That's good

I have probably mentioned in passing that I don’t believe in “good” or “bad”. The words themselves really hold no meaning except to hopefully elicit an emotional response with a potentially similar valence as the person using them in the person hearing them, but they are for all intents and purposes arbitrary and meaningless.

And beyond that, if we know that different people have different parameters for what falls in what bucket, what’s to say we can’t just move things from one to another ourselves? For example, most people might agree that clear skies = good and rainy days = bad. For every 10 people we ask about this, however, there will of course be one twisted individual who lives for rain. So let’s take a moment to exercise our empathy, because mirror neurons allow us to and it’s a fun little experiment. The rain is good because it waters the plants, fills the dams, and adds ambiance. So if it has good qualities, why do we consider it "bad"? How much "bad" does a thing need to be, do we all agree on what is bad, and when do we define whether the components of a thing make it good or bad?

And herein lies the conundrum for our oversimplification of existence into such a duality. Cognitive and emotional flexibility, the ability to adjust our think, act and feel depending on the environment and context, are skills that without training or use fall by the wayside. By categorising in broad definitions like "good" or "bad", you're continuing to strengthen snap judgments and rigidity. The act of solidifying the dichotomy only makes it easier next time.

But good and bad feels safe. It's comfortable. Us verse them. Right and wrong. Heroes triumphing over evil. Our whole notion of entertainment and societal structures kinda crumbles if we don't live like this. Further, if we've built so much around this notion of this OR that, surely it's true, surely it's part of who we are, there's bound to be a reason for it being so prolific, right?

A quick glimpse at the amount of government spending on the war against drugs and the healthcare associated with drug related harms brings into question whether this "battle the enemy" approach is really doing us any good. Drugs are bad, right? Drug dealers and drug users are bad, so we penalise them for their misdoings. But sick people are good, and mental health is important, so addiction related harm (with addiction seen as a mental health crisis, mind you) should be on the side we care for, shouldn't it? Illegal drugs are bad, bit alcohol isn't illegal, so it's good right? The economic burden from alcohol harm and addiction is bad, but is that because alcohol is bad? 

Perhaps it goes without mentioning that Buddhists have vowed against judgments like this for years and point to this act of holding an event/object without any decision as to it's "goodness" as part of their joy. Perhaps this is a cultural difference and can't be replicated in more meritocratic or individualist societies, but the fact alone should be enough to allow for suspension of belief that it is inherently human. Culturally, perhaps there are inherent differences, however Buddhism and Buddhist practices can be employed by people of any cultural, ethnic, or religious background, with varying levels of success. So perhaps it's doable for you?

Anything you see, anything you encounter, any and every thing that is, can be viewed from the lens of good or bad. The breeze coming through my balcony door right now, I could say it is bad because it's causing a tapping noise as it moves my fairy lights, or I could say it is good because it's cooling me down from the heat all day. That's a very rudimentary example, but you can see the point.

If I really wanted to, I could find fault in anything. As can you. The inverse? What things are you finding fault in currently that you don't have to?