i look foward to it
Maybe the primordial darkness is The All at the beginning of time since darkness doesn’t need a fuel and with a thought it created the Big Bang
This essay is dangerously tempting.
You have piqued my curiosity now. Care to elaborate?
I think the deeper you pry and peer into space, you will continue to find that what seems like empty space is actually full of itself.
Let me read over this some more and I’ll take you up on the offer
@Atinama love the way you put that. That is how I have been understanding/perceiving it as well.
But I mean as a diplomat, i have to be careful not to sway all the way to the dark side, and this essay almost had me take up a full on lhp.
Darkness and LHP aren’t the same thing. As stated darkness doesn’t choose a side in that field of thought. Darkness just is what it is, it’s not positive or negative, good or bad, right or left. It’s not like Star Wars dark side. Or did I misunderstand you?
No, I misunderstood.
Not necessarily, because while what I said is one perspective, there is a cliche’ of darkness vs. light that is a valid point of view. I just don’t think it fits into this context. Ya know?
None of these primordial concepts have desire. Therefore they cannot be measured in terms of good or evil. Without void there could be no stage on which to build creation, so the end of creation cannot be blamed on void. Without chaos there would be no material with which to create, so disorder and decay cannot be blamed on chaos. Without light there would be no relationship between ordered concepts and no structure in creation, so the fact that order eventually dissolves back into chaos cannot be blamed on light.
These concepts are logical beyond math its self. From them comes creation and sentience. They aren’t exactly good because they make no specific choices. They simply exist in the purest sense of the word.
I remember @asbjorntorvol talking about Asatru runes and how they correspond to “notes of creation”. I thought back then that he was on to something that I agree with. This kind of thinking is incredibly difficult to express because it runs below almost any symbol that our minds have to work with.
Good luck man. You’re working on stuff that confuses the gods themselves.
Such an amazing post @asbjorntorvol. A lot of what you describe I’ve been thinking about latley as well, though I haven’t really been able to put it into coherent words - something you did here beautifully. Simply gorgeous.
I am eagerly looking forward to your next post about this!
I just like a solid challenge
Big Kudos to you for sharing something so important to you. Being vulnerable can be very tough for any of us. Having read this a week ago and reread it just now, I should point some things out.
Perhaps you are assigning form (i.e. force) to that which is formless (darkness) by definition.
For much of what you state above, one could just as easily replace the word darkness with God and stay true to your statements.
“Chaos is the prime mover…” hardly, try Primal Will that creates form from apparent chaos. Something must move chaos, organize it, solidify or coagulate it. This would be the Primal Fire. Chaos by definition can not do work. It is the aftermath of an event or the non-event prior to an event. Of course, we are speaking relatively.
“The current of darkness is chaos.” You can’t have it both ways, either chaos is chaos therefore formless or it is form and a current. Relatively speaking, of course, chaos is the experience of form beyond the relative consciousness to perceive the forms (aka beyond comprehension).
Your definitions are not consistent throughout your post.
Conflict, struggle, hardship, pain, strife, are all expressions of what we call chaos. It is an extension of this concept we call chaos. It is those things that do not just move us but FORCE us to move and progress. Chaos is the prime mover of the body simply because it forces change. That should not be a hard concept to grasp.
The fact you can’t take a step back to look at things from a bigger perspective beyond what I have already defined as a confined reality and a singularity says that not only do you not understand what I have written but you are not ready to understand what I have written here.
The point you have made here I can prove false by simply quoting the article and saying no more. Read more careful. Every statement in there I have explained, more so when it becomes potentially contradictory. For example, when I explain how we can have form and formlessness in our reality. This is the section where I talk about the confined reality and the singularity.
It’s a shame that you become defensive over the slightest challenge.
Conflict, struggle, strife are indications of desire at work, not chaos. Chaos is a state, not a force. Desire is a force not a state.
Desire moves us forward toward a new form which changes (destroys) the current circumstances creating what appears to be chaos for a time. Chaos has no observable form at that moment…chaos is relative, not eternal.
I don’t think he is being defensive at the “challenge”, rather that you are wrapped up so tight in your own personal paradigm and concepts that you are not seeing what is being said.
Interesting that any idea outside of 100% agreement is discounted as invalid. Sounds like Fascism to me.
Perhaps, a better argument for the OP’s conceptual universe is in order, which is precisely what was requested.
“Interesting that any idea outside of 100% agreement is discounted as invalid”
Do you really not see what you just did there?