Years ago when thinking about dualism using various analogys such as magnets and the like I realised that even in thought we tend to think of things in a way that is polarised.
Notions such as Good and bad, right and wrong, up and down, you and me, us and them continuously come as a part of our normal thinking.
Then one day I met a man who was interviewing me for a job and he said as part of his modern approach to human resources was that he did not think that there was any right or wrong answers to his interview questions.

This prompted much thought about our desire to polarise our thinking possibly because we consider it to be the most efficient way to reach a conclusion. I found that thinking in terms of "black and white" tends to remove the grey thus rendering thought into two polarised points rather than allowing for infinity in variations. [ including indifference or zero]

It is however amazing how my outlook on life changed once I decreased the amount of polarisation in my speach and thought.

By claiming what would normally be bad as "Less good" or what was wrong as being "less right" places a positive slant on all these conceptions.

I wondered what others thought about this issue of polarised thought and action and whether there is any benefit to be had by taking a "less polarised" view of the world?

Care to discuss?

What if you view things, rather than as less good or less right, as more bad or more wrong?

Point is, if you are looking at things as "less right" it still inherently implies that they are moving closer to the bottom end of the scale than that which is "more right" and the bottom end of the scale is what "least right"? then why not just give it a distinct name... hmm... what about "wrong"?

It's not about duality, it's about comparative thinking and relationships.
You like this more than you like that.
This tastes better than that.
She is prettier than she.
He is a bigger asshole than he.
That car is bigger than that one.

You view everything comparitively.
If everything is based on sliding scales, naming the ends of the scales simply allows people to discuss things in a more independent manner, although where exactly each independent thing lies on that scale is affected by everything else on that scale.

Quantum Quack:

For the second time in a row(unheard of!) I agree with One_Raven, but once agian, I must add a few things.

There are somethings which are not only "less right", but "completely wrong", as well as not "greatly right" but "completely right". 1 + 1 = 2. This is completely right. 1 + 1 = 3 is completely wrong, and only relative to 1 + 1 = 4 is it less to anything in terms of that attribute of wrongness.
There are somethings, however, which are not right nor wrong inherently, but matters of opinion. This is fine. There are grey areas. Wagner is not an objectively great composer, nor Shakespeare an objectively great playwright, as such are wholely subjective notions. Moreover, there are only subjectively right answers on interview questions for a position, with "right and wrong" being based on what the company is looking for, not an objective standard fit for all times and places.

I have recently had this same kind of "revelation", so to speak. I look at things completely unbiased. Stepping outside of the box has really made the life changing decisions I've just gone through gargantuin amounts simpler. I've also noticed a substantial decrease in negative stress levels.
:m:

Quantum Quack:

For the second time in a row(unheard of!) I agree with One_Raven, but once agian, I must add a few things.

There are somethings which are not only "less right", but "completely wrong", as well as not "greatly right" but "completely right". 1 + 1 = 2. This is completely right. 1 + 1 = 3 is completely wrong, and only relative to 1 + 1 = 4 is it less to anything in terms of that attribute of wrongness.
There are somethings, however, which are not right nor wrong inherently, but matters of opinion. This is fine. There are grey areas. Wagner is not an objectively great composer, nor Shakespeare an objectively great playwright, as such are wholely subjective notions. Moreover, there are only subjectively right answers on interview questions for a position, with "right and wrong" being based on what the company is looking for, not an objective standard fit for all times and places.

Initially when considering this years ago I originally used this method or approach to things as a way of being positive and by declaring the negative as being simply less positive allowed for a better way of viewing the world.
Later as time progressed I found that this method led to a less judgemental attiude and I developed a greater balance in posing and answering the many questions I wanted answers to.

words like wrong, incorrect and negative, changed in meaning allowing a greater ability to accept other peoples opinion and answers.

For example in an open context 1+1 can equal 3 depending on what values you place on each unit, and allow a relaxation of constancy of definition.

So the ability to see things with out the normal and immediate need to polarise allows for greater philosophical discovery and greater lateral thought.

For arguements sake take the question of mind/ body dualism.
"At what point does the mind become body and the body become mind?"


Is special relativity in physics valid or not quite valid. Allowing lesser conclusivity allows growth towards greater conclusivity and allows beliefs to be held more lightly rather than firmly.

By declaring something to be less perfect for instance implies perfection where as to declare something as less than perfect declares absolutism [ perfect and imperfect ] and polarity in our judgement.
The notion of perfection becomes a floating concept rather than a absolute fixed concept, thus perfection is attainable but determined by perspective rather than an unattainable absolute.

I do understand that this may be invite less agreement than I would like but that of course doesn't make me any less happy......ha

Quantum Quack:

Whilst I won't argue that one might get some psychological benefit out of this, as I have never tried it, I will ask you this:

In standard mathematics, would it not be simply wishy-washy to say that 1 + 1 = 2 is not wrong, only "less right"?

I would also argue if accepting someone's opinion is a de facto good thing.

The notion of perfection becomes a floating concept rather than a absolute fixed concept, thus perfection is attainable but determined by perspective rather than an unattainable absolute.

Then you are not really speaking of an absolute or definition perfection, no?

Prince_James

Whilst I won't argue that one might get some psychological benefit out of this, as I have never tried it, I will ask you this:
I thoroughly recommend exploring unpolarised thought to any one. Any way what is there to loose other than obstructions to growth?

