| Board : | |
| Author : | |
| Subject : | |
| Date : | |
|
When I first wrote about Neutrality, I described it as restraint. At that time, I believed it meant not interfering and not pushing my own wants onto a situation. I thought that by staying out of things unless it was clearly necessary, I was protecting balance. I remember feeling confident in that answer. It seemed straightforward and complete. Looking back after going through each step, especially the day of observation, I can see that my understanding was limited. Even when I spoke about restraint, I was still placing myself at the center. I assumed that my decision to act or not act was what determined whether balance held. In hindsight, that assumption carried more ego than I realized. I gave myself more importance in the process than was likely true. Spending a full day without hunting and without reaching for my weapon revealed something about me that I had not fully acknowledged. I am more restless than I thought. I tend to decide what should happen before I have fully understood what is happening. Even when I hold back outwardly, there is still an internal calculation taking place. That constant measuring is not Neutrality. It is a quieter form of control. As I observed people and allowed events to unfold without my involvement, something became clearer over time. Balance does not wait for anyone. It is already moving. Conversations rise and fall on their own. People adjust and correct themselves. Nature shifts without direction from me. I began to recognize that my urge to fix or guide often comes from discomfort, not from wisdom. Because of this process, my view of Neutrality has changed. It no longer feels like simply avoiding interference. It feels more like stepping back from the need to manage outcomes. This does not mean I will never act. It means I need to be more honest about why I am acting. If it comes from ego, impatience, fear, or the need to feel useful, then it is not Neutrality. As I move forward, I want to approach decisions with more patience. I want to slow my first reaction and listen longer before concluding what should be done. I want to recognize when I am inserting myself into something that might resolve on its own. If action becomes necessary, I hope it comes from clarity. If inaction is better, I want it to come from understanding rather than avoidance. In my first letter, I said Neutrality protects harmony. I still believe that, but now I see that it does so by loosening my grip, not tightening it. I am still learning this. I expect I will struggle with it again. I do not think I fully understand Neutrality yet, but I am more aware of my own tendencies than when I began, and that feels like a real step forward. | |