maskormenace | 2nd Oration / Voice

Entry tags:

2nd Oration / Voice

[Dooku's voice on the Network is difficult to miss: deep, resonant, rich, and inexplicably British despite him being from space.]

Good evening, my friends. As his probation officer, I feel it is my duty to inform you that Death the Kid has departed from this universe.

[Pause]

A pity, really. He only had a few days remaining on his sentence. I was looking forward to recommending his freedom from government supervision.

Now then, there is another matter I wish to discuss. I have been considering the role of emotion in the matters of power. ImPort abilities often seem tied to how we feel. Passions such as anger and fear can threaten our control, yet they can also spur our powers to greater heights in times of need.

In my Galaxy, there are two philosophies which have debated these issues for many thousands of years. One believes in the denial of passion. They insist upon tranquility and harmony. It is their belief that only a calm heart, without attachments, can attain true wisdom in serving others. They do not even allow themselves to fall in love...

[The Count's voice drops slightly, becoming a touch darker.]

The other perspective calls this a lie. It accepts passion as the truth of all living things, and draws power from it. It teaches that even the strongest of emotions can be embraced, and disciplined, and used to great effect.

I would be interested to know what my fellow imPorts think on this matter. Are our feelings to be repressed, or embraced? Which path do you believe will lead to greater fulfillment?

[Talk to the Sith Lord about feelings, Network. Also, if you're tagging him for the first time it's a good idea to check out his permissions post!]

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

What, no middle ground? No grey area?

Simple: They're both wrong. An extreme is an extreme, no matter what direction one throws themselves in, and people that adhere to such foolishness are far too easily manipulated.

Edited 2016-05-05 21:37 (UTC)

When I was younger, I would swear by logic, but my decisions were primarily led by passion. They weren't usually good decisions, and I think the fact that I denied where they were rooted tended to make them worse.

Logic and passion can't be disconnected and dichotomized the way we always want them to be. We operate better when they're in balance.

I'm sure it's the common answer, but... Both sides sound flawed. Without attachments people lose sight of what they were trying to protect. But there are emotions that aren't productive, no matter how disciplined you try to be.

[ HITTING

SO CLOSE TO HOME ]

Passion is called the spice of life; I think it's quite sad not to allow yourself to love and to have attachments. These are what makes life important, at least to me. However, passion can blind you and not always so easily controlled, even if you believe you can control it.

I think it's a matter of balance between the two.

[ this is all fine and dandy, except Sasaki represses everything like you wouldn't believe ahahaha............. ]

I'm honestly quite amused by the wisdom demonstrated by your audience. It would seem our peers embrace a more open minded approach to life. Surely you aren't implying that such narrow philosophies are only reserved for yourself?

What about you?

Anyone that claims wisdom like that is a fool.

"Wise men" would sell out their own family in the name of righteousness.

I don't believe in picking one thing over another. Especially not something like this. Informing your decisions with emotion is important, but you also need to think of things in order of priority.

Pushing away my own nature would have gotten me killed eventually. The only way to go is accept it. I try to keep balanced in between.

There are some in my Galaxy who walk a Grey path, between the two philosophies. But they have always been few in number.

It is a difficult balance to maintain, you see. Sooner or later, most individuals feel the pull toward one side or another.

There is wisdom in what you say. Rigidity is a weakness easily exploited.

But it is the nature of most beings to crave stability and purpose in their lives, to seek structure to help define them. Perhaps that is why so many submit to one point of view or another, despite the risks of excluding other perspectives.

Congratulations. You just defined religion.

A familiar tale. That has always been among the great weaknesses of the first philosophy I mentioned. To deny passion is not to eliminate its influence.

And yet members of that order so often claim to serve balance. They presume to spread it in the Galaxy around them, despite the imbalance within themselves. And so they fail: their decisions much like those of your younger self, with consequences to match.

That is indeed a common response. Yet these philosophies have not endured for thousands of years without having answers at the ready for such challenges.

For example, the path of denial might warn you against attachment narrowing your vision of what needs to be protected... against emotion influencing you into defending your friends above a greater good. And the other path teaches that there are no inherently undesirable emotions: only undesirable actions.

These debates have continued for a very long time amongst the stars. No final answer has been determined... at least, not yet.

[Dooku smiles. He made this post with people like Sasaki/Kaneki in mind, and this is entirely a desirable reaction. Especially considering what he knows about the depths of Kaneki's repression...]

I quite agree. Controlling passion without denying it is a mighty task. But it is a challenge that must be faced, if a being wishes to experience a truly fulfilling life.

These philosophies have commanded the history of our Galaxy for a very long time, Ambassador, as you are well aware. Perhaps our fellow imPorts are indeed wiser than so many others who have lived in your time and mine... or perhaps the tension between the two exists for good reason.

Not all beings can share your... flexibility.

[The Count half-smiles and adopts the pose of a reflective old man, looking back over a long life.]

I have walked both paths during my lifetime. But as of late, I have come to believe more in the second perspective. Our feelings are a vital part of us all. And it is possible for us to embrace them without being dominated by them.

I see. I have known many supposedly wise beings who would indeed act in the way you describe.

I take it then, that you are a person who values close connections above any abstract ideals?

A perfectly sensible approach, Riku. But I am sure it is challenging to continue such a balance.

Might I ask what nature this is, whose rejection might have destroyed you?

Edited (repetitive wording!) 2016-05-06 14:48 (UTC)

[The Count chuckles. He can appreciate a dry wit.]

Did I, really? Or did I also define politics and philosophy? Or even sport and friendship as well?

People find their purpose where they must. And while there is strength in flexibility, there is also power in commitment.

Commitment without critical thought sours quickly, turns bonds to bondage.

As have I.

[ His voice has a bitter cut to it. ]

Yes. The men and women around you are flesh and blood, real. An ideal is good in theory but pure idealism is just another word for delusion.

[ thank you sensei ]

Though it's important to remember that not all of our passions are... well, healthy so to speak. [ like loving to kill? not really a good thing to be passionate about ]

Commanded. Yes. In an endless cycle of self destruction. Because neither side was willing to give on the ideas both held as absolutes. Because neither side was willing to allow themselves to be open to the idea of a greater truth.

[This was starting to get a bit personal. And perhaps the network wasn't the best avenue to peruse this debate. Especially seeing as he was trying to keep his history and abilities out of the public eye

And yet, something had to be said. He couldn't ignore a session of Sith recruitment 101 happening and leave it be..]

[That hits a little too close. Well, he should have expected that, talking philosophy.]

Maybe that would be true, if people could really separate emotions and actions that completely. Isn't that almost the same as the first philosophy?

Well, if there were such an easy compromise, I suppose there's no way it would have been debated for so long. "Yet"... Do you expect they'll finally reach an agreement, then?

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

Page 1 of 14

2nd Oration / Voice

text;;

Audio

voice.

voice

[ Video ]

Voice

video;

audio;

no subject

text

Audio

Audio

voice.

voice

[ Video ]

Voice

video;

audio;

no subject

Audio

Audio

audio;

[ Video ]

no subject

no subject