In standard mathematics, would it not be simply wishy-washy to say that 1 + 1 = 2 is not wrong, only "less right"?
In the concise field of mathematics and physics yes I agree. But in the field of philosophy and relationships I am in less agreement. [ ha.....less agreement .....hmmmmm]

I would also argue if accepting someone's opinion is a de facto good thing.
By accepting a persons opinion as valid for that person is quite a liberating experience not only for that person but for yourself.
I am not suggesting that an opinion be taken on with out critical thought I am just merely suggesting that the value of the persons opinion be treated in an unpolarised fashion thus validating the other persons esteem. It means that as a listener we become more receptive to understanding. Polarisation is often the greatest cause for disagreement when agreement is not actually needed or called for. Most discussions at this forum and others tend to be or become polarised when in fact it is just a discussion. Polarisation removes flexibility in responses and often the subtle benefits of the discussion are lost. Afterall Understanding is by far more important than agreement.
"I understand but I don't agree" position is very valid.

[Methods of interview psychology]

The thing is that most of the time agreement is not available immediately, most of the time it takes much understanding and discussion before agreement is even possible. By unpolarising our assessments we facilitate and enhance discussion.
A bit like treating everything as a hypothetical and not making any judgements until it is reasonable to do so or a judgement is actually needed.



Then you are not really speaking of an absolute or definition perfection, no?
By saying something is "less perfect" you are implying that the definition of perfection is your sole perogative as it is from your perspective that you make such a judgement. It implies that perfection is only absolute to you and you alone thus implying that the other person too has a perspective on perfection that is unique and absolute to them. It declares that perfection is a relative concept instead of implying the absolute. Thus further progress is unobstructed by an artificial or arbitary unknowable idea that is a global perfection.

Quantum Quack:

I thoroughly recommend exploring unpolarised thought to any one. Any way what is there to loose other than obstructions to growth?

I might consider it but it reeks of something I despise: Ambigious thought.

In the concise field of mathematics and physics yes I agree. But in the field of philosophy and relationships I am in less agreement. [ ha.....less agreement .....hmmmmm]

Well, logically something either can be right or not, but yes, philosophy, relationships, et cetera, often have some grey areas at first, but ultimately you find absolutes even there. For isntance: Either Materialism, Dualism, or Idealism is correct.

By accepting a persons opinion as valid for that person is quite a liberating experience not only for that person but for yourself.
I am not suggesting that an opinion be taken on with out critical thought I am just merely suggesting that the value of the persons opinion be treated in an unpolarised fashion thus validating the other persons esteem. It means that as a listener we become more receptive to understanding. Polarisation is often the greatest cause for disagreement when agreement is not actually needed or called for. Most discussions at this forum and others tend to be or become polarised when in fact it is just a discussion. Polarisation removes flexibility in responses and often the subtle benefits of the discussion are lost. Afterall Understanding is by far more important than agreement.
"I understand but I don't agree" position is very valid.

Can compromise really lead us to truth? Whilst we ought to respect others views, if we are searching for truth, respect for their views cannot blind us to saying, if need be, "you are wrong".

The thing is that most of the time agreement is not available immediately, most of the time it takes much understanding and discussion before agreement is even possible. By unpolarising our assessments we facilitate and enhance discussion.
A bit like treating everything as a hypothetical and not making any judgements until it is reasonable to do so or a judgement is actually needed.

I agree with this method, although when it is time to make judgement, we ought not shirk from it at all.

By saying something is "less perfect" you are implying that the definition of perfection is your sole perogative as it is from your perspective that you make such a judgement. It implies that perfection is only absolute to you and you alone thus implying that the other person too has a perspective on perfection that is unique and absolute to them. It declares that perfection is a relative concept instead of implying the absolute. Thus further progress is unobstructed by an artificial or arbitary unknowable idea that is a global perfection.

But if one can make an argument for perfection rooted in logic, that seems to fit everything qutie fine, would not this be far superior than just any notion?

By accepting a persons opinion as valid for that person is quite a liberating experience not only for that person but for yourself.
I am not suggesting that an opinion be taken on with out critical thought I am just merely suggesting that the value of the persons opinion be treated in an unpolarised fashion thus validating the other persons esteem. It means that as a listener we become more receptive to understanding. Polarisation is often the greatest cause for disagreement when agreement is not actually needed or called for. Most discussions at this forum and others tend to be or become polarised when in fact it is just a discussion. Polarisation removes flexibility in responses and often the subtle benefits of the discussion are lost. Afterall Understanding is by far more important than agreement.
"I understand but I don't agree" position is very valid.


There is validity and humility in this approach. It may not apply to the search for thruth, as Prince James pointed out, but in many practical life situations, it allows us the chance to grow and learn when we may have otherwise closed ourselves off to new ideas because they did not fit in with a rigid polarized position. I actually find myself more capable of listening for something of value from others, and seeing grey areas in their behaviors or decisions, much more easily than I do with myself. I find I condemn myself much more readily than others for not meeting an absolute ideal that I believe in. If I act in a way that is not accordance with my values and what I believe is good, I see it as a failure (and I have too many of those).

To be free of duality, I've heard, one must simply accept what is.
And then go feed the cat..