The level of thinking for this question is too simplified to give a reasonable answer. I do not mean to dissuade you. "Better off" for one may not be "better" for another. Does constant imply permanence? Are you expecting only either yes or no in answering? I only mean to point out difficulties I see in responding.
I'm coming to better understand you (or rather, not misunderstanding you as much), so I am not dissuaded. You seem to be making me think harder, clearer, which is something I appreciate. I am fortunate to be having this discussion.
At the time I said that, I was still thinking along the lines that I was advocating darkness/negativity. And I like what I am advocating, so I thought I liked the effect of the negative polarity. I thought it must be necessary to have this negative polarity because I could attest to my spiritual experiences as the greatest form of happiness I have yet known. But now I am not seeing myself as only dark any more at all. You had said:
Society has been designed to foster imbalance. The plan being to achieve balance through the negative polarity. At least that is roughly speaking the modus operandi of the main power structure. But all things live and all things die, with civilizations included. You may think of balance as "zero-point".
So now I have to ask, do you think this plan to achieve balance through the negative polarity was a good idea? Does it matter if it is a positive or a negative if in the end it is balance/zero-point that is sought. Or is negative less favourable for humans because it is painful?
Oh, and have you seen this
Window of Opportunity by Hidden Hand. He claims he is a member of the "ruling family", and he answers questions forum members had about the reaping (2012) through the negative polarity.
How do you know that critical mass was reached years ago? I do not mock you at all, I merely want to know how you know these things.
Same way you may know anything. Perhaps I will elucidate on that a little and say that it is closer to understanding, by the concepts I use, for I always concede to further knowledge being gained on the topic.
I really meant what is your background? Are you a teacher of philosophy, or have you held some such position that accounts for your depth of understanding? Or do you just study as a hobby?
Why is the soul angry from peering through the conscious lens? Is it because it is trapped in a body?
