what is light? i am avoiding the physics forum with this question because i dont think physics will grasp the concept i am trying to express here.

this question was inspired by Quantum Quack asking me to consider that some people may not appreciate the symbolic spiritual light. you know that new age "love and light" stuff

when i thought about this a further i arrived at the understanding that actually darkness was superior to light. darkness is the medium for light and is in greater expression, what i mean is, there is more darkness than light and light has its existence only becasue the darkness gives it room for expression.

it also seems that light is in fact darkness in motion, this may or may not be true but that is how it seems to me. the darkness is moving and the movement is creating the impression of light. is light darkness in motion?

how are light and darkness seperate or distinct one from the other?

had i underestimated the power of the darkside.

i am sure there is more to this, i have not got my thoughts as clear as my feelings.

it also seems that light is in fact darkness in motion... Then movement at night would produce light, because one would be moving the darkness.
the darkness is moving and the movement is creating the impression of light. Well light can actually exist without light being present; one's memory can recall situations where there may not have been light, but there is seen movement, and spiritual awarness.
...there is more darkness than light and light has its existence only becasue [because] the darkness gives it room for expression. But is there more darkness than light? The fact that the universe is built upon 'nothing' seems to have given you the impression that the universe is 'infinite', and stretches on forever, but rather than the universe being measured at an infinitely large number, perhaps it is simply measured at zero. Nothing. However, as a poster noted in another thread there is not nothing; there is the existence of space itself.
...had i underestimated the power of the darkside Well actually light could be construed to be 'bad', from a certain perspective, and nightvision is possible; one may see where there is little light (but we are not without light).

Then movement at night would produce light, because one would be moving the darkness. if the movement was fast enough and the night was dark enough, i geuss so.


Well light can actually exist without light being present; one's memory can recall situations where there may not have been light, but there is seen movement, and spiritual awarness. i dont understand. in terms of spirit, perhaps yes! in physical terms i dont follow.


The fact that the universe is built upon 'nothing' seems to have given you the impression that the universe is 'infinite', and stretches on forever, but rather than the universe being measured at an infinitely large number, perhaps it is simply measured at zero. Nothing. this was okay until you bring in measurement and number. when you say infintely large number you are yourself applying the limits to the unlimited.

my impression is the motion, matter, energy is "built" on the stillnes, darkenss, limitless. no zeros, numbers or equations.


perhaps it is simply measured at zero. what is the purpose of measuring it?




...had i underestimated the power of the darkside

Well actually light could be construed to be 'bad', from a certain perspective, and nightvision is possible; one may see where there is little light (but we are not without light).i am not sure i see your point.

one ting we knows for sure. patriarchal religions nd cults, and mystical schools and new age philosophies and idealistic ideologies ALL emphasize light and denigrate dark

this prejudice goes very very deep. so much so, for countless generations, people wit dark skin have been the victim of this
light-obsessed attitude

WHY sould it be so. that the dark got such prejudice?

well, when you understand that the early origins of thislight-worship has come from solar-myths,where it is the SUN which is seen as a god. in factit can be seen that thevery idea of a one and only god/Monotesism has come from people looking to te sun as some god

as that idea became the oppresively imposed one, peoples that had had more of an ambiguous understanding of reality, as being BOTH liht and dark became demonized along with the dark. the dark becomes associated with the 'bad dark brother',ad the dark aspect of the Goddess.

in REALITY you canny HAVE light witout dark and vice versa. really try and imagine--justtake 5. try and imagine ONLY light---and/or only dark.....
can u do it?
can u see that in order to KNOW one or te other we MUS have its polar related extreme, otherwise how would we know them???

so it is clear that te abstracting mind looksat reality and says: 'there is light' and 'there is dark', and in its analysis FORGgets how it originally abstracted them, and that in actuality they are part of the prcess, which is sub abstract, if you will......actually this'sub' could be seen as dark. as in the underlying ground from which conscious thought would analyze in to abstracts, of light and ark. of naming'light' and 'dark'. get me?

yes "sub" the underneath, the source.

actually you just give me another thought. consciousness is born of the unconscious in much the same way. parallels. ;)

what is light? i am avoiding the physics forum with this question because i dont think physics will grasp the concept i am trying to express here.

Sorry for the physics answer, but it's far more accureate. It is a particle / wave combo that moves through space and not time.



this question was inspired by Quantum Quack asking me to consider that some people may not appreciate the symbolic spiritual light. you know that new age "love and light" stuff

It's hard to appreciate something that has no evidence for existing.



when i thought about this a further i arrived at the understanding that actually darkness was superior to light. darkness is the medium for light and is in greater expression, what i mean is, there is more darkness than light and light has its existence only becasue the darkness gives it room for expression.

The reverse is true, there is far more 'light' in the universe than 'darkness'. Our eyes can only perceive a very narrow scope of it.



it also seems that light is in fact darkness in motion, this may or may not be true but that is how it seems to me. the darkness is moving and the movement is creating the impression of light. is darkness light in motion?

Darkness is the lack of stimulation to our optics. Thats it.



how are light and darkness seperate or distinct one from the other?


For humans, its how photons do or don't make it to our optics. If a narrow range makes it to us then we see light; otherwise, we dont (darkness).



had i underestimated the power of the darkside.

i am sure there is more to this, i have not got my thoughts as clear as my feelings.

