Some say that it is not motivation that drives a person to become one of either of the paths of Light or Dark, but that it is the intent.
This is a perfectly understandable response, but it seems little thought through to me and I have yet to see it backed up with sufficient reasons or justifications. This logic of ours attempts to pin down one word which can easily guide us in our understanding of the system. The only problem that I have found with this is that one word is never enough, indeed it could be argued (and has been done - though it defeats the point of even trying, so I will not put any time into an explanation) that no amount of words will ever be enough and that even one word is to much.
Intention, much the same with motivation can be questioned over the conscious and subconscious as to whether or not there are any ulterior motives that maybe even the person in question does not know about.
So with both motivation and intention you would first have to sort out whether or not a person is defined by their conscious choices, or if they are defined by all the things that go on in their subconscious. Even after you do that, it can be hard to draw the line between the two and figure out which truly exist and which are pure imagination.
So what it seems like to me is that motivation and intention are processing factors.
Take a person. They have their root mind set. They come into contact with a set of stimuli and the mind-set will interpret it and form a perception of it. This is the first area where we have an option open for people to differ as the idea of sides depicts, though it is by no means firm that this is the only option. The validity of the other options depends on whether or not the resulting responses incurred by the person are determined specifically by the perception that is made at the root stage, or whether the responses are open ended to be influenced in a number of ways regardless of the perception formed at the root stage.
So we have two possibilities. The first being that the response being determined by set mental routines as a result of what the perception of the stimuli is. The second possibility is that the perception can be processed via any number of flexible mental routines in order to produce a vast number of responses.
Now to tie this in with motivation and intention, in the first instance say for example that a person made a remark that you find offensive. This perception that it is offensive can then directly influence your response. Say your set mental routines dictate that you can simply allow the offense to glance off you without making a mark. The extreme alternative is that your set mental routines dictate a violent and aggressive revenge response.
If this was the case then your motivation for both outcomes is that you found the comment offensive, and the intention is to respond appropriately to the stimuli, these are both dependent on the perception that is formed at root. All the paths and routines after the formation of the perception of offense at root are fixed and it is only a matter of the perception working its way through the pathways logically like a computer works through its calculations. Here, the only place that we have leeway for the basis of the different aspects is at the point where the perceptions form in that a 'Light' person would form a different perception from a 'Dark' person and indeed I have seen some who classify themselves as 'Light' be unable to form any intense kind of hatred as some of those who classify themselves as 'Dark' so this would back up that idea.
Now I mentioned that these pathways are fixed in, however if this is the case then it may be possible through rigorous self-training and hard work for one to alter these pathways, but the timescale is insignificant to be able to alter the path of any decision making that would result in a change in the response that is formed.
Now to the second possibility. The perception is formed, and the fixed pathways are still there, but they are interlinked and many are open. At any stage an intermediate decision could push the final decision to a massively different response. These intermediate decisions can occur either consciously or subconsciously by factors such as our friends motivation and interpretation.
Here there is plenty of scope for all number of factors to have an influence on what aspect a person could be classified as. If a person is inclined to choose a specific path over another, and whether or not they are capable of implementing that choice are just some examples. This of course opens up the argument that each person has the same capabilities to make the same choices and create the same responses be they an act of kindness or hatred and that separation into 'aspects' is short-sighted.
I myself think the system is complicated enough without adding the complication of aspects to it, but then don't I do just that by classifying myself as a Shadow? Yes and no is the simple answer to that. People may interpret that the Shadow is another side and that would add to the complication, yet on more than one occasion you may have seen me say that the Shadow is independent of the 'sides' and operates on a different level. There are many reasons for that but one is as follows.
I use the title of Shadow to represent that the sense I find in the classification system does not fit my way of thinking. Instead of thinking of the Shadow that I represent as another category of people, think of it as an alternative category of people that are outside of that classification as it would be nigh on impossible to pin a specific classification on us, regardless of whether factors such as motivation and intention have any effect on the system.
With that final note I bid you adieu.