Most of us are trained to understand events in terms of simple dualities. Good or bad. Wrong or right.

In practice we are easily confused by polarities in general, and good and evil in particular. We overlook the fact that all outcomes are overdetermined (many causes overlapping)… and further, we cannot remove ourselves or our attitudes from the variables.

We too quickly forget that we cannot see into the future where the resolutions of causes and relations may emerge — or the past where many catalysts converge into a wave of causation rather than a single cause.

In short, we cannot tell whether our seemingly excellent evaluations are better than random choices — because we cannot link the outcomes with their causes in any way that might validate our analyses.

Thus it is in most cases that good and bad are -=what we add to events=-, and cannot be found in the events themselves or their outcomes in any way that can be seen before the resolutions… and where we choose to resolve them for analysis right at the tail of the event, long before these resolutions.

How astonishing that we nearly always overlook these glaring exceptions to our training, preferring the ersatz certainties of our ‘expert’ appraisals.