Naga_Fireball wrote:It's all gambling.
Those who gamble that it is pointless in the end to have practiced discipline & or faith, could be wrong.

Why is it a 'gamble'? Is there a 'right' and a 'wrong'? Is it a 'gamble' to have practiced 'discipline and or faith'? How can anyone define 'pointless'?

Naga_Fireball wrote:Those who are defensively neutral make me lol

Oh, good. It's good to lol. Are you possibly referring to me here (lol)? If so... personally, I lol at the whole thing myself. Before you know it, it will all be 'over'. Might as well have a good laugh and have some fun while we're at it.

'Defensively neutral'?... That's an amusing idea. Isn't neutrality an absolute? I like to think there are limitless shades of grey (black and white). No 'side' necessarily holds the moral 'high ground'. It's all very subjective.
.
.

No, I meant to quote Lush Llama (who said we are all fucked I believe)

He sneaked two posts in after yours

I was thinking this was a sort of response to "employing the dark side". In that context, the creator of that discussion wants to present techniques and practises of using what he calls "dark side", somehow removing the "morality".

My belief is that the desciptor dark (or light) attached to a action implies deception and/or selfishness (if there is a difference)...which to me makes everything he describes as morality based as anything I tried to say...which was mainly: as creatures that live off of light and thrive with community, any employment of the "dark side" I have experienced has turned out if not completely self-defeating and/or self destructive, at least ends up not as intended.

I am trying hard not to imply "morality" there, just because something turns out other than expected/intended does not make it "bad". I just find that the results of my actions more often and practically/tangibly shape the reality I want to see when I stay in the light, truth.

Those that prefer the darkness, deception may make it interesting sometimes, but I find enough interest in my reality--so with those beings like me, who I feel should know better, who choose dark tactics or intentions or paths...I try to expose to the light. That's my "employment" of that "side".

Response coming. I had to hit *page back* to reference and the damn thing deleted itself.

Sugar blossoms. :S

Phil wrote:I am trying hard not to imply "morality" there, just because something turns out other than expected/intended does not make it "bad". I just find that the results of my actions more often and practically/tangibly shape the reality I want to see when I stay in the light, truth.

I don't think you're trying hard enough.
.
.

Phil wrote:I was thinking this was a sort of response to "employing the dark side". In that context, the creator of that discussion wants to present techniques and practises of using what he calls "dark side", somehow removing the "morality".

My belief is that the desciptor dark (or light) attached to a action implies deception and/or selfishness (if there is a difference)...which to me makes everything he describes as morality based as anything I tried to say...which was mainly: as creatures that live off of light and thrive with community, any employment of the "dark side" I have experienced has turned out if not completely self-defeating and/or self destructive, at least ends up not as intended.

I am trying hard not to imply "morality" there, just because something turns out other than expected/intended does not make it "bad". I just find that the results of my actions more often and practically/tangibly shape the reality I want to see when I stay in the light, truth.

Those that prefer the darkness, deception may make it interesting sometimes, but I find enough interest in my reality--so with those beings like me, who I feel should know better, who choose dark tactics or intentions or paths...I try to expose to the light. That's my "employment" of that "side".

But can you remove morality? Is it something that can ever be tangibly removed?
I'm not so sure.

I'm not convinced that morality in any form can be.

For example: can you remove the instinct to breath? Or blinking? Or knowing your name? I am not suggesting situations in cases where a brain injury or physical malady occurs. I'm saying, say, in the case of a transgendered person. Once the transition begins, once the transition is complete, once the transition has been completed and the individual has lived for 10, 20, 30 years as the other gender with another name, they still remember their original name.

I personally thought using the descriptors dark or light implied morality...but that's just me I guess

Phil wrote:I personally thought using the descriptors dark or light implied morality...but that's just me I guess

Most definitely, that's just you.
.
.

Personally, I find the MOST objective dichotomy - and the most devoid of qualified association (but NOT bias) - is that of 'Feminine' and 'Masculine'

Shezbeth wrote:Personally, I find the MOST objective dichotomy - and the most devoid of qualified association (but NOT bias) - is that of 'Feminine' and 'Masculine'

That's a laboriously round-a-bout way of saying there is no objective dichotomy (only a guy could come up with this).
.
.