Coming Full Circle

I'm glad to hear, Bruce, that you agree with me that "studying the nature of darkness is a useful endeavor." Actually, I never meant to argue for the value of studying darkness per se; what I think is of value is to study the nature of what is. And in our dualistic universe, half of what is is of the light, and half is of darkness. So if we are going to take a look at what is, then about half of it will appear rather dark. My point was that I think it's important not to turn our gaze away from what is on account of it being dark. If we are to understand, we must persist in our looking, regardless of how pleasant or unpleasant the view may be.

With your latest post, Bruce, it seems to me you have pretty much come around to the position of RichM with which I started this thread. You write, "When I have a reaction to something that is happening out there, I can always find something similar within myself." Compare that to RichM's assertion that "it’s not really Bush who’s ruined our country.... Bush is the natural & inevitable product of the true nature of US society; he’s a perfect reflection of it." Are you two not saying essentially the same thing? RichM says the problem is not Bush, it's the American people. Bush reflects American society. You say the darkness that is out there is not the darkness of concern to you; it is the darkness within yourself which concerns you. The outer darkness reflects your inner darkness.

This is what I found so provocative about RichM's contention: that it's not Bush, it's us. And now I hear you saying pretty much the same thing: it's not the outer darkness that's important, it's the inner darkness.

So your final position is one of essential agreement with the opening position (of RichM) of my first post in this thread, a position to which you were strongly opposed for some time. Interesting, no?