I would work on seperating those feelings from things we already know.

It is a particle / wave combo that moves through space and not time.but what is a "particle / wave combo"? which is my question what is light? is it darkness in motion?



It's hard to appreciate something that has no evidence for existing. for some people that is true.



The reverse is true, there is far more 'light' in the universe than 'darkness'. Our eyes can only perceive a very narrow scope of it.how is it that this light remains unseen? what then makes light, light?



Darkness is the lack of stimulation to our optics. do you mean that there is nowhere that is void of particle / wave combos.

from what i understand the particle / wave combo is actually void of itself it has no underlying substance. it exists then doesnt exist. what is inside this combo?



For humans, its how photons do or don't make it to our optics. If a narrow range makes it to us then we see light; otherwise, we dont (darkness). that is not what i meant. i meant wher does darkness bcome light at what point in its existence does light become dark or vice versa. and how do we define that?




I would work on seperating those feelings from things we already know.then do so. i dont need to know what you need to work on.

The reverse is true, there is far more 'light' in the universe than 'darkness'. Our eyes can only perceive a very narrow scope of it.

okay, maybe i got my mental wandering inside out. is darkness light without motion?

but what is a "particle / wave combo"? which is my question what is light? is it darkness in motion?

Well it's just that... a particle that acts like a wave that the human eye has adapted to reacting to. If the question is about composition then that's still pending investigation.

The concept of darkness in motion doesn't make sense. It is an absence of the narrow range particle / wavelength that our eyes can interpret. Absence of something doesn't equate to motion of absence.



for some people that is true.


I am one of those people.



how is it that this light remains unseen? what then makes light, light?


There have been no known beneficial variations in human eyesight to see the more wavelengths of light that have. Variations that don't promote adaptation are not likely going to stick around (at least not in the general population).



do you mean that there is nowhere that is void of particle / wave combos.


Good question. I don't know... if memory serves me correctly, there are at least some XRays all over the place.



from what i understand the particle / wave combo is actually void of itself it has no underlying substance. it exists then doesnt exist. what is inside this combo?


Light doesn't have mass if that's what you mean. That is true. It still exists (things don't need mass to exist). What is it made up of? Don't know yet. There is still alot to learn about photons.



that is not what i meant. i meant wher does darkness bcome light at what point in its existence does light become dark or vice versa. and how do we define that?

Darkness doesn't exist as a physical concept. There can be a prescence and absence of photons of the wavelenth the human eye can interpret. When we our eyes don't encounter photons of the right wavelenth, there is no stimulation and that's what humans label darkness.


then do so. i dont need to know what you need to work on.

I think my statement was mis-understood. It was mentioned that you had feelings about Light concerning what it is and were trying to derive and communicate the emotional message. The text that has been presented so far based on those feelings is different that the factual knowledge that already exists about light. My statement was a suggestion to not let feelings become a substitute for knowledge; hence, to seperate them.

okay, maybe i got my mental wandering inside out. is darkness light without motion?

Darkness is a label humans give to the sensory experience when their eyes don't receive stimulation from an absence photons or photons of an incompatible wavelength.

Well it's just that... a particle that acts like a wave that the human eye has adapted to reacting to. If the question is about composition then that's still pending investigation.not really composition. more what is the essence of light? it seems to me to be motion. but then what is moving? that is the real question. what is it that is moving that expresses itself as light?



The concept of darkness in motion doesn't make sense. It is an absence of the narrow range particle / wavelength that our eyes can interpret. Absence of something doesn't equate to motion of absence.
when this wavelength / particle is not in existence what is there in the place it had existed. i.e. if a the wavelegnth / particle takes up a certain postiion in space, then its existence ceases, what remains of the position it occupied? i.e. if light occupies a position in spcae then it is extinguished what remains in the position it occupied?

i think when considering this it is not helpful to think about the mechanisms of the eye. the eye is not really anything to do with light as an independent principle. however we do see light and we do see dark, this is given. we can also differentiate between the two.

i think it is not helpful when speaking about the visual effects of light and dark to then switch contexts and say there is no darkness only light that we cant see. what is happening is a switch between the subjective impressions and objective phenomena which does not contribute to understanding the independent principle.




I am one of those people.it seems you have to defend this position, for some reason. like if you failed to tell people then you might lose your sense of self in someway. so much that you have to tell people that this is who you are for no reason. the only gay in the village syndrome. "hello, i am david and i am gay" sorry if that seems sarcastic but it does seem odd that you have to reinforce your identity in this way.




how is it that this light remains unseen? what then makes light, light?


There have been no known beneficial variations in human eyesight to see the more wavelengths of light that have. Variations that don't promote adaptation are not likely going to stick around (at least not in the general population).i geuss this is an example of how the switch between objective pheno and subjective expereince confuses the matter. this particle / wavelength we call light exists whether we have the capability to expereince it or not. lets put this question in this way; at what point does the particle / wavelegnth combo cease to be a particle wavelength combo. a wave is motion, yes? when do we say this motion is light or it is no longer light and what does it become when the motion ceases?



I don't know... if memory serves me correctly, there are at least some XRays all over the place.

but what is the essence of these Xrays? what is the source, the underneath, unconscious existence of which the particle known as the Xray is the conscious expression.


