Positive-negative, even good-bad. It’s just terminology really. Those in-between spaces, like when painting, aren’t really *negative* spaces are they? They’re just *different* spaces. Like silence is essential to music. But silence is not negative. In both cases they’re extremely positive and necessary. They’re just different is all. And both good, yes? I mean if you feel both components are *essential* and necessary, how are they not both good? The problem lies in the terminology.
It’s important. We can’t always be assuming if something is different, then it’s the opposite of what we’re familiar with. That way anyone who’s not the same as Good-Us, is automatically bad. This is the root of unreasonable bias and prejudice.
We have to break away from this Mentality-of-Opposites. What are the opposites of fruit, music, art, trees, people…? And what does it matter? Why do we want to insist on forcing everything into opposites? Imagine how boring it would be. Like if we only had black and white? Who wants to live in a world without colour?
So changing our perspective, changing our Way-of-Being, and then changing our Way-of-Living, our society and everything, starts with changing our vocabulary and word usage. Words matter, they matter a lot. Because they massively affect not only *how* we think, but *what* we think. This affects how we perceive, and literally changes how we see the world. Ultimately, this leads to a different world.
“But I have to ask, “Good for whom?”” – That’s a most awesome question. Again terminology is problematic. As much as I love goodness and the word Good, I actually prefer to use Useful and Valuable.
Then it becomes for whom and to what end and what purpose. And that of course varies from situation to situation. To skip over many many in-between steps, in the end it boils done to how we use energy. Even time-usage can be reduced to energy usage. So Good and Useful and Valuable in the end comes down to how we use our energy.
When we look at it like this, the Good for whom starts to make a lot more sense. If it’s only good for me and not for everyone else, it may *seem* a good use of my energy, but ofc in the longer term that will work against me. So it’s how well we use our energy in the *totality* of our lives. In that context it’s good for the individual without being not-good for others.
We don’t have to have the same good for all. But what makes good use of our energy is when our collective energy usage give us *more,* much much more than we could do by ourselves. Some are much much more effective and efficient at using their energy in certain ways. Like painting or writing or making music or building or accountancy, or whatever one’s predilection is. Some people are awesome at simply being Appreciators and enjoyers. There’s much variety needed in the world.
Haha, I truly don’t mean to write such long replies, but it’s what earnest questions do to my brain and heart. And everything is so interconnected for me. It’s hard to just isolate one aspect of it all.