I'm going to try to use language to give you another idea about how to use language. I'm going to make it simple, because this can get very complex pretty fast. It's a tricky paradox, but you can tell me how I do.
I know it's possible to learn to not use dualistic - either/or type comparisons in the way that we talk when we give our explanations. There are many reasons to do this. One of the best is positivity. How come positive, happy experiences are regarded by most people in this culture as being so... banal? Why is negativity sensationalized? Of course, drama makes excitement.
What is deceptive here about experiencing virtual drama is that you get used to desensitizing your negative sensations. Your sensitivity in general eventually gets dulled, unless you know how to sharpen it. Then it's easy to forget that happy experiences are subtle and take some time to like something and enjoy doing it. You begin to assume that what will make you happy has the same intensity level as the excitements of (virtual) negativity. The danger is you might not recognize the subtle beginnings of potential happiness.
Opposites are a concept of our culture. The idea that if you feel something intense, it's opposite is a direct match; this is a seriously self-deceptive illusion. This has seeped into the way people talk. You don't need to use implied opposites used to illustrate your point, but many people use them exclusive examples.
There's more reasons that this use of language is a problem. It encourages misunderstanding almost as bad a using a cliche to talk about something. It also has the effect of creating positional arguments when there are none. This comparison of opposing characteristics is a very common activity that contributes to misunderstanding and positional arguing. Using opposites is an expression of a temporarily divided examples, and expression of an artificially divided self.
We do it everywhere, it's very common. We have to work really hard to NOT do it. (See, I did it there. I could have said it takes a great deal of effort to both interrupt your own habit of stating something in the negative AND in the next moment come up with another creative response.) But the worst trouble with statements that claim their value by using an implied opposite is that everybody has assigned a different opposite to the one you imply. You don't communicate unless you can read each other's mind.
Many times, when looking for an instance, people go to the extreme to illustrate their point. That attraction to the extreme seems artificial. Life isn't often that neat and obvious. It turns out that generalizations can be very slimy communication tools.
It's a bit like a parent giving a toddler two things to choose from; the intent is to give the poor kid the idea that they have the ability to make their own decisions. The "twick" is (as my four year old friend Adam says) to be able to think of another choice that has another set of choices that answers both their choice and what you want. Pretty good for a kid, huh?
This idea plays into a great many other possible deceptions. ...advertising, sales, consciousness seeking...etc. To me it's important because it's a basic negociation skill in bargaining who gets whose way and how long they have to wait for it.
Comparison doesn't have to go on in this black & white way. For instance, a new use of language becoming common right now might be springing from the urge to build models with language. We can now say something is LIKE, you know, like! something else. Uttering the word "like" may be evolving into making the word "like" stand for the act of comparison as a trigger word, rather than doing the comparative metaphorical activity.
This has escalated to a style of expressionistic talking, such as, "...and I said, like, who would know that, like, he did it?..." Possibly meaning: "I said, like, (as if someone else were saying it,) who would know (for instance) he did it?" Possibly, the idea of using "like" here, is to try out a comment on other people before claiming authorship. Some people would be upset at any catch-all linguistic
expression, (you know,) but at least this one is slightly more sophisticated in that it attempts to correct for having to over-express an idea in order to say it at all. Used by someone who engages their imaginative capacity instead of using the word "like" to stand for everything, it's a way of building a metaphor and comparing it without the implied arrogance of authorship. The message is implied, not defined, not offered as Truth; it's a "take it or leave it" offering.
...Which is why I brought it up. I think it's a cultural correction for this dualism problem that has evolved to answer a need. As far as using opposites go - I find articulating and describing the assumptions of a certain measuring stick criteria - as compared to choosing one or another end of it - ever so much more useful.
Describing characteristics is the first activity. Articulating leads me to uncover the words or concepts I may be using that "stand for" others. Then I know the building blocks - and I know what I'm building with. Now I have some idea of my assumptions, which is handy.
Now I'm looking for the motive of why communicate - in what others are saying as well as in myself when I talk. Motives are usually an implied assumption, so I enjoy explaining what I imagine to be my own motive behind what I'm after. I find that doing the revealing motive thing helps people with the virtual question of "why is she saying THAT?" This comes up because I can assume so many different points of view - this confuses people. They think I'm making a declaration of intent, when for instance, I'm exploring to add something I believe may suffer from it's omission.
I'm talented at memorising AND spontaneously bringing up what's needed - one of these skills do not exclude the other - but our culture teaches exclusion. You can't be both a sensory, feeling person or a thinker; if someone is sensitive, they must also have a hair trigger bruised ego, etc.
So after the describing process and the exploring of assumptions (motive being among them) - I try to match the process - the how - with the motive - the why. I go through this process because I want participation from others. Explaining assumptions seems to work to inspire tolerance also. If someone else has another motive, they can feel free to use what follows that I'm proposing for their own ends. They don't have to agree with my motive in order to gain a benefit from my strategy. Instead of having to convince people of a premise - I present my methods as a tool that may be suitable for their applications. This is also a way to get help from others in improving a how-to technique. Another, more suitable procedure may exist to play out their different motives from mine - once they know my motive - the listener can suggest a more suitable way of going about it.
Example: When I have an experience that I can't explain or I want to learn something, I go looking for others who may have a wider field of reference to give me a wider perspective on how to add to what I've experienced. I ask; not for their conclusions, but for the account of the experiences that made up their conclusions. I figure how someone "comes to a conclusion" is what makes us all different, so I don't like someone delivering their conclusions to me as well as I enjoy someone articulating their thinking process along with their conclusions. People come to similar conclusions - but how they go about it says more to me than their result. This is based on the idea that how you ask questions will lead you to certain answers. If you aren't getting where you want, change the questioning process. Different assumptions result in different questions... implying suitably different answers.
I could go on and on - but do you get the ideas...?