We have explored the fluffy side,now for our Dark side.

[anunitu]

This I think is seldom explored,mainly because for many it can be frightening. I believe each of us knows,even if we can't acknowledge the presence of our more sinister nature. I do know from personal experience that to confront these energy's can be, if not dangerous,very disturbing to our personal mental state. But,to fully understand your inner self,I believe you must at some time confront your inner Demons. I believe my ability to survive has at times depended largely on my dark side. I think it is the energy that makes us go on even in the depths of our despair,when it seems we are in a situation where there is no hope. Learning to control this energy is something important,because without control,it can and does lead to terrible things. The path to learning to control this darker side is not a task for you,if you cannot face just how evil the human spirit can be. Everyone has read and seen on the news just how evil people can be,Wars,killings,and worse. To gain knowledge of ourselves completely,we must understand that each and everyone of us has this evil side just below the surface of our civilized selves. I am no expert on this subject,but I have battled my own dark and deadly self,to gain mastery of this beast.

So,perhaps a light and dare I say it fluffy discussion on the matter at hand???

[B. de Corbin]

Re: We have explored the fluffy side,now for our Dark side.

Yes - if you can not swallow your own shadow, your shadow will swallow you.

I do not believe that you can actually "control" this thing. The reason why is that this thing is you, and it will be just as strong as you are - any energy you put into trying to control it is matched by energy you (unconciously) put into the shadow to fight against control.

You can, however, direct it in useful directions. That's about as much control as it will accept.

[Jembru]

Re: We have explored the fluffy side,now for our Dark side.

I also think that complete control will never be possible. However, I also think that being at least aware of your darkside, helps you to temper it and have at least control over how you express it/behave. When I was in a coven, our second degree was very heavily loaded with this psychological exploration stuff (something that in itself has been a point of debate amongst wiccans.. I remember talking at length with a solitary witch who insisted psychological exploration has no place at all in wicca/pagan witchraft. I strongly disagreed).

Oddly, it is the goth types who ONLY embrace the darker side, that is most likely to make me roll my eyes. I mean, more than the love and light type. I have this unfair stereotype and although I know some great 'dark' witches, I still can't help cringing and yes, judging, when I see someone all dressed in black, with dark eyeliner saying they work soley with the darker forces. It was this that came to mind when I read the former topic. I guess I am in my own way 'scene' or 'alternative' so I don't understand this attitude.

Incidentally, one of the techniques we used in the coven, was to consider what we hate in others.. often it reflects what we deny about ourselves. I recently became very irritated by someone who's actions I not only considered arrogant, but who was deliberately targetimng me as though to say, 'I consider my ability to be better than yours (having never witnessed me at said skill) so I'm here to piss on your bonfire and make you look foolish'. I used my anger at this person, to look at myself and saw that I have done this to others, even if I wasn't aware of my reasons! Yet, this technique doesn't work when I look at my attitude towards overly gothic pagans. Am I denying that I too am just an attention seeker who likes to shock?

[ChainLightning]

Re: We have explored the fluffy side,now for our Dark side.

Me too. I'm not so sure about controlling our darker side. It seems much more amenable to suggestion and direction than outright control. I agree though, facing it and putting it to use can be very, very important to survival at certain times in one's life.

I used to think that it was more an external kind of force. A thought that probably stemmed from my Catholic upbringing, logically. I purposefully turned that into a mischievous and curious sense of characteristic, rather than an evil or somehow bad kind of perspective. That sort of fit my impression of Loki, at the time: Always trying to goad me into pissing in Odin's drinking horn to liven up a sumble.

I came away with a better understanding, personally at least, of light versus shadow & good versus bad, a yin and yang kind of self. The stardust that we're all made from contains all that, positive and negative stuff. It's almost obvious then that we each would possess the essence of temptation, as it were.

*shrug

[Medusa]

Re: We have explored the fluffy side,now for our Dark side.

I don't consider it a 'dark side' I consider it to just be who I am. There is a difference between dark and just down right nasty and ignorant.

