Bookin' it.

[Shavis]

I've noticed that there is a decided lack of Balance in the pagan/new age area of modern literature. This saddens me as it perpetuates the fluffy standard and makes people with a somewhat darker take on the world less likely to avoid persecution at the hands of other pagans. As such I have decided to try writing a book concerning the value of Chaos and Shadow in contemporary practise. Any ideas/comments/feedback on the concept would be welcome.  

[TeaDidikai]

Good idea. What is your jumping off point? Toss out some assertions and give us something to comment on.  

[bobz]

Hum, maybe it's just me but I have seen a few books on Chaos and Shadow around and they seem just as fluffy as the "Happy bouncy all is well" Books only at the other end of the spectrum.
Shouldn't a book on balance be on.... Well balance? dedicate half the book to the light side, include things you feel may have been left out on this, then swing the book down into Chaos and Shadow so you can make a truly compelling argument as to their values.  

[TeaDidikai]

It makes me wonder if the aim is "Anti-Fluff" darkness, what are you looking at? Serious Infernalism?  

[Shavis]

Fire and Death no. I'm pursuing balance as seen from Chaos. Infernalism is way off from what I'm trying to cultivate. What I'm trying to do is show the necessity of Balance and what that means from a Chaosian perspective. My big point to get across is that reliance on one side or the other is foolhardy and dangerous and that bothsides have their values. I just see all these books written by some misguided Lightwalker or another and feel the need to counterpoint that in a mature, intelligent manner so that people understand that one side is not "good" and the other "bad", but both are necessary and good and bad are subjective terms. Not all Chaosians are psychotic, overreacting morons, not all lightwalkers are enlightened, well spoken saints. In fact I've seen more of those walking the Shadows than the Light. It's not that I want to necessarily portray one side as superior I just want both sides to be equally represented and considered. I do like bobz' Idea and will strongly consider a balanced book. Thank both of you for your current and any future input.  

[bobz]

Wheee, wibbly and other such nonsensicalities ^_^

I like the idea of persuing balance as seen from chaos. But remember that Chaos isn't really really dark, it's neither left nor right. More of an empty-handed wibbly poking the red button to see what it does kinda path, though showing its dark side and light side in the same book would be a pretty good idea.... Prehaps we'd need some other topics to throw in as topics?

Shavis

Not all Chaosians are psychotic, overreacting morons

Hehehe, those that are generally end up blasting themselves at some time (especially if they're morons)  

[Shavis]

In a strict sense neither Chaos nor Order is Dark or Light, I simply use those terms as a simplifier so as to more efficiently communicate my meaning. Chaos is Dark in the sense that it is a consuming force, even as it creates it must necessarily destroy. Whereas Order has stock in neither Creation nor Destruction, simply preservation and so is easily associated with Light. My desire in the book is to point out that Destruction is not just good, it is necessary, a fact that many modern peoples refuse to accept. They associate Chaos with negativity and that is not only innaccurate, it's not healthy. I do appreciate the comments. Please, if anyone has anything to say don't hesitate.  

[bobz]

Well an extreme of anything can be seen as negative, In total chaos everything's being created and destroyed without reason or any semblance of order It can be pretty, but it's fairly unpleasent.
On the other hand, Total order? Everything stops. Nothing moves, everything's perfect and nothing is out of place.
And nothing happens, nothing at all.  

[Shavis]

I'm aware of this, what kind of chaosian would I be if I wasn't.  

[bobz]

Probably a very bad one. I apologise if I seemed to be trying to educate. Look on that post more as a mental burp on the nature of chaos and order that wanted to be written down than as me trying to tell you any better. After all, you're the one writing the book.  

[Shavis]

I didn't figure you were trying to be condescending. I just wanted to point out the feel.  

[crystal_raye]

I don't have any advice but I can say I'd be more than willing to read it when you get it published.  

[Starlock]

I strongly suggest you take a look at Empedocles' ideas regarding Love and Strife (as well as many other areas of Greek philosophy), for they're very similar in many ways to Order and Chaos. While Empedocles is best known for being the first to propose four arche to the cosmos instead of just one, his more interesting stuff involves the forces of Love and Strife. The four roots themselves are ungenerated and indestructable, qualitatively unalterable, and homogenous throughout. Through movement and division using the forces of Love and Strife, they create the various matter of the cosmos.

Love represents attraction between dissimilars and Strife attraction of like to like. Though Love is said to unite and Strife to divide, in actuality, in many respects Love divides (dissasociating like from like) and Strife unites (association of like to like). Empedocles thus introduces the idea that unity is not essential and that motion and change are vital forces of the cosmos. Prior to Empedocles, you don't see these themes as strongly. These ideas have some interesting implications with regards to the topic you're studying. This way of looking at the cosmos leads to a very balanced outlook on the nature of Creative/Love/Order and Destructive/Strife/Chaos forces. You could easily do a Ph.D. on the topic; I'm sure there is a wealth of mythology in cultures around the world that deal with the relationship of Order and Chaos.  

[Shavis]

I'm familiar with Empedocles. I like his concepts I just think he has interesting stances on things that I have a hard time embracing. I personally prefer a combination of Heraclitus and Parmenides.