Neutral (what many call Grey)

it seems many think there is nothing outside of good and evil. i'm curious as to why and how they would think this, when there are things that are neutral. wishing to learn why they think this, i sought the answer. within this particular search, i discovered some things that i had not yet realized. i learned why they think this, but the answer was found within the things i discovered.

1 - there are two sides to neutral. this makes it difficult to predict what those following the neutral ways will do. that is, assuming there's any way to predict such things.

2 - humans fear what they know nothing of. this fear can manifest in various ways, and often manifests as hostility.

3 - humans are amazingly great at deception, and they use it without realizing it, at times. or, so it seems.

if you see connections, you may appreciate this, because the connections between these three show why humanity prefers to have only good and evil exist - only two sides means only two possible choices. it means they can see the only two outcomes; that they can predict every move that everyone makes. if there's a side that's unpredictable, it means there's something they don't understand. they don't know about it, so they begin to fear it, and if they allow the fear to control them, they tend to try (and usually succeed in) killing what/who they see as a threat. they would rather force a utopia than utilize what all they see and/or know. they want perfection, but only for themselves.

reply to post by bobbyboy


You must remember that "Neutral" sometimes means that the individual is weighing sides before he/she makes up their mind.

At the point they do make up their mind, they take sides. Neutral is only a wayside. Hence, “Grey”

For me black and white are the two sides of the fence.

Grey is sitting on the fence.

Heh...this reminds me of oldschool AD&D alignment's

They split it in 9 fractions from lawfull good to chaotic evil

When people say gray. Do they mean first Gray then pick Black or White. Or do they mean Black on the left Gray on the middle and White on the right

This is an interesting topic. Humanity only prefers 2 choices. That kinda sounds like the trappings of duality to me. Maybe the third choice is tolerance. (within reason of course)

I am completely against killing(within reason) but yet am pro choice and see the good intent of the one-child-law in china. Is that being on the fence? Assuming "the NWO" is real, people who go against it will be unfairly treated. I hate that people will have to go through that but at the same time "a nwo" will happen one way or another and I can see the greatness of humanity in it.

How can you truthfully expect to make good choices if you can't see both sides of the story. Truth and reality almost never end up on the extreme ends of our perceptions. Truth and reality always ends up twisting around in the gray area.

If you think about it our very existence belongs in the gray area. On the extremes we have nothing(no existence) vs. ever lasting life. We manage to do both. As individuals before we are born, we don't exist; yet as the human race we have the potential to live forever. Doesn't our very existence belong in the gray area.

How is it that everything on earth is not crushed by earths gravity? How is it that everything on earth doesn't just fly into the suns gravity? Or are we living in the foggy gray area between the two extremes?

I'm sure most people see only 2 side because it's beneficial to the human race in one way or another. It probably promotes growth. But the gray area is necessary also. An unbiased perception is always a good thing to have around. It can see things that most people are completely blind to.

to clarify to some of you - there are two sides to neutral, as well. neutral could mean you haven't taken a side, but that's human reasoning speaking -

one side of neutral is what i see more as the "drifter" type, but also like a follower - one who is on this side takes the nature of its leader. if the leader of the two walks the path of darkness, then the one who is neutral will walk the path of darkness with the leader. if the leader walks the path of light, then the neutral one walks the path of light with the leader. if/when the leader switches sides, the neutral one still follows and switches sides as well.

the other side is the one i'd be watching for, personally - this is the one nature that takes the side of neither good nor evil. it's one that somewhat puzzles me, but it's also neutral by nature.

Originally posted by bobbyboy
to clarify to some of you - there are two sides to neutral, as well. neutral could mean you haven't taken a side, but that's human reasoning speaking -

one side of neutral is what i see more as the "drifter" type, but also like a follower - one who is on this side takes the nature of its leader. if the leader of the two walks the path of darkness, then the one who is neutral will walk the path of darkness with the leader. if the leader walks the path of light, then the neutral one walks the path of light with the leader. if/when the leader switches sides, the neutral one still follows and switches sides as well.

the other side is the one i'd be watching for, personally - this is the one nature that takes the side of neither good nor evil. it's one that somewhat puzzles me, but it's also neutral by nature.

