God, Jesus, Satan, Lucifer, Gabriel, Michael, Amen Ra, Hathor, Abraxasinas, Thubans,

[TraineeHuman]

Ortho: “Embracing your dark side” as I and Jung and the advanced forms of all the world’s religions etc mean that phrase (or similar) certainly doesn’t mean doing any destructive acts at all. I thought I’d already made that halfway clear, but apparently not. The “embracing” part refers to admitting your negative impulses to yourself – but with the result that you then don’t act on them (apart from beating up a pillow in private, etc). You don’t act on them because you’ve then – and only then! -- become aware that they can be dangerous. One thing in the background of all of this is the fact that most of the things humans do are controlled primarily by the subconscious / unconscious. As any psychologist can explain, humans mostly behave subconsciously/ unconsciously rather than with full awareness of what they are actually doing. And therefore personal/spiritual evolution always centrally involves becoming aware of things we hadn’t been aware of – particularly things about ourselves. Thus the “embracing” part means shining the light on those things, and certainly not laying further darkness on them.

The whole point about one’s “dark side” is that one is unaware of, or lies to oneself about, it’s existence. That’s why it’s “dark”, or invisible, to oneself. I could give heaps of examples, but anything that’s “ego” is the dark side. To give an example of that, consider what Dr Phil calls “right-fighting”. That term refers to the reality that many people’s approach to any disagreement is to try to prove that whatever their position is is 100% right. The only reason such people behave that way is that to them every other alternative is outside their awareness, i.e. “dark”.

The more fully one does “embrace” some part of one’s dark side, the more fully one heals it and transforms it into something positive. Here “embrace” doesn’t have the wider meaning of laissez faire, which I guess is what you’ve taken it to mean. Laissez faire parents neglect their children emotionally, and parenting of that kind sometimes creates criminals out of the kids, or at best the kids grow up psychologically messed up. That isn’t accepting (embracing) one’s kids at all. Equally, “accepting” and “embracing” one’s negative impulses means dealing with them realistically and organically and pying attention.

[orthodoxymoron]

Originally Posted by TraineeHuman

Ortho: “Embracing your dark side” as I and Jung and the advanced forms of all the world’s religions etc mean that phrase (or similar) certainly doesn’t mean doing any destructive acts at all. I thought I’d already made that halfway clear, but apparently not. The “embracing” part refers to admitting your negative impulses to yourself – but with the result that you then don’t act on them (apart from beating up a pillow in private, etc). You don’t act on them because you’ve then – and only then! -- become aware that they can be dangerous. One thing in the background of all of this is the fact that most of the things humans do are controlled primarily by the subconscious / unconscious. As any psychologist can explain, humans mostly behave subconsciously/ unconsciously rather than with full awareness of what they are actually doing. And therefore personal/spiritual evolution always centrally involves becoming aware of things we hadn’t been aware of – particularly things about ourselves. Thus the “embracing” part means shining the light on those things, and certainly not laying further darkness on them.

The whole point about one’s “dark side” is that one is unaware of, or lies to oneself about, it’s existence. That’s why it’s “dark”, or invisible, to oneself. I could give heaps of examples, but anything that’s “ego” is the dark side. To give an example of that, consider what Dr Phil calls “right-fighting”. That term refers to the reality that many people’s approach to any disagreement is to try to prove that whatever their position is is 100% right. The only reason such people behave that way is that to them every other alternative is outside their awareness, i.e. “dark”.

The more fully one does “embrace” some part of one’s dark side, the more fully one heals it and transforms it into something positive. Here “embrace” doesn’t have the wider meaning of laissez faire, which I guess is what you’ve taken it to mean. Laissez faire parents neglect their children emotionally, and parenting of that kind sometimes creates criminals out of the kids, or at best the kids grow up psychologically messed up. That isn’t accepting (embracing) one’s kids at all. Equally, “accepting” and “embracing” one’s negative impulses means dealing with them realistically and organically and pying attention.

TraineeHuman: Thank-you for explaining and expanding. I think I did grasp the basic context and application of your use of the term 'dark side'. I am painfully aware of my dark side...and I intend to continue to do battle with it...rather than embrace it...regardless of any sophisticated definitions. The existence of our inside dark side should make us very suspicious of the 'God Within'...which could be the 'Satan Within'.

On the other hand...I continue to address Lucifer in some of my comments. I'm treating Lucifer as an equal. I'm not fearful or worshipful...nor am I scornful or ridiculing. Perhaps this is my way of embracing the dark side. Jesus said to love others as much as we love ourselves...and to treat others as we wish to be treated. So...I guess I have tried to apply this to Lucifer. I try to imagine what it might be like to be this being. I find this truly frightening and upsetting. I'm sensing a very good being who tried to do the right thing...and ended up in a huge, huge mess...a bottomless pit, if you will. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. If I tried to be master of the universe...the same thing would happen to me. I might be a lot worse. Now that's a really scary thought. I keep trying to think of a way for Lucifer to retire without humiliation or destruction. How could such a being be helped to recover? Is this even possible? We don't need to replace Lucifer. We need to eliminate the job completely. Lucifer...your services are no longer required. Security will escort you to your mothership. You mother. Don't feel bad...Oedipus was one too. All of the mothers of Earth should get on this mothership...and take a tour of the universe...for recovering a$$holes. They could call it AA. I'm half joking...and half serious. I want the bad guys and gals to become good guys and gals...but they may have to leave us for a while in order to do so.

Also...thank-you Jrod7. At what point does a human cease to be a human? At what point does a grey cease to be a grey? At what point does a reptilian cease to be a reptilian? What is Lucifer...really? An androgynous hybrid from Sirius...who looks like a young human woman?