Darkness is a usual way of saying the absence of light. It
has been conceptualized to mean the inability to find light. But really, is
darkness so intertwined and an equal opposite with light such that both exist
independently of the other? If as we propose darkness is the absence of light
then we would have to define darkness as an equal opposite with light and would
need to explain the origin of darkness. We would also have to state the
originator of darkness and discover the “bible, Quran, or some religious book
of darkness”. Even so, would the book be made by light and read with light? Would
the writers of the so-called book of darkness be called enlightened or
“endarkened”? Even so, why don’t we have such words?
Evidently, it could be seen that therein darkness, light
exists. Hence what we then define darkness as:
“Darkness therefore is
the ignorance of the presence of light”
Based on our established facts, darkness here does not imply
only the physical darkness in its totality. Darkness is often regarded as a
contrary, a vice, a negation or any form of anti-light.
Below are some of the illustrations of what darkness really
is;
1.
Darkness
often regarded as when one closes their eyes.
2.
Darkness
is when you avoid the light.
3.
Darkness
is that casual blindness.
4.
Darkness
in totality is the destruction of a tree planted by a river and on fertile
ground that has refused to produce fruits outside its season.
Light exists in and around
everywhere, permeating all things and all concepts. Light is that end, a destination
complete in itself but is often appealed to by others. All things possess a
destination, an end, a goal, which is often colloquially referred to in that
saying “Light at the end of the tunnel”. Beside the fact that light is a
destination, it is also a path to that end. Light has no sought of dependence
on any existent because in it, it is.
Light is never absent. Could this possibly
mean that there is no darkness? As previously emphasized darkness exists in the
brightest lights. The darkness is open to those who are closed to the fact that
light permeates all. What this ignorance does is to create a misconception. We
choose not to experience or sense light. All choices we make are based on our
power. Man as I wrote on a previous article is “MASTER AMIDST NATURE” giving
him free will over himself and circumstances. Darkness or light irrespective of
which comes first to him, he as at liberty to see truth in anyone. But the very
fact that he does not perceive the light is not a stand that the light itself does
not exist.
Let’s give this analysis of the eye,
on entering into a dark room sees nothing majorly because the eye has not come
to comprehend the light, but eventually the light is comprehended. It could be
in terms of the eye being able to see or in the brain recognizing the patterns
around the place. Even the blind perceive light in their walking, and living
generally. This is what makes them live on. Why then do we say that “darkness
is the absence of light? ” If so, who took the light and where to? And even so,
light would still exist in their minds.
Rene Descartes said “cogito Ergo sum”
to mean our existence is an antecedent of our thoughts. If therefore they
perceive it, it means they are light and the light would seize to exist in them
when they are no more. But still the light lives on in the minds of those they
interacted with, “Although an imperfect immorality” as implied in Plato’s
symposium but the light is not only subjected to man.
At times we tend to make statements
connoting our ignorance of the external machine of light and so ignorantly
accept our ignorance. From the perspective of an individual in a difficult
situation it often appears that light is absent, but the reality exists in the
very fact that the individual chooses not to see the light. It is shown in the
attitudes towards the situation. Also this is seen in the example of how
physical challenged people approach life based on their physical limitation.
We also suffice it to say that what
changes when it seems light is reducing is that our exposure to light is whether
in constant flux not. When one experiences too much light, so much that he can’t
handle, he sees it to be darkness. 17th century English scientist
Isaac Newton in his laws of motion explained that “a uniform motion and rest”
usually give a similar effect. The only difference exists in the fact that the
former connotes motion. These depend on the conception of the person at that
time. It’s therefore often necessary that we examine the tides of change to
decipher what exactly we are in “the boat” or “the sea”. Only in this would we
come to understand the eternity of light and the story of darkness.
Hence in the so-called “bad
situation”, one should avoid the myopic view of such situation as being part of
the regular life, instead one needs understand that the situation is not the
issue but the reaction to the issue is the problem. This hangs on whether the
individual sees it as helpless or hopeless. We control the ball as our
perception is necessary for our interpretation of darkness or light.
“Darkness permeates the eyes of the stars through heart of men.
But light reaches the heart of darkness in the eyes of knowledge.”
Patrick
Jeffrey Ukutegbe
