Sith Code better for everyday life?

Snowy Aftermath wrote:

Lykeios wrote:

MadHatter wrote: One by definition cannot have passion and peace at the same time.

This, right here, is one of the biggest lies ever told by Jedi. Or Sith, for that matter.

You're right. And you're the first person outside of myself across several boards I frequent that seems to have realized it. Lykeios, we could start a revolution.

Lol guess you haven't read my journals.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: Lol guess you haven't read my journals.

Nope. Given our history, I put my time into other avenues. That will certainly change though (if you give me a link, that is, finding things on this board is a pain in the ass). Thank you

Snowy Aftermath wrote: Your (and most people's) tendency to build mountains on the belief that you are helpless non actor in your own experience is one of your more off putting traits, James... but this isn't about what philosophical decision we've each made about who owns our world, so I'll let it go with that.

Your response really had nothing to do with the point behind my metaphor. Not upset, just offering a suggestion to reread.

Snowy. One can both observe and act in unison, in fact in most scenarios I can think of, the best outcomes for all involved come from the ability. Be it in a physical fight, an actor in the play, the writer wielding his pen. I agree one hundred percent with your metaphor but the final part of this statement to James just made me think. Almost every person to one degree or another understands that they own their existence and the out comes of situations they want too. It may not be the same degree we recognize. I wouldn't be to fast to judge we all have mountains Snowy. I've been writing papers quite a bit today so incoherent babble was bound to slip at some point . Also, my previous edit came off a little more douchy than intended......

Just food for thought
Much Respect and Love,
Kobos

You might want to keep editing for grammar. I have no interest in persuading you to be anything but weak, but at least try to communicate well enough for the discussion.

Define weak for me? Quite the change in tone on that edit Snowy such passion when one yells at others about mountains from atop their own........

Snowy Aftermath wrote:

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: Lol guess you haven't read my journals.

Nope. Given our history, I put my time into other avenues. That will certainly change though (if you give me a link, that is, finding things on this board is a pain in the ass). Thank you

Really? That is a strange response I didn't expect. Quite honestly I wonder why you even care? You are not an active member of this board nor do you ascribe to its principles or have any knowledge of my history of contention with those principles. So why should I make it easy for you? Your a Sith right? So if you want to know, find out for yourself.

Snowy Aftermath wrote: To pretend you can have one without its counter is a wasted effort.

As a network of concepts yes, but not actual psychology IMO... short of as a reference. I tend to think concepts serve reality from both the past and the future as models of experiences, and so they don't need to manifest as experience to serve that same functional role at impacting the present or other conceptualization. A lived reality versus a philosophical reality does not need to comply to the conceptual maps which explain how things might relate beyond our temporal frame - whats most important is how the concepts relate to the present reality. So one does not need passion to have peace, but rather one needs to know of it to some extent, and that extent might have a direct relationship with their capacity for peace, IMO.

Your response really had nothing to do with the point behind my metaphor. Not upset, just offering a suggestion to reread.

My world, you're just living in it

Your (and most people's) tendency to build mountains on the belief that you are helpless nonactor in your own experience is one of your more offputting traits, James

Clearly you have not met me, I have far worse traits than that.

We can discuss them over gelato some time

Snowy Aftermath wrote:

Lykeios wrote:

MadHatter wrote: One by definition cannot have passion and peace at the same time.

This, right here, is one of the biggest lies ever told by Jedi. Or Sith, for that matter.

You're right. And you're the first person outside of myself across several boards I frequent that seems to have realized it. Lykeios, we could start a revolution.

¡VIVA LA REVOLUCIÓN!

:laugh:

Think about the painter at his canvas, there is a nuclear storm of chaos and turmoil in his head and heart, and it comes through the brush as a line, a dot, and blob, a smear... it looks like art because it is creation, but it's all part of the process. The destruction that comes from clearing a space gives the ability to create necessitates the destruction to continue creating, and around and around the cycle goes.

There is no peace without utter madness first to define it, there can be no madness that excludes a memory of peace. All harmony returns to discord, all noise returns to quiet. Magnets, pushing, pulling, defining, redefining, tangled into one another like lovers.

To pretend you can have one without its counter is a wasted effort.

I hadn't quite thought about it in that much depth, to be honest. But, very well said. The painter is a good example of passion and peace coexisting.

Adder wrote:

Snowy Aftermath wrote: To pretend you can have one without its counter is a wasted effort.

As a network of concepts yes, but not actual psychology IMO... short of as a reference. I tend to think concepts serve reality from both the past and the future as models of experiences, and so they don't need to manifest as experience to serve that same functional role at impacting the present or other conceptualization. A lived reality versus a philosophical reality does not need to comply to the conceptual maps which explain how things might relate beyond our temporal frame - whats most important is how the concepts relate to the present reality. So one does not need passion to have peace, but rather one needs to know of it to some extent, and that extent might have a direct relationship with their capacity for peace, IMO.

Italicized section is what I am primarily responding to here.

You seem to be talking about passion and peace as if they really can't exist at the same time. Is that accurate? Or am I misinterpreting what you are trying to say?