Light doesn't have mass if that's what you mean. That is true. It still exists (things don't need mass to exist). What is it made up of? Don't know yet. There is still alot to learn about photons.i appreciate more than most that something can have existence without the commonly required corporeal properties.



Darkness doesn't exist as a physical concept. There can be a prescence and absence of photons of the wavelenth the human eye can interpret. When we our eyes don't encounter photons of the right wavelenth, there is no stimulation and that's what humans label darkness.as you say it exists as a label for the observed contrast to light. so can we use it as a term for the absence of the particle / wavelength combo too?

again i see you creating a problem by switching form the subjective expereince to the objective event.

if darkness does not exist as physical concept does that mean there is absolutely no absence of the wavelength / particles we label light?



Darkness is a label humans give to the sensory experience when their eyes don't receive stimulation from an absence photons or photons of an incompatible wavelength.light is a label too. what we need to ascertain is does a photon live in a sea of complete unity to toher photons or is there a surrounding of non-photon.
if a wavelegnth / particle is not directly connected and intimately connected to oher wavelegnth / particles then there must be a gap. a seperation of non-wavelength/particle. what is this gap or seperative space if it is not darkness?



It was mentioned that you had feelings about Light concerning what it is and were trying to derive and communicate the emotional message. The text that has been presented so far based on those feelings is different that the factual knowledge that already exists about light. My statement was a suggestion to not let feelings become a substitute for knowledge; hence, to seperate them.thoughts and feeling are apects of the same conscious expreince, neither is more valid than the other, neither one should be disregarded to be subservient to the other. however when it comes to my reality i trust my feeling more so than my thinking. i expect you will get a scolding from duendy and rightly so for dividing yourself, seperating thoughts from you feelings, even more so if you where suggesting the right way for me to expereince and interpret my reality.

Ellion,


Are light and darkness as opposites? If yes, why so?
If they are opposites, then they must be of the same kind and comparable.

Ellion,


Are light and darkness as opposites? If yes, why so?
If they are opposites, then they must be of the same kind and comparable.

We couldn't DE-FINE reality if it wasn't for light AND dark. try and imagine a landscape of just dark...........ooops

now try and imagine a landscape of just light. can u do it. even rthe desert under the blazing hot sun at its zenith has defining shadows.....!

as said. the analytical mind has gone 'mmmmm, that is 'light' and that is 'dark', i see'. and from there has created beliefs that actually believe you can have one witout te 'other'. when ALLLLLLL the time it was a PROCESS of interelations

the fukers do this wid everything dont they?

water;

in the mind, subjectively, given our inability to apprehend the physical universe, in its diverse manifestation, through our 5 senses, we could call them opposites. if we balance them and contrast we could say they are opposites. but iam not certain they are actually opposites.

which is the reason for the thread.

i think one has a greater existence than the other. the greater has no property that we would identify except in relation to, and perhaps as categorical opposite of the lesser. the lesser takes rise from the greater by modification of that base principle which is the greater existence itself. i.e. the greater existence moves and by doing so it is generates the lesser existence. being as we are closer in energetic animation to the lesser existence it is easier for us to appreciate that lesser existence known as light while the greater existence which is the darkness (stillness) remaned unexplored.
does that make sense?

I know you said you wished to avoid the physics point of view, but does that fact that all life on earth depends on light (mostly from the sun) make any difference?

Without light, we could not live. With too much light (and heat), we couldn't live either...

I know you said you wished to avoid the physics point of view, but does that fact that all life on earth depends on light (mostly from the sun) make any difference?i wouldnt say that was physics answer myself, i think Crunchy Cat has presented the physics POV.

obviously light makes a difference to our existence, as you say it actually makes our existence. but this is not where i need to explore.
i think the perspective you are presenting which i do agree with is this;

we have evolved to be in our current state of existence because of the frequency/range / of wavelength/particles that are the expression of our sun / solar system.

we directly comprehend onlly that range of particle/wave motion that is close enough to our own rate of vibration or that we have adapted senses to recieve.

I know you said you wished to avoid the physics point of view, but does that fact that all life on earth depends on light (mostly from the sun) make any difference?

Without light, we could not live. With too much light (and heat), we couldn't live either...
but keep in mind hhat without the ATMOSPHERE of Earth, thelight would nothave its beneficial effects!...so. is 'atmosphere' light or dark?

in the mind, subjectively, given our inability to apprehend the physical universe, in its diverse manifestation, through our 5 senses, we could call them opposites.

I absolutely love this sentence. A.b.s.o.l.u.t.e.l.y. l.o.v.e. i.t. .



if we balance them and contrast we could say they are opposites. but iam not certain they are actually opposites.

which is the reason for the thread.

How about considering "light" and "dark" only extremes of a continuum that is visible to the human eye? This way, they certainly are not opposites.

To understand light and dark in terms of opposites requires a reductionism that refuses to acknowledge the continuum between light and dark.

After all, light and dark exist as attributes, and not as things.