I consider it to be ignorant to want to hurt another for no reason or for petty reasons within the normal adult context of reasons.

I consider it to be of a darker nature to enjoy things that appaul or, repel us, frighten us..and just make us catch our breathe in acceptance of such things.

[Jembru]

Re: We have explored the fluffy side,now for our Dark side.

That was actually really beautifully worded Medusa. I think I'll even add it to my quotes section in my BOS. Rather than assume every darker character I meet, is doing it for affect, it might help to remember that many are simply being true to their nature and expressing that. That's no different to me wearing bright colours and oversized bows.

[anunitu]

Re: We have explored the fluffy side,now for our Dark side.

I have to agree Medusa,I have from time to time called up that dark energy to deal with very unpleasant people,not to hurt them,but mainly to warn them off.

[thalassa]

Re: We have explored the fluffy side,now for our Dark side.

I don't know that I really consider it to be the *dark side* so much as the primal part of ourselves that we layer in "civilization" and civility... In which case, I don't think many people "dark" or "light" actually bother to get in touch with it (imo, both of those are a wall that put up to hide our primal selves), because its pretty much the abyss.

[Jembru]

Re: We have explored the fluffy side,now for our Dark side.

So Thal, are you saying that both overly expressing the light, OR overly expressing the dark, is simply a distraction from and/or denial of, this primal (chaotic, unpredictable, but neutral?) part of ourselves? If so, it's a very interesting way of looking at it that actually rings true for me.

[Dufonce]

Re: We have explored the fluffy side,now for our Dark side.

Honestly I think you need to bring balance (to the force), rather than overpower one side with another. its not good to be too good or too evil... right in the middle is the best place i think because you can look at things objectively. see things from both angles and make conscious decisions...

[anunitu]

Re: We have explored the fluffy side,now for our Dark side.

I think balance in these matters is essential.

---------- Post added at 06:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:20 PM ----------

One perspective I would like to hear from is the Abrahamic Traditions.

[ChainLightning]

Re: We have explored the fluffy side,now for our Dark side.

Not me. I think balance is a human construct to try and control what they think they know. At least as far as my having a darker side being in balance with having a lighter side. I'm both but I'm not separated from them by anything other than a mental image. There's no balance. And no way to even create one. I'm not a balance of bone and muscle, good and bad, light and heavy. I'm a sum, a total. And part of that totality is pretty damn dark.

I dunno. I haven't spent a lot of time sorting through these as opposing forces within me, all that much. I came to a logical conclusion and that was that. Next issue. Interesting, though.

[Ophidia]

Re: We have explored the fluffy side,now for our Dark side.

I've never really had a problem embracing the worst of myself. My problem has always been the best of myself, or what society tells me is the best of myself. When I was a teenager, I was just as moody, dark and 'negative' as any other depressed, angry teenager out there. My spiritual practices were really the only time I let the light in, lol. As I got older (as in about 25 years or so), I put that old Goth persona on a shelf - but I've still got the depression, anger and a personality disorder.

I just sort of accepted that I had more of a calculating, logical personality - and in many cases, what is most logical isn't always what's 'nice' or the most helpful for other people. Most people feel good when they do good - being compassionate or kind is its own reward, that kind of thing... but it can also end up making you feel obligated to always do the right thing, even if it's uncomfortable or inconvenient. I've seen people rearrange their whole lives to accommodate someone else, and never receive anything tangible back. It made no sense to me then, and still makes little or no sense to me now, but I understand that people do get an emotional payoff for being that considerate. I worried a lot about the fact that nothing I did seemed to bring me any great emotional satisfaction. Being nice, or a 'good person', or compassionate never yielded me any emotional rewards, but neither did being an ass. Being an ass is more entertaining, and definitely more convenient, so that's the direction I've always gone in.

