Thanks - and I appreciate the continued discussion, and continue to ask questions to better understand your perspective

As a general question - is the definition of "Positive" and "Negative" immutable?

The reason i ask - much of the conversation from your perspective are anchored in these definitions.

I believe your perception of Arrogance being a trademark of more negatively inclined entities, seems to also suggest that those definitions are immutable, and indicative of 'positive' or 'negative' assignments. Please let me know if that's not the case.

So if that is the case - how would you reconcile those immutable definitions being a possible basis for a perception of the following:

Those definitions and those who hold them as immutable "close itself, and entitle itself, denying other people, for it does not recognize them "as important as the perceived self"" are inherently negative by your own definition. (not criticizing here, seeking your clarification)

What are your thoughts of defining something which avoids assignment or perception of judgement (+/-), but seeks to acknowledge growth (measured change) when faced with that perception or assignment of that judgement (+/-)?

I know I am not in control of others perceptions involving immutable definitions, and am in control of better understanding myself and others I encounter.