In other words, it seems there is some categorical confusion at work. Which, however, is not unwarranted!



i think one has a greater existence than the other. the greater has no property that we would identify except in relation to, and perhaps as categorical opposite of the lesser. the lesser takes rise from the greater by modification of that base principle which is the greater existence itself. i.e. the greater existence moves and by doing so it is generates the lesser existence. being as we are closer in energetic animation to the lesser existence it is easier for us to appreciate that lesser existence known as light while the greater existence which is the darkness (stillness) remaned unexplored.
does that make sense?

I see, but the explanation with the extremes of a certain continuum seems more feasible, does it not?

darkness is the medium for light

No, it is not. Darkness is merely a lack of light.

it also seems that light is in fact darkness in motion, this may or may not be true but that is how it seems to me... is light darkness in motion?

Of course not, why not instead read a book on the subject as opposed to using wishful thinking and your increasingly vivid imagination?

how are light and darkness seperate or distinct one from the other?

See above.

i am sure there is more to this, i have not got my thoughts as clear as my feelings.

Again, see above.

I absolutely love this sentence.A.b.s.o.l.u.t.e.l.y. l.o.v.e. i.t. . yeah thats amusing, i kind of cover all bases answer the question with an ammount of pretentious irony, leave no possibiilty for misunderstanding and commit myself to the position of an honest but uncertain relativistic fence sitter. but it is a.b.s.o.l.u.t.e.ly. t.r.u.e.!


How about considering "light" and "dark" only extremes of a continuum that is visible to the human eye? This way, they certainly are not opposites.your looking at them from your mind again.



To understand light and dark in terms of opposites requires a reductionism that refuses to acknowledge the continuum between light and dark. i think that which is on the continuum is actually light, but in contrast to other positions on the continuum it is dark light or light light. it is not absolute darkness it is some vibration or other known [on thread from physics POV] as a wavelength particle. this continuum is a continuity of wavelengths. true darkness, absolute dark, is not on the continuum because it is not a wavelength, it does not move.


After all, light and dark exist as attributes, and not as things.there is something happening external to the mind that gives rise to the impression of light. you are doing what Crunchy Cat was doing earlier switching between the subjective experience and the objective phenomena.

In other words, it seems there is some categorical confusion at work. Which, however, is not unwarranted!there is light as expereinced in the mind though the retina. and there is the external principle that causes that internal impression.



I see, but the explanation with the extremes of a certain continuum seems more feasible, does it not?no [see above] the continuum does not conatin true darkness only different frequencies of light. the continuum is of different frequencies which we could subjectively, in the mind, percieve as light and dark. ie strong impression on the retina (bright) or weak impression on the retina (dim,dull,dark) but still light. as i said viewing from inside the mind will not help undertand this.

No, it is not. Darkness is merely a lack of light.which has the implication of being the medium for the exsitence of light. lack of light gives the necessary condition for the presence of light.

Of course not, why not instead read a book on the subject as opposed to using wishful thinking and your increasingly vivid imagination?i have a mind which has many wonderful abilities letting someone else think for me or tell me what is true is far less satisfying than exploring my own thoughts and feelings hear with like minded people and even yourself sometimes.

what is light? i am avoiding the physics forum with this question because i dont think physics will grasp the concept i am trying to express here.

this question was inspired by Quantum Quack asking me to consider that some people may not appreciate the symbolic spiritual light. you know that new age "love and light" stuff

when i thought about this a further i arrived at the understanding that actually darkness was superior to light. darkness is the medium for light and is in greater expression, what i mean is, there is more darkness than light and light has its existence only becasue the darkness gives it room for expression.

it also seems that light is in fact darkness in motion, this may or may not be true but that is how it seems to me. the darkness is moving and the movement is creating the impression of light. is light darkness in motion?

how are light and darkness seperate or distinct one from the other?

had i underestimated the power of the darkside.

i am sure there is more to this, i have not got my thoughts as clear as my feelings.Dark cannot overcome light, where light is, dark isn't.

Where dark is, light can still be and dark won't be anymore.

Thus light is more powerful than dark (even if the quantity of dark seems to be greater, which it isn't, since there is no dark, dark is what isn't - the lack and the 'hidden').

So. Dark is what can't be seen, it has no existance of itself like light do.

Dark is the description of *nothing*. Otherwise we would actually perceive *nothing* which is a impossibility. Thus dark is purely natural, there can't have been any transition between *nothin* and dark, but dark must be the actual first color to describe nothing.

Light (naturally perceived as white - but is really transparent until reflected) is the description of *something* where that something can be seen - even of the light itself, since it has existance compared to dark which is to it's nature only a description of that which doesn't exist or it lacks information of.

not really composition. more what is the essence of light? it seems to me to be motion. but then what is moving? that is the real question. what is it that is moving that expresses itself as light?

I am not sure I understand the 'essence' part of the question. Light is in motion. Photons move at some 186,232 (or something similar) miles per sec. To add a little further confusion, Light doesn't move through time. It only moves through space (which may seem odd considering we're expressing it's motion in terms of distance and time). So the best answer I can give is light is moving through space. What is space? That's a whole new question. The correct answer is nobody knows for sure yet. One of the most promising hypothesis is that it is a brane floating around in 11-dimensional 'hyperspace'. In 2007 the Large Hadron Collider in Geneva will be complete and we'll be able to test aspects of this hypothesis.



when this wavelength / particle is not in existence what is there in the place it had existed. i.e. if a the wavelegnth / particle takes up a certain postiion in space, then its existence ceases, what remains of the position it occupied? i.e. if light occupies a position in spcae then it is extinguished what remains in the position it occupied?

