A SHORT INTERLUDE

THE NATURE OF SHADOW AND THE NATURE OF DARKNESS:

1) SHADOW PRESUPOSES LIGHT. LIGHT CASTS SHADOWS.
When light radiates upon things, it brings them into presence . Supposedly, one of the theories of the end of the universe (cosmic death) supposses that in the end, the energy that drives the universe will "run out" and all that will be left is indeferentiated matter at low temperature -basically energy will concentrate and vibrate so low that nothing but matter will remain. Regardless of the truth or likeliness of this theory, its image is appealing. This means that the realm of being presuposes light -Aristotle: matter without form is nothing -light iluminates the form that makes matter "be something", but matter in itself is nothing -the manifestation of indiferentiation - formlessness. Form is the manifestation of something "that is", and it can be found imprinted in matter - and now, that I see from another standpoint, without matter. Indiferentiated matter, as the absolute oblivion of being. Well going to my point, beings - in this plane - "are" when light is cast upon them. And any light cast on an object makes it manifest. But this manifestation is not altogether "light": the being brought to light casts a shadow. But the shadow cannot exist without the light. The same in all things that "are": effort does not come without tiring, achievement does not come without renouncement, excellence does not come without discipline -and discipline does not come without control, which does not come without pain - light....and shadow. Therefore shadow is concomitant to manifestation (form), but manifestation is not possible without light. Manifestation and shadow here are experienced together, as forming one entity (like the two sides of the coin, of the moon, the traveller and his shadow, etc.). But the entity and the shadow are subjected to light. Shadow in itself is not shadow anymore. And thinking of light and shadow as two "separate" or "independent self sustaining things" is a misconception: one is subject to the other -shadow to light. But the soul of man can fathom something that is not in the realm of light: darkness. But darkness is not shadow, the same as oblivion is not forgetfullness: forgetfullness pressuposes the object -it will or may be remembered at a certain point (god, I forgot the keys again); oblivion is absolute "erradication" of the object from the mind - the object ceases to be in the mind -for good (like Jim Carry's movie Eternal Sunshine of a Spotless Mind, where he gets portions of his mind "destroyed" by lazer: he was seeking oblivion, not forgetfullness).

2) DARKNESS IS THE LACK OF LIGHT.
Like the Atheist I was, I saw death as the cessation of everything... and this cessation may only be called "nothingness" or "darkness". As the only light would be (in those times) my meager conciousness, with its extinguishing, all else would be extinguished.... Darkeness supreme. Now, we only have concepts for this, as we cannot think "nothingness", the same as absolute being , which we call "god" or "primum mobile" or "nirvana" or whatever, is ineffable- I guess, and this is mere opinion, the best name for it is "it". But we can feel them both, and they can influence us. Why is it that in English "light" means "the luminous" and also "that which is lacking in weight"? And why is it that when we want light, we tend to look upwards? Doesn't what is lacking in weigth tend to go upwards? And why is it that we associate weight to "matter"? Isn't gravity a pull downwards that matter exerts on things? Light irradiates, matter pulls, concentrates, and in its maximum concentration (the black hole), crushes and then swallows being: it pulls it away from light. And if we see the universe that science shows us (physics at its uttmost level), we see the quasar, as absolute irradiation and the black hole as absolute obliteration (even light is obliterated there).

3) RENOUNCEMENT AND ABANDONMENT, FORGETTING AND OBLIVION
Again, regardless of the truth or likeliness of these theories, the images that they cast on our soul are powerful. As it seems, being is cast in between these two forces -coming forth to light in manifestation, and being pulled away into obliteration. But the two verbs used here "coming forth" and "being pulled away" are different: one is active, the other passive. As if beings, between these two forces, have to exert effort to remain in being and not be swallowed and recoil into nothingness again -indiferentiated matter. These two actions can be traced into everything that is animate -thus the power they have on our souls (animas). The tree must stretch its roots down into the soil and its leaves up to the skies in search of water and light, or die and fall apart rotten. People must do things to remain living (work, move, have sex, plan, feel, etc.) or run the risk of falling apart. And it is the soul that interests me in all this - or the psyche or mind or whatever name we give to it: for as has been said before, the images of light and darkness and the actions proper to them speak to the soul; it is still to be seen if they really hold in science. And the same as the idea of fate or of animated forces seem alien to us from knowledge's point of view but speak to I don't know what realm of ourselves with undeniable force, so do light and darkness, being and nothingness. They are symbols or pointers that we discern in our dealings with ourselves and the world, and they point to our very esence. They are the movements of life itself and constitute the fabric it is made of. When life moves forward, as has been said, it does so into light and with the weight of shadow. When we move forward, there are things that must be left behind, and this leaving behind weighs on us: we must renounce to things in order to gain others. But renouncing to them means they are still there, present somehow, in memory, longing, distress or that autumnlike feeling that descends on us when we remember what was there and is there no more. Life starts to go astray and out of control, when we start to loose ourselves and abandoment begins. Abandonment and renouncement are different: abandonment starts when we begin to abandon ourselves (similarly to the feeling of rapture) to something, but this something becomes the master of us, "overcomes" us. And not just overcomes us but dominates us, begins to dictate the acts we do, the thoughts desires and feelings we have. Obsession, adiction and the like belong here. Not rapture such as the rapture in sex or the excitement for the new and unknown when we face it subduing fear: these are not properly abandonment unless "we abandon ourselves" when we let "ourselves go" abdicating from ourselves. Our life ceases to be centered on the things we have built or striven for, on ourselves, and center on that which we are abandoning ourselves to. This first comes as an object of desire, or liberation, or whatever you wish to call it, but it starts to corrode all the fabric of life: the relations, duties, actions, concerns, etc. It installs in the soul and drags it by the neck from one place to another and eventually it drags it down...

That is why the adict tastes the feeling of nothingness within, as it extends and starts to cauterize everything, not only the liver the brain or the lungs. The soul sinks into recklessness and then into indiference and then into degradation... The void fills the soul by emptying it out, flattening experience, emotion, desire, and everything else is abandoned...Nothing can be built, or cherished or nurtered, the soul begins to resemble the wasteland and the body withers, deforms, degrades.

"When you look into the void, the void also looks into you" (Freddy mustacho Nietzsche)