Which is the dominant source, folklore or tradition states that good overcomes evil, light overcomes darkness, Love overcomes hate. What do the physicists say is there an answer? It was postulated to me once to consider a light bulb a darkness sucker. As crazy as that sounds is it possible? Some people say that this is silly. Darkness is merely the absence of light. Anybody have any ideas.
Darkness in it’s physical sense is just that, the absence of light.
So what is the source whereby people traditionally believe that light overcomes darkness, good overcomes evil, love overcomes hate. The rosicrucian values. When it comes down to it is their a scientific formula whereby this is utterly disproved?
Those terms I’m sure were used in a metaphorical sense with an anthropomorphic type connotation behind them…i.e. the light shows the way wherein the dark will cause you to lose the way.
Light is more than you think. Darkness is internally reflected light or simply something we can’t see.
Light is what we are. All things in motion are harmonies of light.
The concepts of light/dark or positive/negative are derivatives of natural circumstances.
What is considered negative is what requires no effort to be sustained.
What is considered positive is what requires effort to be sustained.
Light, life require constant effort. They are resisting.
Ok so the idea that Light, Love, White overcomes Darkness, Hate, Black etc why or how do generations believe in this is it because they have to and the alternative is not pleasant?
We want to believe that Light overcomes Darkness because we’re afraid of what we can’t see. The truth is that Light = Darkness. We can’t have one without the other. We try to trick ourselves by making artificial light. But all we’re doing is fooling ourselves, we’re giving up something in order to have that artificial light. But we don’t know the true costs of what we give up because we don’t do circular math.
Some would argue from a romantic point of view and others from a superstitional standpoint. These ideas are eons old and still hold today. Maybe more from a romantic notion since people over time through scientific explanations have been able to account for odd occurences.
Taoists first introduced the idea of ying and yang in the east, the only source info I can find in the west stems from the rosicrucians, Above Below, Light dark, Love Hate. So we can’t have visibility without invisibility, so things that are invisible are part of vision, so sound is part of vision because it is invisible not only because we cannot see it but we imagine thought images for what we hear. But do any of you believe that one is more dominant than the other, is love for example more dominant than hate or do you all believe that both are equal and it is simply a choice value scenario?
I believe that both is equal. We create love here, hate in equal proportion is created somewhere else so the two stays equal as in Hate = Love.
Both love and hate are strong emotions being polar opposites. Where love would nurture and bring on on a positive well being, hate would harness bitterness and breed discontent. Love invokes charity, goodwill and self sacrifice which creates an affinity for social acceptance. Hate creates fear, loathing and distrust that brings on an insipid existence which makes one shunned in society.
So is there any reason, scientific or otherwise to believe that one is dominant over the other.
I’m saying that human consciousness, being a product of this flux, this growing entropic decay, has an affinity to anything that is resisting it, as it is a unity resisting it.
All positive concepts are characterized by their conflict with temporal flow.
Darkness prevails, with no effort, and so light is positive and requires constant effort.
Death is everywhere, and so life becomes this antagonism this contradiction to it.
Disorder is growing, and so ordering stands agaisnt it.
And yet the positive is defined by its opposition to the negative.
Therein lies the human concepts of opposites and dichotomy.
The positive resists, and so stands in opposition, and so becomes a representation for an ideal…the absent.
Tara, I wish I knew how this topic became one of interest so I could better answer what you want to know. I’m not sure if those two emotions can defined scientifically other than from a psychologist’s point of view. Chemical reactions in the brain probably have some control of how those emotions come about. Seeing the response of other replys here, it may be necessary to investigate the ‘net’ for more satisfying results.
I haven’t really got any relationship to the topic other than pure interest, I just saw it while reading and thought that people always claim that goodness will prevail or that light will prevail and spychologically this interested me as to whether or not a dominant source rules and has this been scientifically proven or is it myth.
Yes, in fact the opposite is true.
Is this an opinion or actual scientific proof? From what I can tell it is opinion only and therefore purely subjective, the old reliable subjectivity, always guaranteed to popup, I have not been pointed to an internationally offial scientifically proven and agreed concrete statement that says one is lesser than the other or one is equal to the other.
Try using your eyes.
You don’t need institutional approval to do that, do you?
Do you require scientific validation to think?
How sad.
I don’t know about you, but when I look into the world I see more dead things than alive. I see them remaining dead with no effort.
Maybe science can offer us validation for this, as well.
I see darkness, everywhere with pockets of light.
I see light requiring effort, a consuming, whereas darkness just is.
I see human labels, such as positive/negative, as a subjective recognition of this fact.
Now you are taking this into metaphysical territories.
The apparent, the phenomenon, is a temporal manifestation.
What requires effort, energy, is a pocket of temporality resisting the flow.