Revisiting Moderation

Moderation isn't the product of bouncing between extremes, like a matter and antimatter particle canceling each other out. It's about the virtue of stability, dependability, and predictability. Not everyone considers these things virtues - and that's alright. But a person defined by polarity is not a poster child for moderation. I hitched my star to moderation because I define myself as even-keeled. My soul signature is "between", not "averaged out".

When I wrote (eight years ago [NSFW]), that "even moderation should be practiced in moderation", it wasn't to cancel moderation out, and thereby justify excess. To live (truly, that is) by the mantra "everything in moderation, including moderation" means that even your indulgences - which are human, and part of a balanced life - should be managed with a moderate temperament.

It acknowledges that, as humans, we are not perfectly balanced machines - which is okay - but that we should exert effort to balance even our imbalances, because doing so is good for us. This is certainly not a universal truth, and others may disagree. But if you do, then this is probably not the life philosophy for you. Using it to excuse extreme behaviors profanes the concept at its very heart, and borderlines on becoming an Orwellian construction - "indulgence is moderation." Why? because we must moderate our moderation? That's like tolerating the intolerant.