The way of control is in the way of the controlled. The concept of control is what prevents control. It implies something must be controlled.
Perhaps an experiential example… They have tested this under functional magnetic resonance imaging (FMRI). They have deliberately set up a pattern recognition test. In the test they set up a group to participate in the testing, but only one is a test subject. The rest are knowing controls.
While under FMRI, they flash a set of three dimensional shapes in front of the group and ask people to identify them. When the controls identify them correctly, the test subject tends to identify them correctly also. But when the controls identify the shapes incorrectly, the test subject most often tends to identify them incorrectly also.
It used to be believed that this was from a fear of standing out from the group, because this test was previously done without benefit of FMRI technology, but they have discovered this is not the case. The person, when they are dealing with the conflicting message from the group, has the center of their brain responsible for object identification kick in overtime. It generates a “virtual” impression. The person honestly perceives as the group perceives. In hindsight, they can recognize that they were incorrect, but they don’t know why they answered incorrectly. This sound like nonsense?
Did anyone not conform with the group in that test? Yes, but everyone experienced some degradation of their response. Our social awareness is so all pervasive that it governs a large part of our conscious awareness. We are wired to be social. It even goes down to the genetics.
Now the temperament issue is not conscious. People don’t easily identify as anything much more than members of their respective groups. Is this fair to say?
We respond to the ones we perceive to be alpha. Alphas tend to show signs of mania. This is part of the reasoning behind the philosophy of the “left hand” path.
Like my pack of dogs obey the smallest one, and yes, she is nuts. Yes, it likely frenzies the most.
Now to bring this back on topic, the reason those who favour the light paths don’t show the “character defects” of those who follow a dark path is that they experience a sense of safety and well-being in catatonia. Their sense of biological homoeostasis is best served by quietude if they must compromise, but that quietude can be seen as consent. Is it really freedom from evil?
Some say the greatest evil is non-action.
There are those who because of their biochemistry and neural architecture are driven to action, exertion of their will in any situation they are aware of. Now wisdom would require moderation, but can they learn this moderation from those who follow the light?
I don’t see how they could relate to them. It’s like telling an action oriented person to do sitting meditation. They begin to get depressed, because they fail at ways that their body and brain just aren’t set up to handle. Where is the humanity in common? What common ground can conversation take place on?
Your thoughts are welcome. Be well friends.