In terms of accuracy, this thread is doomed to failure. The reason being, it suffers from trifocal astigmatism of mingling together 1) ontology, 2) epistemology, and 3) aesthetics/ethics. Each judgement regarding different areas of knowledge will inevitably create strange misunderstandings of another poster's assumptions, statements, and conclusions because the interpretation of each poster may range from 1) extreme existence; to 2) perception and symbolic recognition of 1); to 3) evaluating 1) via 2). The possilbe combinations will inevitably create clashing of words and ideas. There is hope though. If the inevitably misaligned understanding of each poster manages to remain unchanged, this thread has the potential to generate a never ending polyphony of contrapuntal masterpiece. Enough with criticism and here's my contribution from history.
The dualist idea of good and evil, heven and hell, this life and after life (reincarnation to be exact) are all basically Indo-European traditions shared prior to the branching off of the Indo-Iranian group. To be more specific, dualism entered Hebraism only after the return from the Babylonian exile via Persian influence. And since the question was "can" meaning possibility, my answer is yes. Go to Judea prior to Nebuchadnezzar's sack of Jerusalem in 587-586 BCE, and there is not a positively equal place for sheol as the antipode of heaven. Then it was not only a possiblity, but reality. Heaven on one "extreme," and sheol on "neutral" ground, or under it, ontologically speaking. The measured words as "extreme" and "neutral" sound rather forced, but they're there only in keeping to your nomenclature.
Duo: In your frame, which appears to be of class 1), my "extreme" and "neutral" would not even have to stand in contrast to each other.
Miu: In your frame, which appears to be of class 2), my "neutral" would be your "other extreme."
Mad Pierrot & Ma Cherie: You seem to be thinking in class 3).
Smoke: Keep those questions coming 1,000&1 ! Supreme debatemaster, aren't you ?