The Deal on Principles and Middles
“I like middles. It is in middles that extremes clash, where ambiguity restlessly rules.” - Upton Sinclair (late American author)
I keep coming back to this quote lately and I’m not entirely sure why, but I’m about to give the exegesis a go:
I used to despise gray areas and middle grounds - I needed to know where I stood, I wanted to be in control, and I needed to make decisions. Black and white might have been missing from my wardrobe, but I more than made up for it in life.
And then, all of a sudden, things changed. Maybe it’s the product of my liberal, London education, maybe it’s the dawning of 25 and being in a big city just like in the movies, or maybe it’s just me throwing in the towel and letting the forces that drive my life do their thang. Why worry? I can control my actions but I can’t control life and all of it’s elements, so might as well start getting comfortable with middles and live it up the best way I know how, right?
And so began my new, ultra-cozy relationship with Middle. He’s nice. :)
When it comes to being middled (as in, dealing with the middles life throws you) I’ve learned to embrace the ambiguity and to revel in it. I like not knowing where we stand, I like knowing I have options and I even appreciate the spontaneous adventure that comes with having to rebuild the sandcastle that the latest wave of life has washed away. I like it so much that I’m starting to shy away from the concrete and glass high-rises that define and limit the skylines of a black and white world.
Then there is the middling (when you purposely avoid picking a side and choose to remain undecided, or in the middle). There is something about taking a principled, hard-lined, no-ifs stance on decisions that shape our lives. Something uncomfortable.
Let’s take (path) C for example. I’m going to break this down into a logic problem.
In life, C is.
In my life, C can take on a positive or negative form (like an ion), depending on the amount and type of exposure.
I would prefer C in its negatively charged form (if we’re going with the ion metaphor).
The problem is, C and I don’t bond to get a negative charge because C resists and can only have room for a positive number of electrons (right? Chem kids feel free to set me straight).
By default, my interactions with C are limited to the positive form.
Back to reality.
If the positivity is a default, it can’t be a principled, purposeful stance because principled is a choice and default is not.
Being comfortable with middles can be a really good thing - it makes you flexible, more adaptable to change, and overall much easier to deal and deal with. It can also be the perfect excuse for being loose with your morals and ethics - not a good thing. If I was going to take a principled stance then I would say that, regardless of C’s orientation and regardless of the charge I might be inclined toward, I would only settle for positive encounters. The problem with saying this out loud is that it erases any possibility of ambiguity, middle ground, or windows of negative opportunity.
If I say it out loud I risk:
a.) Going back on my word and indulging my weaker side or
b.) Feeling disappointed and deprived of what I actually want, even though I am aware that it might be the better decision in the long run
Do you shun ambiguity and take a principled stance because you acutally believe it or because you need to take that stance in order to eventually bring your feelings in line with the ethics/principles you aim to embody?
Or do you stay in the middle as long as you need to and only move to hard-lined decisions when you know that your heart, mind, body, soul are all on your side?
And why is it so hard?
If something is x, don’t do it.
C is x.
Don’t do C.