Typically if a photon is 'extinguished', it is a result of being absorbed into something with mass. Hypothetically we could have an area of space where there is no particle / wavelength (or any mass for that matter). What do we have in that area? Space and time... possibly a large amount of points intersecting space / time.



i think when considering this it is not helpful to think about the mechanisms of the eye. the eye is not really anything to do with light as an independent principle. however we do see light and we do see dark, this is given. we can also differentiate between the two.

I would disagree with this. I see the mechanisms as very important to how they relate to our interpretation. It's not a matter of we see light and dark. We perceive difference and give that difference labels. Presence of photons we call light. Absence of photons (or photons of an incompatible wavelength) we call dark. One stimulates our sense of sight. The other doesn't (I think darkness is sometimes perceived to be a stimulation of senses -i.e. 'seeing dark'- however its merely an absence of stimulation).



i think it is not helpful when speaking about the visual effects of light and dark to then switch contexts and say there is no darkness only light that we cant see. what is happening is a switch between the subjective impressions and objective phenomena which does not contribute to understanding the independent principle.

IMO, if we seperate the subjective from the objective then we're going to hamper our understanding of both. Consequently, I would like to provide an updated assertion. Darkness is our subjective label of absence of light or visible light... not something else (like its own entity that could affect photons).



it seems you have to defend this position, for some reason. like if you failed to tell people then you might lose your sense of self in someway. so much that you have to tell people that this is who you are for no reason. the only gay in the village syndrome. "hello, i am david and i am gay" sorry if that seems sarcastic but it does seem odd that you have to reinforce your identity in this way.

There was an assertion made concerning a segment of the population. I acknowledged and validated your assertion. I'll issue statements such as "I agree" next time to avoid confusion.



i geuss this is an example of how the switch between objective pheno and subjective expereince confuses the matter. this particle / wavelength we call light exists whether we have the capability to expereince it or not. lets put this question in this way; at what point does the particle / wavelegnth combo cease to be a particle wavelength combo. a wave is motion, yes? when do we say this motion is light or it is no longer light and what does it become when the motion ceases?

It would cease to be what it is the moment it is translated into another form of energy or the moment it is absorbed. A wave is simply a periodic disturbance; hence, it has motion. If the motion ceases it means the photon is no longer (it might have been translated / absorbed).



but what is the essence of these Xrays? what is the source, the underneath, unconscious existence of which the particle known as the Xray is the conscious expression.

The source is matter / energy. Remember they are different states of the same thing. Matter is compressed energy. Energy is uncompressed matter. Matter can produce energy. Energy can produce matter. Energy can translate energy. Matter can translate energy. As far as essence, unconcious existence, and essence is concerned I don't understand the question.



i appreciate more than most that something can have existence without the commonly required corporeal properties.

An interesting thought that is still on the table at the moment is why anything has mass at all (i.e. what is it?). There are some good hypothesis on the table and I expect to see some results on that starting '07.



as you say it exists as a label for the observed contrast to light. so can we use it as a term for the absence of the particle / wavelength combo too?

We can and we do. I think people go beyond sometimes and claim darkness to be the presence of 'something' rather than the absence of photons. If we didn't have our present knowledge of physics this would be a hypothesis to explore; however, we're long past this point.



again i see you creating a problem by switching form the subjective expereince to the objective event.

Just exploring their relationship because it does exist.



if darkness does not exist as physical concept does that mean there is absolutely no absence of the wavelength / particles we label light?

There probably could be... again, I am not 100% sure about what's permeating us right now. Hypothetically we could have a block of space-time with no photons. A complete absence of light.



light is a label too. what we need to ascertain is does a photon live in a sea of complete unity to toher photons or is there a surrounding of non-photon.
if a wavelegnth / particle is not directly connected and intimately connected to oher wavelegnth / particles then there must be a gap. a seperation of non-wavelength/particle. what is this gap or seperative space if it is not darkness?


The gap would be absence of photons. A lack of stimulation to our eyes. Our perception of that lack of stimulation shows difference and we call that difference darkness.



thoughts and feeling are apects of the same conscious expreince, neither is more valid than the other, neither one should be disregarded to be subservient to the other. however when it comes to my reality i trust my feeling more so than my thinking. i expect you will get a scolding from duendy and rightly so for dividing yourself, seperating thoughts from you feelings, even more so if you where suggesting the right way for me to expereince and interpret my reality.

I think I didn't communicate what I intended to again based on this response. I'll position it a different way and it's going to sound like it has emotional content directed at you. That isn't the intention.

We know what light and darkness are at the objective and subjective level. This is EXISTING knowledge. Why is this knowledge being ignored and ludicrous questions being asked? Is it an educational issue? If it is then I would suggest some coursework in physics and human psychology rather than trying to use emotion to incorrectly answer questions that already have known correct answers. It only serves to sustain and grow ignorance and that does not better yourself or the people around you.

which has the implication of being the medium for the exsitence of light. lack of light gives the necessary condition for the presence of light.

No, it does not. Again, please don't let your vivid imagination rule your thou...

Never mind.

your looking at them from your mind again.

What else do I have, from where else could I look, and see?

