What is neutrality, a state wherein one is unbiased to an external aspect which poses as a challenge to aptly decide on the bias which unknowingly is driven by contradictions, truth and lies? Truth and Lies are the same and are highly relative and tend to alleviate disharmony when not understood clearly with clarity of mind and thought and hence can never be accepted that it is an outcome of a sane frame of mind but approximated to dualities of a singular fact. An unbiased opinion is an outburst of futile striving to ignore and protect but is in fact a catalyst to further unwarranted hate but this is such a na�ve aspect that the opinion ought by itself to be scrutinized for probable loopholes or misunderstandings or ignorance.
We are endowed with this term which purportedly defames bias but which in itself is radical as in the understanding of a �not being bothered� frame of thought wherein the subject willfully isolates his ideology from the other which could endanger the subject without respect to time. Is this a form of an escapist philosophy which the subject prefers so as to avoid possible demarcation, diminution and annihilation? On first inspection of this fact, it is in fact an act of cowardice but with respect with what is being dealt with must also be considered. The contextual act of cowardice cannot be termed as it; as the conclusion is not at hand and an expectation of any forthcoming result will only aggravate the present state of disharmonious unity. We shall hereby focus on the Subject and the possible influential factors.
The subject either an individual or a group is of least importance to the present discussion but the validity of the ideology and its predecessor notions. From the point of mutually accepting a neutral philosophy the subject has to be worked backwards so as to ascertain the varied stages of development where initially the neutrality being the solution but then later the confusion on weighing all the possible options which have been external factors that in co-ordination with the existing ideology ascertain a necessity for possible involvement into an external cause thereby regenerating as an internal aspect. The metamorphosis of the external cause into an internal cause is accelerated by further confusion and instability and by this time the cause has done its due. Later the subject is isolated from any perceivable external cause having other internal conflict and chaos that would possibly demean the integrity within but is masked to portray external harmony which implicitly is meant to shadow internal disharmony. Further the cause of the internal chaos also involves neutrality and this neutrality is the driving force on which conflicts thrive as conflicts are 2 dimensional and they are limited but with neutrality the uncertainty of any course is frightening. Neutrality is not a special aspect or new but it has always existed but never been identified as it being the root cause and prefers to be an accessory rather anything else.
Neutrality is dangerous but is it clever or in any way driven by intellectuality? As stated in our previous article opposite notions are not necessarily good and bad and I here would prefer to call them a pair. They always occur in pairs. What place does neutrality have at this point? What is neutral between good and evil?? The thought of such a neutrality is absurd but we cannot at any point reject or deny its existence or inexistence but analyze its effect. Absolute goodness and absolute evil reject any notion of Neutrality. Absolute pairs negate this vehemently. So are we in a dilemma here? Is Neutrality real or is there no such thing as an absolute pair. We all are led to believe that absolute pairs are dangerous but are they? The problem being that we don�t look at them as pairs but as individual and two different phenomena like as in they have lives in themselves but we have never considered that the negation of one automatically negates the other but this being absolute what can be said about the mutants. These mutants give birth to neutrality, they serve to blur the image and mask clear perception of situation. Now one cannot understand and clearly differentiate and �propertize� the pairs. This leads to utter chaos and confusion and in turn gives rise to Neutrality � the ideology of ignorance. Ha� We have found something of great importance. The existence of Neutrality would mean the thriving of chaos and conflict. Neutrality is dangerous but not by itself but what it had been preceded by.
Neutrality is never the solution but a symptom. We are blinded by the chaos and strive to further neutralize but it would explicitly mean the same: Increasing conflict. We again and again are looking at chaos but never at any point striving for an ending of all demarcations and differences.