Piggybacking on something I said to someone in private-
"I agree with the notion of being a balanced human being-polarizing is not imbalancing yourself. It's the opposite. What people often don't realize is that balance is not a matter of ensuring you have everything in equal measure, it's arranging things for optimal function. So if I'm a left-hand pather or a darkworker, that doesn't mean I lack empathy or compassion, or that I despise the notion of unity, it means that with my particular balance it's less emphasized and less desirable than other goals."
To continue, my goals are liberation, enlightenment (not in the new age sense; I define it as gaining immense knowledge and total control over the self), personal empowerment, the imprinting of my will on the world around me. If something contradicts those goals, I disregard it. That's a wonderful paradigm for me-it simplifies things so much and gives me a lot of clarity where otherwise I'd be conflicted. It also lends itself to an easy acceptance of the natural processes at work between individuals and in the world at large. I couldn't move closer to the middle without muddling my priorities and reducing my own effectiveness.
I'll do good for humankind, but it's because my aims happen to be good and not because unity and compassion are my sole concerns. In fact I think they're overemphasized to the point that they overshadow things which are equally-or in some cases more-important, like truth.