RE: WILD WRITE. About polarities & further associations.
First: good to haven you back and read of your thoughts again<3
And now a little protest: Extremes are relative. For me. Extremes, the black and white, the good and bad are just as well opposites from another than the dark grey and the lighter grey. The middle (way) seems to exist only in theory like the arrow never hits the tree (or does it?) To encounter polarities means to notice the discriminative forces of human thought. I sometimes try instead of walking a middle way (which seems to be only a way of smaller polarities) to perceive the world in qualities which are dependent from one another. Instead of “this is black and that is white” (or sick/healthy, young/old, and so on) I try to see that one is darker and the other lighter. So, I can distance myself from thoughts which are based on fixed descriptions, then the assumed black could be perceived not as one end of the colour range, but only a dark colour where there might be darker colours (at another time or place).
And as ever my thoughts are not easily transformed in English and into writing. Hopefully I wrote something meaningful – if not, rest assured… I really wanted to :-DDD
And yes I read the whole post, but I got cough by the polarities (or the first hypnotizing gif... who knows)
Thank you for writing again!
Thanks to have YOU back! I missed your comments of quality - I mean it!
I see no protest but actually agreement and a deeper understanding of what's the middle. It can stretch itself broadly to both sides and delivers a variety of shades. What would you have without the extremes? You said it: "To encounter polarities means to notice the discriminative forces of human thought". Yes, that is how it can be approached.
... may I ask what happened when you read my sentence that I either demonize or romanticize nature? Or asked differently: What happens when I apply that to a human being? When I was about to tell you that the fight with your man points you to demonize him (hating him in this very moment of anger) or after you fell freshly in love with a man that you romanticize him?
If you wouldn't perceive the very outer edge of a thing, like the whitest white and the blackest black, how could you then come more close to the middle tones, like a very dark grey, a medium dark and a light dark? When you would have the task to paint a room in medium green, how could you know what's medium? You need a definition and you need a paint which matches this definition. The wider the polarities are apart from another the better. Otherwise the middle would not offer much variations.
Polarities are good for learning and to show something to experience, aren't they? I like to use them for exaggeration.
If I would ask you to show me the highest being the utmost important role model of us humans. To what would you point? Which characteristics would you like to put onto this entity? And what would be the most evil and dark creature you can think of? Where would you like to place yourself in that picture?
Yes, it's mostly a theoretical concept and method to teach a thing.
I am a little hungry, so I will answer shorter than I should/want... (and I still think talking would be so much easier :-DDD and the English ... oh sigh)
Although in making art (regardless of the medium) I tend to show drama, wish for tears, and want to facilitate katharsis, I seldom think in opposing/extreme categories or maybe for me there is always something behind an extreme, which will be even more extreme. In the heat of a fight I surely can feel intense feelings, but I seldom think about them as presenting the truth nor the end of the line. I mostly perceive objects/subjects linked with their context. Neither is nature good nor bad for me (regardless if I experience pleasant or unpleasant feelings). My thoughts mostly wander into questions of 'where or when did a specific concept of "nature" arise? Which cultural or historical circumstances formed this view of "nature". And amidst of the dangerous jungle I still have those thoughts, but they are pushed into the background till all threats are gone.
The same goes with people. As said above I am far from being enlightened and I can vehemently defend my (often faulty) opinion... but for me there are no completely bad or good people (which does not mean I like everyone... noooo). It is hard for me to have an idol, also it is hard for me to hate someone. There are people who show traits I think are helpful in specific circumstances (but not in all circumstances) A being which is all-good is not thinkable by me, perhaps I am a bit limited in this area. The idea of a highest being triggers too many questions for me .....the most important question would be the definition of "good" of the "highest"... good for whom and when? Who is the observer and delivers the verdict if the action was good? Will it stay good? Is a being which is bound in time even capable of owning a limitless/extreme quality? Am I capable of understand a highest being? Why should there generally be a linear development of qualities, isn't this only the way my limited brain tends to interpret qualities/ the world?
oh noooo, I cannot stop to ask questions :-DDDD
I better go and cook dinner :-D