The answer is simple at first, namely in all conscious human life.
But as usually the problem lies in the nitty-gritty..
In the religious sphere, such a way could be sought between different confessions or even religions. Rough sudden changes encounter huge and mostly insurmountable difficulties. However, small adjustments may only be possible in personal life because they can be done in almost unnoticed and thus relatively safe manner. There are many examples of well-known people who showed themselves publicly as religious, but their private life turned out to be quite different.
The situation is similar in the arts and in humanities as well as in natural sciences. At this point, the focus is on ecology and economy.
In ecology there are extremistic manifestations. For example, among the Greens, these reach from veganes, which are radical and questionable due to possible shortcomings and sometimes even medieval esotericism, up to purely technical and seemingly unfeeling advocates of interference. Considerate vegetarians, on the other hand, might be able to adapt in a timely manner.
In economy, the effects can be measured particularly well and dosed accordingly, which, however, appears to be inadequately done in practice. Furthermore, a choice often is only provided between "yes" or "no". Diverging options, especially relating to deregulation and subsidization, can be useful on a punctual basis, but they must not be a permanent solution. So why not use these measures temporarily and, for example, automatically being reduced? This would be a practical Middle Way that could be adapted to the actual situation.
© Copyright (all rights reserved) Hans J. Unsoeld, Berlin 2017
Updated September 06, 2017