Ok I think I understand your first neutral guy. He goes with the flow. And if the flow is predictable so is he. But is he really neutral? He is more like a conduit for good or evil to flow through. He may literally be neutral as in not taking sides but your second guy has a true neutral nature.

The beauty of being truly neutral is that you have nothing to gain from evil or good deeds. It's like playing a game. When you play you pick a side. When you win or lose you associate the emotional response in your brain with your win or loss. Take winning for example. You think you're on the good team and you win. Now you feel happy. You just connected your happiness to being good and winning. Subconsciously you automatically associate the opposite feelings with the bad team. They lost and should feel bad. You are, in your mind, creating an opposing force. You create your enemy so to speak. So from here on out when ever you deal with your "enemy" you will have negative emotions bubbling inside and that will always create bad situations.

That is probably only a small piece of what goes on with people who pick sides. But a truly neutral person won't have any of those issues. He/she will have emotional responses like everybody else but unlike everybody else will know to curb his/her emotions and not react based on them. These are the people that make great leaders.


This is the way I see it . Your first guy is neutral just because and the second guy is neutral for a reason. That reason being so his actions and thoughts are not tainted by emotions and other people.

Originally posted by bobbyboy
to clarify to some of you - there are two sides to neutral, as well. neutral could mean you haven't taken a side, but that's human reasoning speaking -

one side of neutral is what i see more as the "drifter" type, but also like a follower - one who is on this side takes the nature of its leader. if the leader of the two walks the path of darkness, then the one who is neutral will walk the path of darkness with the leader. if the leader walks the path of light, then the neutral one walks the path of light with the leader. if/when the leader switches sides, the neutral one still follows and switches sides as well.

the other side is the one i'd be watching for, personally - this is the one nature that takes the side of neither good nor evil. it's one that somewhat puzzles me, but it's also neutral by nature.

Why is it the first guy is not the leader? What happens in that situation? Who is the neutral drifter going to follow if he is the leader?

What about the second guy? Follower or leader.

If a person agrees to have a leader I'd expect him to follow despite his beliefs(according to the rules) The second guy should still follow the rules. You make him sound like an anarchist rather than neutral.

Originally posted by bobbyboy
it seems many think there is nothing outside of good and evil.

In Logic, this is called a "binary" system. It is the easiest to conceptualize, which is probably one reason it is favored. It certainly helps in computer engineering to only have two logic states to worry about!

But as a tool for making smart decisions in life, it lacks subtlety. And so, you can also have many-valued or continuously-valued logic systems. I was taught how to use such a system to identify the most likely sources of insanity (or the biggest lie) in a human group. It depends on taking many data points and then adding them up to see which way the data points. You can also use this to analyze a complex machine. A similar concept lies behind "quantum computing."

In the physical universe you see duality expressed everywhere. In the lateral symmetry of most bodies. In the plus and minus charges of electricity. In the north an south poles of magnetism. So the pattern of opposing forces is woven into the fabric of the physical universe. Some think that this "dynamic balance" is the only reason the universe exists and has persisted for so long. But this doesn't mean that humans are incapable of higher-level concepts (or games) that don't rely on the dynamic balance of opposing forces. So using the model to predict physical behavior has been somewhat successful, but using it to predict human behavior has not been so successful. Understanding people requires subtler concepts that those needed to understand matter and energy.

reply to post by ScRuFFy63


i'm glad you are asking about this - i enjoy clarifying things, as most act like they need no clarity. by nature, they'd have all answers if that were true. anyway - the first guy, if i had to put a label for others to understand, i'd classify as a "follower". the second guy, if anything, i'd classify as a "rogue". good and evil have their advantages, as do both sides of neutral, but it's all tied in. regardless, it's a thing of understanding all sides, rather than simply picking a side and stating your allegiance, and swearing an oath to destroy your enemy. i mean, imagine how much each side will begin to behave when one who is of all sides, by nature, shows up. if they won't hurt any of their allies, and will destroy all their enemies, what will they do when a being who stands with all sides steps in?