None of us has ever experienced true darkness. Even in places, such as cave, where to our eyes there is the complete absence of illumination, we are surrounded by energy, and guess what: light is a form of energy.

The chart below illustrates the narrow range of energy that human eyes have evolved to percieve. ALL of those wavelengths of energy pass into our eyes, but we only "see" the narrow band of "visible" light.

True darkness would be the complete absence of any form energy. If such a place exists, we would have no way of sensing it, and if we somehow did find it, we would destroy it, as we and our senses are also forms of energy.

http://kingfish.coastal.edu/marine/Animations/Images/Electromagnetic-Spectrum-2.png

Where dark is, light can still be and dark won't be anymore.yes but where does this light come from that seems to dance upon the waters of darkness.

oops! i have a poetical head on.



Thus light is more powerful than dark
but you arrive at this from the position that overcoming is more powerful. may be the dark is not overcome but it remains present in its absence.


(even if the quantity of dark seems to be greater, which it isn't, since there is no dark, dark is what isn't - the lack and the 'hidden'). it is the absence of the presence of light. the stillness of the motion.


So. Dark is what can't be seen, it has no existance of itself like light do.dark is what cannot be seen, you say? being soemthing that cannot be seen it does not exist, you say?



Dark is the description of *nothing*. so what do you call the absence of the presence of light?



Thus dark is purely natural, there can't have been any transition between *nothin* and dark,yes this is what i see too.


dark which is to it's nature only a description of that which doesn't exist or it lacks information of.dark is to its nature a description, what then is that "nature" to which the description is applied?

"a lack of inforamtion" do you see light being the presence of information? trying to clarify your terms.

I am not sure I understand the 'essence' part of the question. Light is in motion. Photons move at some 186,232 (or something similar) miles per sec.the essence part. light is motion but what is moving? nothing, darkness, stillness. it is pure motion. void in motion.


To add a little further confusion, Light doesn't move through time. i was always told that the light form stars was from XXyears ago. but it had not reached us yet. i may be confused here. ???


Typically if a photon is 'extinguished', it is a result of being absorbed into something with mass.so such a thing with mass would have no presence of wavelength particles?


Hypothetically we could have an area of space where there is no particle / wavelength (or any mass for that matter). What do we have in that area? Space and time... possibly a large amount of points intersecting space / time.dark sapce time. i.e. the absence of the wavelength/particles.

i am probably really annoyingly abstracted from your perceptions of reality? forgive me.



I would disagree with this. I see the mechanisms as very important to how they relate to our interpretation.but our interpretations have nothing to do with light as propety, independent form our perception.


It's not a matter of we see light and dark. We perceive difference and give that difference labels.this is why i say it does not help. we are not talking about the difference between the light light and the dark light. we are talking about the difference between the absence of particle wavelegths and the presence of particle/wavelength. i.e. the difference between motion and stillness.


Presence of photons we call light. Absence of photons ... we call dark.yes.



I think darkness is sometimes perceived to be a stimulation of senses -i.e. 'seeing dark'- however its merely an absence of stimulation). do you see how little this helps. it is not relevant at all to the presence or abbsence of photons. it is only relevant to the preception or stimulation by comaptible photons.


Darkness is our subjective label of absence of light or visible light... not something else (like its own entity that could affect photons).i disagreed. darkness is the term for the absence of photons whether that absence is perecieved or actaul.

an actual absence of photons is darkness. without the presence of photons is darkness emptiness stilness etc.

a presence of photons whether actaul or percieved is signified by the term light. presence of wavelength/particles, photons, motion etc.


It would cease to be what it is the moment it is translated into another form of energy or the moment it is absorbed. A wave is simply a periodic disturbance; hence, it has motion. If the motion ceases it means the photon is no longer (it might have been translated / absorbed).yes yes yes yes yes.


The source is matter / energy. Remember they are different states of the same thing. Matter is compressed energy. Energy is uncompressed matter. Matter can produce energy. Energy can produce matter. Energy can translate energy. Matter can translate energy.i am with you on this one too


As far as essence, unconcious existence, and essence is concerned I don't understand the question.i suppose i mean the source.





i will try to finish repying to these posts soon.

Ellion,
Interesting thread.

Some ideas to throw into the ring:
Darkness exists until there is something to reflect the light. Until we have a reflector the light is darkness.

In other words: If you look at the void of space between the earth and the moon you shall not see anything and will only discern space [empty volume] however if you place a reflector within that space [ void] you will see the light.

So light can only exist if something is there to reflect it.

Another thought provoker is:
If you took all the mass out of the universe how big would the universe be?
[ having objects with in the void give rise to dimension. Without objects in the void there is no distance to comprehend nor light reflected]

Lets take it to another level;

Would then nothingness be considered as darkness, certainly it would not have any light but is this enough to qualify what is darkness. For to give nothingness a value [ darkness] it is no longer a true nothingness but a pseudo nothingness.

Possibly Darkness would be better described as what is observed when an object does not reflect the light and fully absorbs it. That would be darkness I guess. The absence of light itself would simply be "nothingness" and not darkness.

Maybe a black hole or more a singularity would be considered as an object of darkness. [ A true singularity would completely destroy the universe]

yes but where does this light come from that seems to dance upon the waters of darkness.

oops! i have a poetical head on.It's ok, I think I see what you mean.

