not Travel, but Manifests outwardly.

If we look at light from a metaphysical or spirit perspective, then what is absence of light?

[AnthroHeart]

Scientifically, Darkness is just the Absence of Light, and since no absence is possible (besides the illusion of such) its simply areas of less packed Light in terms of denseness-manifestation.

Not to mention because Light travels at the speed of Light, it is also Timeless, and perhaps does not Travel, but Manifests outwardly.

If we look at light from a metaphysical or spirit perspective, then what is absence of light?

The unmanifest portion of the Logos.

[Minyatur]

If we look at light from a metaphysical or spirit perspective, then what is absence of light?

The unmanifest portion of the Logos.

That's an interesting thought, had not thought of things on that scope.

[Aion]

The Matrix of the Spirit is difficult to characterize since the nature of spirit is less motile. The energies and movements of the spirit are, by far, the most profound, yet, having more close association with time/space, do not have the characteristics of dynamic motion. Thusly one may see the Matrix as the deepest darkness and the Potentiator of Spirit as the most sudden awakening, illuminating, and generative influence.

[anagogy]

If we look at light from a metaphysical or spirit perspective, then what is absence of light?

From a metaphysical perspective, I would equate light with consciousness, and absence of light with unconsciousness.

[Adonai One]

If something is a thing, there is light, no darkness.

If there is nothing, it is dark and we must cease speaking.

The middle of this is confusion, veiling being released.

[rva_jeremy]

To quote a friend of mine:

"The entity with greatest negative polarity is probably the entity with the most tender heart at it's core."

I like that, it reminds me of something Tyman said in A Fool's Phenomenology, where he describes the positive polarity as where one "has learned to listen to [the heart's] promptings", whereas the negative polarity is "despairing of the heart and refusing to give it voice".  

That is quite a sympathetic point of view: to see the negative polarity as broken-hearted, kind of the way Dickens portrays Scrooge as a product of tough circumstances.  Thanks for mentioning that quote, it has given me food for thought!

[rva_jeremy]

There is simply no darkness to be found as darkness is the lack of a thing. There is nothing to find in something that is dark for it is not even seen. When something is false, it need not even be mentioned for it is truly not even fathomable. If it is fathomable, then you have something that is true in some form.

If you fear something is not, then cease your fear for if it is not it will soon dissipate from even being potentiated, created from your being.

This has been the final teaching that has soothed me. It has returned to me my earliest childhood memories to where I now can think purely in emotions rather than words.

This reminds me of A Course In Miracles, where they say:

Nothing real can be threatened.
Nothing unreal exists.
Herein lies the peace of God.

But here's the rub, and this isn't something I ask to challenge what you're saying but only to see it from another side: how can you accept things that don't exist?  Or to put it another way: when one accepts a portion of the Creator seemingly dark, is one accepting it in the sense of validating its light in spite of the dark, or is one accepting the light as well as the dark as a unified whole?  

Third option: this is all a paradox, and it's supposed to be impossible to plumb in a rational manner.

[rva_jeremy]

If something is a thing, there is light, no darkness.

If there is nothing, it is dark and we must cease speaking.

The middle of this is confusion, veiling being released.

This also makes me wonder: if we can't speak about what is dark, if it's really become so intractable, as it were, and ontologically unsound, then how can we make use of the experience?

This is a fundamental dichotomy I've pondered ever since I found the Law of One: the idea of the illusion as instrumental to some larger telos vs. the idea of the illusion as an obstacle to that larger end?  Is the illusion to be integrated and balanced or overcome and conquered?

[Adonai One]

We make use of our experience by confusing darkness as lightbased food, then learning to identify this darkness and release its illusions.

The negative polarity will purposefully poison itself with darkness for reasons evermore enshrouded in mystery.

The only end I see is gastronomy which really is not purposeful unless one clings to specific food sources.

[Minyatur]

To quote a friend of mine:

"The entity with greatest negative polarity is probably the entity with the most tender heart at it's core."

I like that, it reminds me of something Tyman said in A Fool's Phenomenology, where he describes the positive polarity as where one "has learned to listen to [the heart's] promptings", whereas the negative polarity is "despairing of the heart and refusing to give it voice".  

That is quite a sympathetic point of view: to see the negative polarity as broken-hearted, kind of the way Dickens portrays Scrooge as a product of tough circumstances.  Thanks for mentioning that quote, it has given me food for thought!

Throughout our discussions it came to us that one closes it's heart out of love, keeps it closed out of love and will come to open it out of love. The duration in which the heart is closed being a time of accumulation of things that will need to be processed through an open heart.

This was our more central perspective of negative entities, with an open mind to the variety of reasons as to why and how this starts and why and how it can carry on.

What is great with Oneness is that one can look at what could be seen as the worst monster and perceive the innocent soul that had the potential to be the most benevolent soul if it's fate had not been twisted into becoming what it became. Not that what any becomes is not good and well, surely what each of us are is there to be understood and loved.

We live in a glorious Creation where we learn to love what we all are.

[Minyatur]

If something is a thing, there is light, no darkness.

If there is nothing, it is dark and we must cease speaking.

The middle of this is confusion, veiling being released.

Is this limited by what is known by self? a group? a world? a Logos? or Intelligent Infinity in which it could be thought that darkness/absence of light would be no more?

[Adonai One]

It should be said for something that is forever no more is forever living by what currently lives.

[Adonai One]

The negative polarity is the body of the universe: A separation of the self from which the self navigates (other).

The positive polarity is the mind of the universe: A merging of the self with which the self navigates (other).

The spirit is the dance listed above. All bodily material naturally goes, the body being an illusion.

[Aion]

Yin is in Yang but Yin is not Yang. Yang is in Yin but Yang is not Yin. Togetherness is in the Tao but is not the Tao. Apartness is in the Tao but is not the Tao. The Taiji is in the Tao but is not the Tao. The Tao that is in the Taiji is not the Tao but the Tao is in the Tao in the Taiji.

[AnthroHeart]

Elros Tar-MinyaturTo quote a friend of mine:

[quote pid='201879' dateline='1454332518']

"The entity with greatest negative polarity is probably the entity with the most tender heart at it's core."
[/quote]

Interesting. The name of my avatar is Tenderheart bear.

[Night Owl]

To quote a friend of mine:

"The entity with greatest negative polarity is probably the entity with the most tender heart at it's core."

I like that, it reminds me of something Tyman said in A Fool's Phenomenology, where he describes the positive polarity as where one "has learned to listen to [the heart's] promptings", whereas the negative polarity is "despairing of the heart and refusing to give it voice".  

That is quite a sympathetic point of view: to see the negative polarity as broken-hearted, kind of the way Dickens portrays Scrooge as a product of tough circumstances.  Thanks for mentioning that quote, it has given me food for thought!

That was indirect sharing but nice to know my thoughts ended up helping you! The universe is surprising!

[Night Owl]

If something is a thing, there is light, no darkness.

If there is nothing, it is dark and we must cease speaking.

The middle of this is confusion, veiling being released.

This also makes me wonder: if we can't speak about what is dark, if it's really become so intractable, as it were, and ontologically unsound, then how can we make use of the experience?

This is a fundamental dichotomy I've pondered ever since I found the Law of One: the idea of the illusion as instrumental to some larger telos vs. the idea of the illusion as an obstacle to that larger end?  Is the illusion to be integrated and balanced or overcome and conquered?

That has been on my mind for a while too