Do things need thier converse to be understood or defined?

NO.

I mean.... YES!

Actually I'm just bookmarking your interesting question so I can find it easily when I get home from work.

I do not believe that "things" take their meaning from opposite "things." Dualism pertains to the way we conceptualize the world of "objects", not the way they are objectively or the way we necessarily experience them. It has to do with ideas rather than with our sensual participation with the world. Ideas consist of subjective (or inter-subjective) not objective meaning. If I look at a bird flying, I am simply looking at the bird. This is not the same as saying I am looking UP. Looking "up" implies looking "down", seeing "beauty" implies not seeing "ugliness," a "good" deed implies an opposing or "bad" deed, and so on. But responses to a painting or a deed are not dualistic responses until we identify them as "beautiful" or "ethical". We can sit and, with very peaceful minds, EXPERIENCE the world non-dualistically. But we can only THINK about it dualistically. This may be counter-intuititve to many because as we experience the world we tend to instantly involve the thinking process, categorizing the "objects" of experience almost as soon as we see them. We thus think of experience as always/necessarily dualistic. Not so.

I had contemplated joining this discussion, but seeing that JLN has decided to bring up non-dualism, I think I'll take a pass on this one.

I understand. Deja vu. But I will gladly step aside, Joe, and make room for you. I would very much like to passively learn your ideas on the matter.
But I will, of course, respond to any critique of what I've already said here.

Well, maybe. On the other hand, maybe means about the same as maybe not.

Meaning, of course, that I'm also bookmarking.

JLN:

Okay, so when I say - this is good - I am impying something about its converse - but does that mean I needed its converse to even speak about it?

It seems if all were good we would seek the gradiations within that good - and relegate good and bad to thier poles.

Joe and JLN: What am I missing - is there another thread I should be looking?

TTF

TTF, there have been a number of threads on dualism vs nondualism. Can't remember their names.
You ask: "... when I say - this is good - I am impying something about its converse - but does that mean I needed its converse to even speak about it?" Good question. My reference to conceptuall bifurcation is to the abstract IDEAS of good vs bad, not about the absolute or objective character of concrete things. We apply the ideas to the things. A "thing" experienced is in itself neither good nor bad. It is categorized as good or bad depending on our purposes and the frame of reference used (this is also from BoGoWo). It reflects the working of the mind rather than the character of the world. The OPPOSITIONS, good vs bad, can be refined into the CONTRASTS or COMPARISONS, good vs better and bad vs worse. But they all relfect the working of the mind, not the character of the world.