The existence of duality is not only natural, but could be converted to an asset. A systematic effort could make that possible. Rather than following instinct out of fear, scrutinizing the scope of threat, when faced with an opposite, as well as resorting to an indefinite status quo, could create much better results, than demolishing the other. Before resorting to confrontation, decision makers are better off employing tolerance. Resisting pressure from adversaries, or mass populations, makes one capable of reasonably assessing the realistic range of possibilities.
Men and women, day and night, spring and winter, and other pairs of opposites always existed, at times sequentially (day and night), and at other times, simultaneously (men and women). At first glance, many think that the coexistence of any pair of opposites is impossible. So often, as humans, being faced with others who we presume to be opposites pushes our buttons and creates a strong feeling of threat. Such perceptions could create fear, nervousness or defensiveness. Sometimes, one believes one should demolish the opposite in order to exist. Doing so is an easy solution and a fast way out, ironically, only if, one ends up surviving. Is duality natural? Is it possible? Is it manageable? Those questions could help assess if duality is an asset, a mere reality, or a catastrophe. Duality automatically stretches one’s boundaries and expands one’s power. When faced with an opposite one automatically expands one’s own territory or range of capacity to confront or demonstrate authority. Yet, a speedy stretching of one’s boundaries could at times create an immediate non-contemplated reaction fostering instinct rather than rationality or joint-problem solving. Accepting the impression of limitation and imagining time is scarce are likely outcomes when there is a delusion a threatening opposite exists.
If so, how could one safely transition from an instinctive reaction to joint-problem solving? Succumbing to first impressions many times feeds instinctive reactions. Should joint problem solving always replace instinctive reactions? A true threat is a possibility. One should not rule out a true possibility of threat even when knowing that such possibilities are rare. Most world nations possess armies that history had proved to be less likely to be needed or used for self-defense. Yet, the existence of an army is essential for the peace of mind. Therefore, there should be a way to accept the possibility of danger but find a realistic way to scrutinize the truth of its existence. A way to scrutinize the situation is essential. Creating a system to scrutinize the situation, to assess risk realistically, and to establish a clear process, could help with controlling impulsive decision making from taking people to uncalculated risks that lead to unnecessary hazards. Taking an aggressive approach could make one arrive at specific results pretty fast, but why resort to destruction, when long term solutions that create possible alternatives and minimize waste of resources or loss of lives could exist?
When perceiving an upcoming threat, the idea of tolerance, tolerance in the sense of endurance and also in the sense of patience, widens the scope of time, and thereby allows one’s outlook to develop gradually before running into premature conclusions. Following each impression of insecurity creates a thread of numerous non-existing enemies that live only in one’s mind. People experience power struggle or fearfulness when faced with the impression of that opposite other. During those times, one usually is faced with three alternatives: alternating power with the other, complementing the other, or destroying the other.
The idea of alternating power many times creates fear because of lack of trust. Just as days, nights and seasons alternate, why could humans not be able to alternate when they are part of that vast creation? Many times the idea of alternation is ruled out because of trust issues. In such cases, negotiations, agreements and guarantees should be made. On such occasions, it is essential to remember why human law was created.
Nevertheless, when opposites can exist simultaneously they could complete one another instead of compete, just as men and women complement one another and are essential to each other’s lives. In such cases, marriage, in the sense of complementarity, is a constructive possibility. It provides solutions to what we lack. Why not utilize others assets instead of destroying the other? With tolerance, one could insightfully assess the assets of the other without being blinded by the thought of self-defense. Yet, in case alternating with one another or complementing one another are not possibilities, keeping the status quo could be the best bet. Few are humans who prefer to demolish the other. It’s a fast solution, but at most times proves ineffective, even if demolishing the other does not violate one’s morals, values, and beliefs. Creating an agreement to keep the status quo indefinitely, could be non-productive but is surely much better than mass or human destruction. In that case, getting rid of the illusive idea that time is scarce is important. An economic deterioration, for a certain period of time, while entering a survival phase, should be made doable. Losses will exist either way, whether through destruction, or keeping the status quo. Therefore, those two scenarios will inevitably lead to losses and more or less make no real difference. Yet, the capacity to position oneself in that place in the eyes of others, while opposing adversaries on one hand, and resisting pressures of masses on the other, is the real challenge. Being tenacious, when facing both in such situations is essential. With tolerance, wise management, and systematic resistance to opposing forces, one should be able to keep that position, until a true and realistic solution presents itself.
Whether we accept it or not, duality exists and is a natural lifestyle and not a catastrophe. We can turn it to a catastrophe, swim through it, or utilize it as an asset. Perceiving it as a catastrophe should be the last course of action, and not the initial intention. It’s about what we make out of it. It is essential to create an effective tool for scrutiny to determine if our fears are valid or delusional. Once those tools are created, it is essential to employ them carefully so unnecessary conflict or wars could ever take place.
In conclusion, many people fail to take the time to scrutinize dangers because of impatience or intolerance. Patience and tolerance expand the willingness and the desire to assess situations in a sound, balanced and reasonable manner. Discerning the scope, the likelihood and the speed of an upcoming threat is important when faced with an opposite. An honest discernment could reveal that the perception of an upcoming danger was illusive. Duality is a natural producer for themes of tolerance, endurance, development, progressiveness and unity. When in competition, it creates creativity and progress. When in complementarity, it creates harmony and peace. When perceived accurately and realistically, the existence of an opposite could stretch boundaries, and thereby stretch capacity and also create a sense of tolerance needed for a community life living in harmony and peace.