My frustrations about trying to understand why I never felt anything to any great depth got me to investigate Stoicism. As a philosophy, Stoicism isn't about suppressing your emotions, but about being as 'natural' as possible in your emotional reactions. It's perfectly natural, and ok, to be angry. It's ok to be sad, hurt, or happy. Emotions are natural - but people tend to over-react to their emotions. They get overwhelmed by their emotions because they never explore them, or the reasons why they're having such a huge response to their feelings. This usually isn't problematic if the emotion is a 'positive' one - happiness, satisfaction, pride... but an over-reaction to anger or pain makes people lash out at those who 'made' them feel that way. Instead of pulling back a little and working out why the other person's actions made them feel bad, people just react. Negative emotions aren't negative because they make you feel bad - that's natural, but it's bad when those feelings make you unable to move forward because you're stuck in that emotional state. Wanting revenge is natural, and sometimes vengeance is ok, but you have to move on - you can't just dwell in that place for the rest of your life. People can get stuck on the emotional highs of the positive feelings to the point where they avoid acknowledging the less rewarding emotional states. For a lot of people who 'embrace the dark side', they achieve (or try to achieve) the same emotional satisfaction from being miserable or making others around them miserable. There is a lot of satisfaction and the thrill of an adrenaline rush in anger, and that can be very attractive.

When I found out about my personality problem, it explained a lot to me, especially about why feeling good about things makes me so uncomfortable. I avoid doing anything competitive unless it's something I know I will fail. I avoid praise, and will actively sabotage myself so people will be disappointed or angry. I fall apart when good things happen because I'm waiting for the disaster that will inevitably follow. I've equated feeling good with negative outcomes, while feeling bad is my personal status quo. I have to learn how to feel good without feeling bad about myself - but for most of my developmental life, there have only been negative consequences to feeling - and showing - things like pride or satisfaction. Of course, when I was younger, it seemed like displaying any kind of emotional response, good or bad, got me yelled at or beaten, so I stopped openly displaying any responses at all. I got so good at it that it became baseline normal behavior for me. I've got to learn how to have actual normal emotional responses to events around me - but I'm finding this to be almost impossible, so instead I've learned to embrace my own mental illness. It's ok that I not feel anything when bad things happen to other people. I can be considerate of other people's feelings, even if they don't evoke anything in me. I don't have to be an ass all the time - which is something I couldn't work out for myself when I was younger.

[thalassa]

Re: We have explored the fluffy side,now for our Dark side.

So Thal, are you saying that both overly expressing the light, OR overly expressing the dark, is simply a distraction from and/or denial of, this primal (chaotic, unpredictable, but neutral?) part of ourselves? If so, it's a very interesting way of looking at it that actually rings true for me.

Pretty much. I mean...we are part of nature. It is reflected in us and though us and us through it. Nature is neither good nor bad, dark nor light...it just is. At best, you could call it chaotic neutral, I would suppose...but there is an order to it as well, one that we are a part of (and mostly (in terms of humanity as a whole) strive to be apart from). Everyone eats, everyone dies. Everyone lives too though, for their time. Dark and light are just names we give to things that make us uncomfortable. Its the clothing we put on to hide our actual selves--that part of us that is still part of nature--from one another.

Also...from reading the other comments...I don't precisely believe in a "balance". I believe in equilibrium...and despite the dictionary definition's inclusion of "balance" in definition equilibrium, they aren't precisely the same concept.

[B. de Corbin]

Re: We have explored the fluffy side,now for our Dark side.

Also...from reading the other comments...I don't precisely believe in a "balance". I believe in equilibrium...and despite the dictionary definition's inclusion of "balance" in definition equilibrium, they aren't precisely the same concept.

In my way of thinking, I would call balance (in this case) "The equal access to many aspects of consciousness, appropriately arising dependent on circumstances."

Which means that a person is in psychological/spiritual balance when he/she is able to respond appropriately in a wide variety of different situations - there may be times when going into a red rage is the best survival strategy - so you ought to be able to do it, but you shouldn't be doing that when you're holding a pet duckling.