"Darkness is impossible to remember. Consequently [explorers] desire to return to those unseen depths where they have just been. It is an addiction. No one is ever satisfied. Darkness never satisfies. Especially if it takes something away which it almost always invariably does." (From the work of fiction "House of Leaves" by Mark Z. Danielewski.)

I don't know to what extent I agree; or disagree. To better understand, I would like to begin before the addiction takes hold.

Why would someone desire to explore any depth of any darkness for the first time? I do not believe that all initial explorations are involuntary. And I do not believe that all initial, involuntary experience results in exploration. I believe if one is thrust into a depth of darkness involuntarily that it is possible for fear and desperation to drive them to blindly lash out and claw their way back to some semblance of light. This instinctive avoidance, (whether frenzied or composed), will not allow for exploration.

So if one is an explorer, either they are thrust into darkness, their eyes are opened, and they choose to explore; or they seek darkness specifically to explore with open eyes. And if one is afraid of the dark, their eyes remain closed and they will never understand reality. So regardless of the circumstance of darkness, exploration is voluntary. But the question remains, "Why would one seek darkness?"

I believe the answer to be, "For Balance." Darkness and Light is a balancing act that will involve fusion and/or alternating immersion. A proper balance encourages and (for some) requires an exploration (of both), which in turn requires effort. Darkness alone typically requires effort; whereas Light alone can result in quiescent warmth and comfort. A total lack of effort, or any imbalance in the effort expended toward each, can result in a warped sense of reality; especially over extended periods of activity. I also believe that a serious exploration of Light will ultimately lead one to understand the importance of an equally serious exploration of Darkness.

So it appears that a voluntary exploration of Darkness is typically preceded by some degree of exposure to Light. After saying this, it feels like a "Duh" moment, because it is obvious that there must be Darkness for there to be Light, and I believe that my instinct leads me first to Light. They need each other, if for no other reason than the sake of definition; and, a serious exploration of one, cannot help but involve the other. So rather than an encouragement to seriously explore Darkness, I believe I am simply encouraging myself to continue with serious exploration; and I am acknowledging that questions raised will naturally lead in and through varying facets of both Darkness and Light.

Further following this line of thought, I might argue that Darkness is less an addiction than it is a necessity for serious thought and for additional serious exploration. I can see how another may interpret it as an addiction from the quiescent comfort and warmth of their (well-lit) sideline, and/or by focusing exclusively on any imbalance favoring Darkness. But as a counter-thrust, I agree that Darkness never satisfies, and I would also argue that Light never satisfies. Those who believe otherwise, (in either case), have a warped sense of reality.

I can make a similar claim regarding the initial premise that "Darkness is impossible to remember." If Light is not also impossible to remember, why is it so commonly and frequently misremembered? I could further argue (from experience) that the echoes from Darkness are a more accurate reflection than those from Light, and the reverberations (again, from Darkness) resonate more soundly and deeply (than those from Light). (And are these observations perhaps an argument that "A proper balance of Darkness and Light" actually implies the necessity for an appropriately greater amplitude of Light? Perhaps; but never, exclusively, Light.)

And finally, I must also argue against the assertion that Darkness "almost always invariably" takes something away. I believe it possible that it, (whatever "it" is), is not taken away, but rather it is lost; or perhaps even, intentionally left. But I do agree that one emerges from Darkness with a sense of tangible loss; and an echo of reality; an echo difficult to replicate in Light; a dark echo that resonates.

Darkness allows one to see that no one is ever satisfied because one should not ever be satisfied.

Darkness allows one to see that it is impossible for one to remember because the past is merely an echo.

Darkness allows one to see that one's sense of loss is created by one's inability to grasp Perfection.

Darkness allows one to see...