Perhaps more than ever there has been a strong effort to divide individuals into one of two categories. Those two categories can be anything and their polarity can be designated by whatever common sense reasoning or regard there is for a viewpoint, outcome, or situation. The first article in The Perspective Essays deals with this topic. How is it that the current construct allows for only two of anything in choice?
Something is either “good” or “bad,” “right” or “left,” “red” or “blue,” etc. Pardon for saying but the whole thing can be downright nonsensical. Only two of anything in a universe of illimitable possibilities? One of the things the book states is that the universe does not end where Earth’s atmosphere begins (“Duality, Restriction, and Division”, page 38). How could it? A layer does not separate infinite awareness and possibility. That may be dismissed by some people but regardless of what they think, it does not stop it from being the case.
Another thing the book analyzes is how some actions in the current construct that are harmful (or deemed harmful, depending on the individual and situation) are justified as “bad” without understanding the circumstances and situations that led to the act in the first place. The book states that it is not to say that one should or shouldn’t agree with something that they oppose (again, the duality of “should” and “shouldn’t”). The book states:
“By rejecting an idea, rejecting parts of it, or accepting all of it, it is not so much of lining things up as ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ but understanding the degree of acceptance to a possibility.”
The book states that something that one finds objectionable is considered “wrong.” For example, most people consider paying taxes as objectionable and hence because it is objectionable, it is wrong. Pickled beets are objectionable to a great many people. Are pickled beets “wrong” because they are objectionable to some people? Is it a matter of degree in action, harm, regard, or principle that makes some physical thing or idea “wrong?” What isn’t being understood about the situation and about the processes that lead to its existence? How is the individual mentality cornering itself to consider something as “right” or “wrong,” “blue” or “red,” etc and how did it become that way?
Perhaps what isn’t being considered in all of this is principle. Every human being has a principle or a set of principles that vary throughout their life experience. Some principles stay the same while others vary to some degree or another. It does not matter how much others accept those principles and to what degree. It is the social construct and the overall consciousness of a species (in this case, the human species) that declares through whatever standard or reasoning that something is this or that, or that it has to be regarded in that manner as a matter of principle, again.
1) (Revised) Thinking retroactively, how can a willfully harmful situation be analyzed so that its effects are lessened or thwarted altogether? How can action and thought be analyzed to create benevolent and life-affirming actions and results, thereby eliminating the need to argue whether something is “right” or “wrong?”
2) When it comes to personal standards, why does one accept what they do about things to declare them either “right” or “wrong?”
3) What role, if any, does the social or immediate environment have over reasoning? For example, what effect would the institutionalization of individuals have on not just those who have not been institutionalized but on the clash of different institutionalized beliefs? Likewise, what effect, if any, would the socioeconomic situation surrounding an individual impact the mentality of that individual to declare something in a dualistic “good” or “bad” manner?
The following video discusses further the topic of duality with an emphasis on the effect of institutionalization and other factors.
To find out more about the book, go to the book’s main site for information.