The other day I was thinking about how darkness is defined as the absence of light, and how sad that must be. You know, being defined by the absence of something. Is that really what darkness is all about? Or is it so complex that there's no right way to describe it other than the absence of its contrary? Are we too close-minded to understand it fully and we just conform with denying the existence of its antonym to define it?
Darkness is an endless void without which we wouldn't know light exists. So, why do we prioritize light over it? Is it what we can see that defines what's important? Our view on darkness says a lot about our understanding and ability to ignore things that might seem elemental to what's within reach for the human kind. To me it seems like we're just so willing to ignore it as if it were insignificant or somewhat irrelevant to the extent of our knowledge, but through the years I've realized this posture that seems to favour ignorance over questioning doesn't bring anything good to any circumstance.
We need to apply the darkness principle everywhere. We must create questions that comfort the troubled and trouble the comfortable. We need to fill our whole potential as a group of like-minded individuals who, either like it or not, depend on one another to thrive in society. We need to stop making this sad excuses for knowledge we can't fully comprehend and make a bigger effort in comprehending them before moving along to a more serious topic that involves this very concept.
