You are correct, it is not polar. However the point of writing this was not to claim that everything in this world is black and white, but to be a reminder to those that everything has balance in one form or another, and in philosophy should treat magick, and life, as such a harmony.
True balance exists. As does imbalance.
It all depends on where you look.
If you look at a house, imbalance.
A city, imbalance.
A state, imbalance.
But a little wider, a power source (perhaps 10 states away).
Only by looking at the whole picture is there balance.
Power, electricity, only works through imbalance. An imbalance is created for the very purpose of moving electricity. Electricity would not move without that imbalance.
Going back to embracing both sides. There comes a point when enough information is all you need. Both sides do not need to be "embraced" either. You can be over prepared. You can have too much knowledge.
There is a reason we have labourers to do certain work. Sure, skilled people can do it. But the reality is is that the guy getting paid $20 less could just as easily do it.
You don't need full understandings. You need enough to get the job done.
I disagree with you there Sidestepper, the philosophy of getting or doing "just good enough" to a minimal standpoint, without exceeding the minimal expectation, is mediocrity. It is ordinary, and I doubt many who study magick and follow their own individual paths strive to embrace it, and not settle for second best. Why be ordinary, when one can be extraordinary? And to acknowledge your view of those working for less, the "servant class" as some have come to call them, is a very restricting and narrow viewpoint, boxing those into a category that they cannot, in your opinion, escape.
And to acknowledge your view of those working for less, the "servant class" as some have come to call them, is a very restricting and narrow viewpoint, boxing those into a category that they cannot, in your opinion, escape.
A person must first be a labourer before they can become an apprentice, and before they can be a journeyman.
There is no narrowness in there. Actually, one could say your saying there is narrowness is actually narrowness, and jumping to conclusions.
I don't remember stating anything about non-escape. But let's stay on topic, shall we?
I feel our disagreement lies in our philosophy on understanding the universe. You find it non-beneficial to learn everything you can, valuing practicality over excess in knowledge. I on the other hand, find knowledge to be the source of all power, therefore we must never stop trying attain it. Our argument is merely rooted in our values of philosophy, neither is truly right, nor truly wrong. It is just our way to interpret what we believe. Bringing it back to balance, you're philosophy and mine differ in opinion, however both add benefit to the conversation, and also disadvantages to the conversation. However I believe that we can both conclude that neither of us is wrong, meeting to a balance.
"You find it non-beneficial to learn everything you can, valuing practicality over excess in knowledge. I on the other hand, find knowledge to be the source of all power, therefore we must never stop trying attain it."
I never said you can't or shouldn't learn everything you can. Nor did I say it is not beneficial to learn everything you can. There is an order of practicality though. Learning sometimes takes place after doing.
re: "one must embrace both sides of the universe to have a true, full understanding of it's workings."
I was simply addressing your comment on "full understanding" stating that a full understanding is not required.
I first need to practice a song before I can play it fully. Usually I have not even looked at the end part of the song before I have first played the first part.
There are loads of professionals in all sorts of fields that do not know everything in their field.
A full understanding is not necessary. This does not mean that learning is forsaken.