Hey , bout the change thing, yeah, I know, you're right! it's not going to be a piece of cake. It wasn't before, when I did some change, so I know it is going to take a lot of work for sure! I did take this time went I was all down in the dumps to check what was incoming in my head and now that I feel better I am going to continue with the work. I am sure I'll have some freak outs and boohoo, but you know, work in progress kind of deal right?

I do agree about the importance of balance as well.

cheers!

T

Hi malign, you're right, I think alot of us fail to see the middle ground. I know I do, it's black or white. It's kind of like think before you speak, don't just react? There's more than one answer. I suppose you're right, just because somethings wrong doesn't mean everythings wrong, we are all flawed but that doesn't mean we're either bad or good. I guess it's just easier to see in black n white, it is more work to have as you put it "equilibrium". It's definitely something to think about and work towards.

This reminds me of the Teachings of Buddha where the reader is encouraged to focus on the circumstances. In other words, is there such a thing as an enemy? Good and evil? When one examines these terms in relation to the circumstances around oneself, he realises that these terms are relative in nature. There is no true, timeless enemy. There is nothing that can be construed as truly good or evil. It is only in relative terms that people can apply this attribution to others. So too for situations, as some may give reason for humans to say that it is evil or good. But, such a situation is compared to others in order to make that claim.

Thus, I think the point is to refrain from applying extreme labels to people, items, or situations as such labeling often leads to extreme thoughts and actions.

What I like about malign's chemistry analogy is that the two are present together, in a state of dynamic equilibrium. With such an understanding, "negative" is in a dynamic relationship to "positive;" they are in flux at the micro level, like a chemical solution of A and B in a test tube, but they are also an equilibrium of C at more of a macro level. How often do we take the view of "C" when we are stuck being polarized by a viewpoint of "positive" v "neagative?" If you take the elegant pattern of the yin/yang symbol and regard it as a whole, it is a third thing, C, if I am getting the analagy right. If we see our own positives and negatives as a pattern that fits together dynamicly and elegantly into a C, does that change us, I wonder?