It's no surprise that upheaval of what is guiding these puppets leads to dramatic life altering choices that are nothing less than destructive or outright suicidal.
Where did the idea that being open-minded meant not standing up for something?
I understand the value of seeking agreement.
This is important in conversation and other facets of human interaction. The idea isn't to be so open-minded that you don't adhere to moral absolutes or disregard your beliefs, it is to suggest a mentality of civility. Even if you agree to disagree with someone. Which there is nothing wrong with settling between yourself and someone that you aren't out to convert each other even if the topic is sharing opposing views in a debate-like style.
A debate, as I and many others may agree, does not have to be negatively charged with a polemic mannerism poised to achieve victory in logic or emotional superiority. There seems to be a lot of people who get the idea that whatever they say has to be bigger, better, stronger, and more influential. These are the people who do more talking than they do listening. Which makes another saying come to mind, "You have two ears and one mouth. Do twice as much listening as you do talking."
When I think of harmony in agreement.. I imagine an musical orchestra. Regardless of the talent or frequency of play from any of the individuals, the entire orchestra is given credit for a musical score; regardless if the reaction is negative or positive. Conversely, within the group, an individual who fails to do their part is admonished by the peers if their is a disregard for the manner of how they participate. A good team is careful to understand the strengths and weaknesses of each other, quick to help a peer falling to mistakes, and even quicker to help a falling peer in finding ways to strengthen their weaknesses.
As much as I don't like looking at sports for my examples, because the energy derived from competition isn't as glorious as that from artistic energy, I must say that sports teams are another good example of how individuals must compliment each other if they want to see victory.
Agreeing with a fool for the sake of civility is an insecure compromise.
I certainly find it ridiculous to seek mutual agreement about something that we don't understand or otherwise suffer dissonance because of some fundamental aspect. Seeking to understand the heart of evil when you are seeking moral goodness is an example of compromising with a foolishness. You can be resolved to be civil in your disagreement, but it is not the same when you resolve to relate to what can't work for you.
It is the beauty of opposites attracting each other that we find the harmony is in the differences coexisting without counteracting each other. This is not a constant in all things of the universe; just because it is opposing in nature doesn't mean it will attract the opposite. Light and Darkness are definite examples, so is hate and love.
That is why the principle of Yin & Yang is finite, or why the expression "Love to Hate" is a set of misnomers made into a phrase. The former is limited in expression of things in the Universe and the latter is something akin to stupidity or a lack of capacity to articulate an expression more accurately. It really doesn't matter if there are secondary explanations to make sense of things that make sense to a specific culture or a particular language, the truth doesn't care for euphemisms being the manner of the conclusive ascertaining of an idea. All that matters is the universal acclimation of any given thing.. That is what separates timeless wisdom from philosophy limited to a particular era, location, nationality, religion, and/or gender.
My challenge to myself and anyone who thinks they are brave enough is to not seek affirmation or applause. Seek not the approval of mankind and disregard the notion of keeping people comfortable if it means sacrificing your moral nobility.
Seek a balance between standing firm in moral goodness, without pushing offense on others to make a point.
