Well i asum that no one has found any specific books not even related to this subject?

Can you be more specific? Are we talking about the interplay of light and shadow dynamics in physics or software simulations, or more of the philosohical dynamicism of spirital concepts? Star Wars plays with Buddhist philosophies of the light and dark sides of the Force, but the more common Ying/Yang concept can also be found in Taoism and various eastern philosophies.

The Dao De Jing (Tao Te Ching), and Zhuangzi (Chuang-Tsu), would be a good start. Nothing's going to get as specific as you want it to be, i.e. everything about light and shadow or darkness or whatever, but Daoism, those are the two major texts, will hit on duality a lot. For example, here's chapter 3 of the Dao De Jing, Robert Henricks translator.

"1. By not elevating the worthy, you bring it about that people will not compete.
2. By not valuing goods that are hard to obtain, you bring it about that people will not act like thieves.
3. By not displaying the desirable you bring it about that people will not be confused.
4. Therefore, in the government of the Sage:
5. He empties their minds,
6. An fills their bellies.
7. Weakens their ambition,
8. And strengthens their bones.
9. He constantly causes the people to be without knowledge and without desires.
10. If he can bring it about that those with knowledge simply do not dare to act,
11. Then there is nothing that will not be in order."

This is more political rather than mystical/spiritual, though you could certainly interpret it that way. Laozi's point is that one thing brings about another, e.g. if everybody's pretty much on the same level, nobody needs to steal. But if somebody has something that's valuable and somebody else wants it, well there you go. Here's part of Ch. 2.

"1. When everyone in the world knows the beautiful as beautiful, ugliness comes into being;
2. When everyone knows the good, then the not good comes to be.
3. The mutual production of being and nonbeing,
4. The mutual completion of difficult and easy,
5. The mutual formation of long and short,
6. The mutual filling of high and low,
7. The mutual harmony of tone and voice,
8. The mutual following of front and back—
9. These are all constants."

Again, the point here is that these things are mutually productive. In order to say something is beautiful, there must be a "not beautiful", i.e. ugly, for them to be different from. You can't have one without the other. You might check out the articles on Laozi and zhuangzi in the Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy.

http://plato.stanford.edu

Translations of these texts should be available online. Oh also, the Yijing, I Ching, if you want a divination system based on duality to study. There's also a lot of duality in other systems, but I don't know that there's a general resource on it. Also I think you need to be careful not to boil everything down to a duality, i.e. one thing or the other.

Sorry I didn't answer the question about Buddhism. That requires thought and I'm too tired to go do research at the moment. If you're still interested and I haven't gotten back to you on it, post here and I'll see it eventually. Offhand though, Buddhism isn't really concerned about light and whatever, the two big things would be attachment and nonattachment or ignorance and what usually gets translated as enlightenment. But it really doesn't have much to do with light. It's kind of complicated really.

Very briefly, Hinduism tends to be essentialist, in other words, only a thing that has its own essence, is itself in and of itself, is real. Buddhism says that's not true, look for a self and you won't find it. But thinking the self is real leads to all kinds of problems. So getting that view, and there are a *lot* of different schools of thought on how to do it and what it means to have it, is what frees you from those problems, and that's what Buddhism is trying to do. According to some schools even calling it a view is wrong and you should get to the point where you've abandoned views. I did say it was complicated.

It's kind of both. Both texts comment on rulers, in various ways, quite a bit. But let's stick to Laozi and try to untangle this.

Look at the part about valuable objects. If you have a gold plate, let's say, and that's seen as valuable, what happens? Well, now you have more value, money for us basically, than other people. You're probably going to get things with that like status. Get enough of it, and you have more power to do stuff, buy more things, potentially influence people, you get the idea. Laozi's point is that once we set up something like that, this object is valuable or this material, e.g. gold, is valuable, we've now set up a situation where somebody has more value, and somebody doesn't.

What's going to happen, according to Laozi, is that people will want the valuable thingy. Now we've got problems. So what's the solution? Basically, don't have one. How do we do this? Keep people's bellies full, make them ignorant. But in order to understand this, you need to understand a bit about Daoism and Confucianism. In Confucianism, you're not a real human being until you're carved into shape by Confucian education. Confucian education has a lot of stuff about dealing with rulers. So right there, you're getting this thing, the ruler is superior to you and so on.

What Laozi is probably arguing for here is something like this.

1. Dualities can cause problems, valuable objects mean some people have less value and will want more value, in the form of said valuable objects for themselves.

2. But if you don't have the intellectual framework that gives rise to these valuable objects, you won't have the problem.

3. Keep people's bellies filled, i.e. give them economic security, and enhance this by not making valuable things that will make them ambitious to have said valuable things, and you'll have a better society.

However, here's a bit on duality from Ch. 1.

"3. The nameless is the beginning of the ten thousand things;
4. The named is the mother of the ten thousand things.
5. Therefore, those constantly without desires, by this means will perceive its subtlety.
6. Those constantly with desires, by this means will see only that which they yearn for and seek.
7. These two together emerge;
8. They have different names yet they're called the same;
9. That which is even more profound that the profound—
10. The gateway of all subtleties."

My understanding goes something like this. The nameless, i.e. the Dao, is where everything starts. But obviously, the ten thousand things have names, trees, cars, houses and so on. The named is the mother because that's kind of how we get things, we name them and differentiate them. But these aren't really things you can separate, because they're all part of the whole. But focusing on one of them, the named, will just lead you into desiring things, there's that problem again. Focusing on the nameless will let you get out of that and see things in a different way.

See how the political and spiritual are fitting together here? The political stuff, e.g. making objects valuable and the problems that result, is people focusing on desires. Not only are they focusing on the ten thousand things, they're saying that some things are more special than other things. And what are they getting out of it? More desires. Some people desire their valuable stuff. They desire to keep their valuable stuff, so now they have to figure out how to potentially fight off the people who want their desirable stuff. They're focusing on desires, and that's exactly what they're getting out of it. Say social, if you don't like political, but Laozi in the third chapter is, as I see it, extending this part of Ch. 1 into the real world. We have real world problems because of it, how do we solve them? Essentially what Laozi's saying is that if we're all making roughly the same decent living, I probably won't get pissed that my neighbor has forty gold statues in their house. Don't make them valuable, and who cares, it would be the same as if my neighbor had forty plastic statues painted gold in their house.