The trouble with those waters is that the waters is a representation, and the light is the contrast by which darkness is even possible.

Darkness is the natural description of nothing. It is amazing that it can even be done.



but you arrive at this from the position that overcoming is more powerful. may be the dark is not overcome but it remains present in its absence.*nothing* is "present", as you know it, everywhere but *is* nowhere and cannot be anywhere, since **nothing**, as I know it, doesn't exist!


it is the absence of the presence of light. the stillness of the motion.Silently present? Then it is *hidden*, not *nothing*, I believe that anything that we perceive as *nothing* is what is hidden for us. Cause we can never have experianced *nothing* as is.


dark is what cannot be seen, you say? being soemthing that cannot be seen it does not exist, you say? I say rather that it is hidden for us, but darkness does exist as a *paint* to mask / set attribute to what *isn't there* (or in other words *nothing*).



so what do you call the absence of the presence of light?Darkness. So how do you describe "absence" in other words, maybe that exist too. You see darkness only because of the light within you, otherwise if true darkness could be seen, then it would simply not be experianced, that is true darkness - to not be aware of.



yes this is what i see too.Glad we agree.


dark is to its nature a description, what then is that "nature" to which the description is applied?The nature of what the description is applied is *nothing* and *lack of*, thus not a nature of something existing, remember that darkness can also be applied to things that half-visible, half-hidden, thus a color can be more or less dark. As such darkness is not a description of pure nothing, but rather less something.


"a lack of inforamtion" do you see light being the presence of information? trying to clarify your terms.Light reflects information, darkness is the substitute for that which is not reflected.

the essence part. light is motion but what is moving? nothing, darkness, stillness. it is pure motion. void in motion.

The photons would be moving within our brane. Absence of something doesn't equate to motion. I am not sure we are understanding each other on this one.



i was always told that the light form stars was from XXyears ago. but it had not reached us yet. i may be confused here. ???

That's correct and light only moves through space and not time. It seems really paradoxical in this raw context I know.



so such a thing with mass would have no presence of wavelength particles?


Theoretically, I suppose that could happen.



dark sapce time. i.e. the absence of the wavelength/particles.

i am probably really annoyingly abstracted from your perceptions of reality? forgive me.

To a human, such an area would be considered 'dark'; however, dark (as you correctly asserted) is merely the absence of what our eyes can register. Abstractification is fine... especially to come up with new ideas or communicate concepts at a high level. Its not the best if we use them as substitutes for existing information though.



but our interpretations have nothing to do with light as propety, independent form our perception.

Of course they do. If there was a complete disconnect we would be walking into objects all the time.



this is why i say it does not help. we are not talking about the difference between the light light and the dark light. we are talking about the difference between the absence of particle wavelegths and the presence of particle/wavelength. i.e. the difference between motion and stillness.

Can't something only be in motion or stillness if it is present? Remove it and neither concept seems to apply.



yes.


Looks like we hit upon an agreement there :)



do you see how little this helps. it is not relevant at all to the presence or abbsence of photons. it is only relevant to the preception or stimulation by comaptible photons.

Considering the eye is a tool for measuring a narrow range of light, I see it as very relevant.



i disagreed. darkness is the term for the absence of photons whether that absence is perecieved or actaul.

an actual absence of photons is darkness. without the presence of photons is darkness emptiness stilness etc.

a presence of photons whether actaul or percieved is signified by the term light. presence of wavelength/particles, photons, motion etc.

yes yes yes yes yes.

i am with you on this one too


We're pretty much agreed on everything except what can be in motion. *something* can be in motiion / stilness... it has to be present otherwise motion and stilness don't seem to apply. It could be argued that the universe is floating around in 11 dimensional hyperspace and also expanding. That would indicate structural motion in reality and is something different than a photon.



i suppose i mean the source.


Ahh. In that case the source is matter/energy and photons are a form of the latter.

I think possibly there may be some confusion as to what we are talking about when we refer to "the light" in this thread. [Maybe this is a part of Ellions thread question - although I am not sure]

Within Eastern thought especially that which is associated with Yoga and the like we have what is referred to as Astral light or the light energy that provides a resource of energy for our Chakra or "subtle" body systems.
The question may be asked as to how the light that Western physics deems as photonic or EM is compared with or too, Astral or Chakra light.

It is possible I guess, to consider the astral plane as being a dimension separate to that which is normally considered as physical yet realising that the physical is central to all dimensions, in that the other dimensions have their association directly with the physical and move with the physical.

One way that I have used to visualise this is to take a photo of the earth moon relationship, noting that there is nothing visible bwteen them [ dark space ] and reverse the image so that the dark is light [ white] and the lighted parts are in fact dark.
Dimensionaly speaking this would then be interpreted to show that even though there appears to us to be no light or energy to our visual sense it is in fact fuill of energy and light to our more subtle imaginations minds eye perception.

Thus when working with chakras we assume that the ambience is fully white in colour and energy [ white noise] and the siubtle body innately or pasively draws what it needs from this ambience to provide the energy for our imaginary bodies and our emotional energy systems.

