Another issue commonly brought up is that of good and evil, right and wrong. To generalize, everyone does what they believe is right regardless of their side. Light-siders believe their way is that of good and the right path, but Dark-siders also believe that their way is good and the correct path. And to not stop there, so do I as a shadow. I believe my ways are right, you believe your ways are right. I will listen to your evidence and evaluated to make a decision based upon what I believe as to whether I find your point of view fits in with mine. This brings me to the Herman Hesse quote which I have made use of recently:

"It is not our purpose to become each other; it is to recognize each other, to learn to see the other and honor him for what he is."

If my beliefs do not fit in with another's, I will attempt to see that persons justification and provide them with my view and justifications. If we still continue to disagree I will respect that. It is called individuality. Everyone is individual and I believe we must recognize that.

A phrase I have used is 'Individuality within the whole'. This does not mean that a person can be individual as long as they conform with the currently conceived whole, it means that the whole is made up of individuals. If the perception of the whole omits any individual view then it is not complete. With the amount of individual views around it will be very hard to every complete the perception. So my point? Perceptions should be open to alteration. I believe one should be open to new material, evidence and viewpoints as they are part of the whole. If for some reason they do not appear to fit in there is something not being explained correctly and that error should be located and resolved.

This is an ongoing process of self-evaluation, identification, development of existing characteristics, assimilation of new characteristics, beliefs and personal twists. No one person can ever complete this process. It is continual and ongoing. Every moment one lives they will come across another piece of the puzzle, no matter how small it may seem. This evidence must fit in some way and should not be ignored. Know Thyself includes unlearning. For unlearning one must be able to recognize when they are wrong, acknowledge that and implement the appropriate changes. Someone people will admit when they are wrong to the other people, others will not for their own reasons. Some may be justified, others may not as I believe there are times when both are needed. But the important factor is that such invalidity is corrected to the best of ones knowledge, whether part of that correction involves admitting to others or not is only one consideration, but important nonetheless.

A concept talked about so often, yet what does it mean? Well to me there are many important balances within a persons life. There is the balance between body and mind, the balance between the inner self and the outer self, the balance between emotions and logic and many more. Each balance has its differences but for me it is important to remember that the balance is not a point directly in the middle between two extremes. A balance in any of these contexts can fall anywhere and has to be a flexible and dynamic equilibrium.

By this I mean that changes happen. I take that as a fact. Hence the balance/equilibrium must be able to compensate for such a change. To illustrate this I can refer to a set of images.

Initial Equilibrium / Unbalanced / Dynamically Adjusted Equilibrium

The first image shows a number of particles in an equilibrium, nice and evenly spread out. Now if we are to add some extra particles, we get the result shown in image two. The equilibrium is lost. So what happens next? Well nature immediately starts to attempt to return to equilibrium state, which results in the third image. Here we have another equilibrium. It is not the same as the first but it is still equilibrium. This is the essence of a 'dynamic equilibrium'. It must be prepared to adjust and compensate for changes, as the addition of those new particles makes it impossible to return to the original equilibrium without removing particles. The images depict the addition of particles and resulting compensation needed to maintain a dynamic equilibrium, but a dynamic equilibrium must also be able to adjust to the removal of particles so that it may remain in balance.

Whilst the images use particles and concentrations to represent the balance I believe the same principals can be applied to the important balances of life. We must learn to absorb, compensate and diffuse our knowledge, our skills and our energies in order to maintain the dynamic equilibrium of existence.

Not that these balances do not refer to maintaining a fine line in between extremes. If is about keep things as the safest and most appropriate level for function.

This dynamic equilibrium will find a level itself, sometimes if that level is detrimental and having a bad effect, it will require action to help it to settle. This will be done either by adding or subtracting to the contents of the equilibrium, however when doing so one must realize that if they add something to one area of their life, it is more than likely they are taking it from somewhere else. Likewise if you remove something from one area it must go somewhere else. This works on a personal mental level and on a universal level. It has been described as a law of physics. Things cannot be destroyed or created, instead their form changed to something else. An example, we make electricity. But to do so we have to harness energy from a source, be it sun, wind, coal or nuclear. It has to come from somewhere and that must be taken into account. You cannot keep taking without consideration, likewise you cannot keep giving without consideration. If you know what is good for you and everyone else, you keep tabs on everything that is effected, or as much of it as possible so that you maintain yourself and others at a suitable level.

Right: a just; in accordance with truth and duty; true; correct; proper Wrong: a not right or good; not suitable; wicked; incorrect; mistaken.

These are the dictionary definitions. The linguistically correct version. The thing is these terms are dubious and hinging upon the definition of other words.

Just: a fair; honest; proper; right Truth: a in accordance with facts; exact; correct Duty: n moral obligation; one's proper actions

I could go on and on but do I need to? In the end you will find the words all loop back to each other for definitions so what we are left to assume that they mean is what we have been brought up to believe. The way society works the definitions of right and wrong is, shall we say in the least just a little corrupted? Ideas of conforming to justice and laws have, on the large part become about what a person can get away with without being punished.

Society very much works with the ideas of right and wrong so we must be familiar with them and how they work. Looking at the linguistics of them then almost everyone will do what they personally believe to be right. Some people will do what they specifically know as wrong and they have their reasons.

Look inside yourself and find out what you consider to be right and wrong. Listen to yourself and live that. Now the thing is you still have to take note of what everyone else considers to be right and wrong. Listen to them as well and their justifications. You never know, they might have found out something that you missed. I was thinking of examples and the first one that came up was Martin Luther King. American society back then thought it was right for whites to dominate. Martin Luther King was one of the suppressed who spoke up and inspired more people to join him, he was a spokesman who helped many people both black and white. They realized that what society had for a long time taught as right was no longer acceptable and no longer right.

When in society you must find a way to work with the rules, to bend them. Even if you don't agree with rules there are ways to get around them without breaking them. Sometimes it may come to a point where you must break them in order to succeed effectively, but you must know the rules and the consequences of doing that. It is called responsibility for your actions and their consequences.

Know that the definitions of right and wrong are flexible. When the Romans ruled it was perfectly lawful to throw Christian to the lions. Time has changed that. Who knows what time will change and what our society will become in the long term future? You can speculate but I'm sure the Romans would never have foreseen the timeliness to proceed as it did.

This brings me on to another point. Each individual can make a difference. Whilst many people may all be thinking something is wrong, thousands may do so but they will be quite happy to sit there and do nothing. That is until we get the individuals, the Martin Luther Kings of this world who know how to work and inspire the crowds to get off their lazy behinds and do something.