Relativity of mind

Hi,
I've an idea which I can use for many purposes. Of course first I used it then I understood what I did, but I will try explain the other way round here.

If you have any kind of philosophical continuum. Where you have two poles and a infinite straight line between those to poles in the infinite. Like you have with anarchy and dictatorship, chaos and order, freedom and being bound or others like light and darkness (OK maybe that's more of a ray as you can hold fix the one pole pretty easy).
Many more.

In you head it is very easy to just take that straight line and make it a line segment. Of course in math you cannot do so, but some say logic is a step higher than math and there you can do so.

So our axis from minus infinite to plus infinite became a line segment from zero to one or from minus one to one for instance. Now when you put like a function over it, it is in a way much easier to think about it. Let's think of an Gaussian bell curve over a spirit matter continuum. Maybe a philosophical Gaussian bell curve would look a bit different then a mathematical one, anyway you could think of what that kind of thing would look like on you new shaped no more infinite axis right?

What I want to say with this is, that with many of these 'two extreme poles' situations, you need to balance these poles.
And the balance, that in many cases everyone have to find for himself in many cases lies somewhere in the middle between the poles. Cases could maybe be spread over the axis like the Gaussian bell curve would say. So if the Gaussian bell curve is true in a special two extreme poles situation as an ideal the absolute poles are not good ever. All the rest can be but the further to the extremes you go the less likely it is to be a good choice.

Now i Come to an example finally. I Wonder if anyone could follow this highly theoretical stuff from a not native English speaker anyway.

Let's take Freedom and being bound. In the western, especially US American attitude Freedom is a very high quality.
Freedom to do what you want, say what you want, make with your money what you want without anyone interfering.
Being bound is the evil opposite as it seems. But think of it, you could use different names for it (as maybe Wittgenstein would have suggested) like maybe duty or responsibility. On the one hand side for those who you might have a duty or responsibility for, or for those have those towards you. On the other hand side, isn't it great to be allowed to have a duty for someone. Doesn't there always come huge benefits from tasks with high responsibility. And I'm not only talking job, I'm talking having a girlfriend, or being married too.

There where times where they valued duty much higher than freedom. In Germany especially Preußen long before the second world war for instance. Yes maybe that helped to allow the crimes of the second world war. But to revert to the other extreme doesn't really help it I'm sure of.

Like the old Chines symbol of Yin and Yang implies you always have to find your balance. And I am very sad about the unbalanced situation that we have at that matter of Philosophical view that i just described. Freedom and being bound.

Besides adapting this poles to chaos and order, freedom - chaos and duty - order. Where you could go with anarchy - chaos - absolute freedom or dictatorship - order - duty. I'm trying to show the extremes are not good in any of these cases. And in Fact I believe the absolute extreme become equal again. Anarchy become dictatorship because the strongest can then dictate what's being done. On the other hand dictatorship is anarchy because those on top can do what ever they like because no one can stop them from.

You can as well adapt them to the economic system. Where capitalism would be freedom (+ anarchy) while communism would be duty (+ dictatorship).

I could go on describing what I think which kind of middle there should be found between those two. And I gladly will if anyone read so far, and is so roughly agreeing.

Hope anyone understood.

Yes I agree mostly. Aristotle had the same idea, the Doctrine of the mean.
But are some extremes not good? We don't just climb half a mountain, we want to go all the way. We don't just want a phone that works, but a phone that Steve Jobs wanted to be "insanely great"?

Just a thought.

Straight lines only exist in theory, not in reality, same for bell curves. These are referencing shapes to describe the general shape or behavior of a thing. They are not meant to describe specifics, when they do describe specifics they ignore relevant outlier data intentionally for ease of communication.

There is a problem with always seeking the mean between two things; it stifles action. Everything in moderation, even moderation. Some situations are not best solved or dealt with moderately, but extremely instead; as Cogito wore plainly in post #2.

When talking politics, that's what the discussion seems to be about at the basic level; we have to remember that forms of government are a goal and practice. They are not something that has already been achieved on a large scale. The governments of today are different in stated ideals and goals and their level of complexity, yes. In actuality though, we have the same feudalism/tribalism we have had since the first societies. Groups struggling for control of the things they see as valuable: money/debt, drugs/health, food/water, oil/energy. The means by which we form these groups and war with each other have changed: from spears to guns to economic siege and control of resources through corporations and in some cases a combination of all of the above.

I like that,wanabe "Everything in moderation, even moderation." Says a lot.

Hmm, I'd like to agree that sometimes there are extremes which are good. I got one myself, but this one could be otherwise described as a moderation depending on which words you pick. (But I don't want to talk about that one yet.)

Do you have a more like philosophical issue where the absolute extremes are good really?

And my advice to spending money would still be take in consideration what it is you like but as well what it is you can afford. Maybe sometimes it is more on the one side or on the other but isn't there a balance between those you should find for yourself?

Still what I more like to believe would be a shifted curve from time to time so surely sometimes you need a proportion of 9:1 .
But then still you could say what you think how the philosophical Gaussian bell curve is shaped in the certain issue.
About the themes I talked about, what shape do you think the bell curve should have for those, if this idea of philosophical bell curves over a thought continuum mean anything to you.

Zorion,

Do you have a more like philosophical issue where the absolute extremes are good really?

Kill or be Killed. There is no moderation there. Some times there really are only 2 choices.

All this bell curve stuff is going to do for you is tell you what most people think, not what's right. If you want to use that to measure and guide your thinking then have at it, just be careful and think for your self too.

Thanks for all the critics here guys.

A few days ago I've changed my mind according to the described subject. You are right, the bellcurve doesen't work in the given example. Maybe there are examples where it works I''ve to rethink that.
For the given examples it should be a different shape I believe now. Instead of a bell curve it should be a parallel to the x-axis i believe now. So all parts should ideally equally often represented.

greeting Zorion

Again, straight lines are not the answer. The actual curve would best be described as an erratic wave function.

Do you have a more like philosophical issue where the absolute extremes are good really?

Half way between chaos and peace is Harmony.

Joy is found through inner harmony.
Eternal life is found through outer harmony.
In the extreme case of Absolute Harmony, no one dies, no one is unhappy.

The opposite pole is Absolute Disharmony; no one lives, no one is happy.

Those two extremes separate "good" and "bad".