Of course this description may be flawed to some readers as there is much conjecture and discussion including belief systems out there concerning the yogic traditions. [ I am by no means expert in this field and maybe someone else would care to enlighten the forum in more detail and correct anything I have written that is wrong]

Suffice to say that when we talk about light we may need to identify what sort of light we are talking about.

And ask the question whether the light of this physical plane has any real or direct association or similarities with the light of the more subtle realms.

Thanks QQ,

From a philosophical standpoint, I can understand what's being said and the primary assertion of the thread appears to be that darkness is it's own unique entity that is equated with motion. Kind of different that what was described.

in the mind, subjectively, given our inability to apprehend the physical universe, in its diverse manifestation, through our 5 senses, we could call them opposites. if we balance them and contrast we could say they are opposites. but iam not certain they are actually opposites.

which is the reason for the thread.

I don't actually understand the subject of this thread. Do you mean light and dark symbolically, as in the dualism of light/dark, black/white... or do you mean physically, as in subatomic particles?
If you mean light/dark from within the scientific paradigm, then I don't think opposites exist to science. I could be wrong here though.

perhaps it [the universe] is simply measured at zero.
Posted by Ellion
what is the purpose of measuring it? For context. Some people believe that the universe is expanding, and is therefore infinite, but I would contend that in the beginning there was simply nothing here. This second scenario still enforces the probability of infinity, despite the measurement of zero.

There is not a solid mass of rock between here and the sun. There is not a vacuum between here and the sun. There is a fairly empty space peppered with asteroids, meteoroids, dust particles, radical, molecules, atoms, solar wind, cosmic ray, electromagnetic radiation, and a space probe or two.
The Earth does not exist because of that near vacuum. It exists because of the chance agglomeration of matter. The Earth is the important thing, not the near vacuum, interesting as it might be.
In an analogous way this speculation that darkness is somehow responsible for light emerges as meaningless gobbledegook. Light exists. Darkness does not.

Fin.

There is not a solid mass of rock between here and the sun. There is not a vacuum between here and the sun. There is a fairly empty space peppered with asteroids, meteoroids, dust particles, radical, molecules, atoms, solar wind, cosmic ray, electromagnetic radiation, and a space probe or two.
The Earth does not exist because of that near vacuum. It exists because of the chance agglomeration of matter. The Earth is the important thing, not the near vacuum, interesting as it might be.
In an analogous way this speculation that darkness is somehow responsible for light emerges as meaningless gobbledegook. Light exists. Darkness does not.

Fin.The thing is that there can't be "nothing" between the gaps. Nothing is not. Therefor it is interesting what may be between the gaps. Constantly conquering nothing. :confused: :o :eek:

darkness is the medium for light and is in greater expression, what i mean is, there is more darkness than light and light has its existence only becasue the darkness gives it room for expression.
Actually, light is everywhere! The entire universe is bathed in low-frequency light. Even if you build a box to keep light out, the walls of the box will emit light to fill the box. The only way to stop this would be to cool the box down to absolute zero - which is impossible! Of course, the light is too low-frequency for our eyes to detect it...which raises questions about whether or not it would actually be considered "light". But it's there, and we would be able to see it if our eyes worked better.

Or perhaps that's too sciency for you...

water said:

"I see, but the explanation with the extremes of a certain continuum seems more feasible, does it not?"

Light and Dark are two extremes of a certain continuum. That continuum is what people refer to as God.

Dark represents stillness, knowingness, and death. Light represents motion, experience, and life. When a human being experiences the balance of these two extremes they are Enlightened. Being in a state of stillness connects you to the ONE multiverse, you are connected to the knowingness of it all. This allows you to choose what you wish to experience. You focus your awareness on your choice and you experience it, you live it. All forms of life are the Multiplicity of the One.

You are sitting on a chair. You decide you now wish to sit on the sofa. If the chair is only aware of itself then you are dead when you leave the chair's universe. You then are born into the universe of the sofa. However to the room, which is aware of both the chair and the sofa, you have just moved from one point to another.

Human Beings run around in motion their entire lives and are unaware of stillness. In fact, darkness is feared because it represents the unknown. Those who wish to control the masses manipulate the fear of the unknown in others. This is why we experience a physical death. We are unbalanced. The universe works in a very coherent fashion. When something goes to one extreme it will be pulled to the other. We live without stillness(life) then we live on in stillness(death) until we are reborn again.

When one becomes more consciously aware by taking the journey of self-realization one can aviod death all together, but that does not mean that one can stay stagnant. We are all immortal, we just don't understand it. We believe that to be immortal is to stay in this same existence forever however that is stagnation and stagnation is out of balance and incohernet with the universe. Life is in constant motion, all things change. Life and death are not the begining and the ending of your existence, but are no different then from moving from your chair to your sofa.

Most religions have the "made in his image" philosophy in one way or another. We have the ability to create our reality, we dictate our experience. Once one understands this then one can take conscious control of ones existence. There is no need to get sick and die, just figure out what you wish yo experience next and focus your awareness on it. This is what Ascension is, to physically leave this realm of existence to go to another realm by conscious choice. This is the same "secret" behind teleportation. Once we achieve balance between darkness and light we can experience anything that our imaginations can come up with.

I hope this helps someone.

THOU SHALT NOT COMMITETH THREAD NECROMANCY.

'Tis an abomination, so sayeth the PRINCE.