Duality/Polarity --> True Principle or Outdated Axiom?

[Cage]

I've been lurking the boards lately, and have noticed that the concept of duality seems to be frowned upon around here. My question is "why"?

To me, the principle of polarity is self evident...

Maybe, those who resist this principle can shed some light as to why it is viewed as being a flawed concept?

(I hope this is the right board for this question)

--James--

 

[iBrian]

IMO duality is an extremely simplified way of looking at a more complex dynamic, but by focusing on the duality analogy, the deeper complexities are other looked.

It works for some people, not for others. I guess everyone has their prefered way of looking at the universe, though.

 

[Cage]

There exists a Hermetic principle called "The Principle of Polarity" The Kybalion states this:

"Everything is Dual; everything has poles; everything has its pair of opposites; like and unlike are the same; opposites are identical in nature, but different in degree; extremes meet; all truths are but half-truths; all paradoxes may be reconciled."

This seems logical, and somewhat evident, imo. Some would say that the dualistic mindset keeps us from enlightenment, that it is a cage in which humanity is bound even.

I don't understand how a person can view life in any other way, but through this mindset, though.

Am I missing something?

 

[Caimanson]

It works for some people, not for others. I guess everyone has their prefered way of looking at the universe, though.

I hadn't thought of that, I am an engineer so I like to break down things to the essentials, hey all digital systems are binary!
I am no philosopher, but I feel like saying something.
Personally I think that dualism can be useful in understanding the core underlying principles of things, like understanding how a machine works inside. The issue is that you may miss the experience of what the machine is as a whole.

For example psychoanalytical theories of the personality are essentially dualistic, dualistic models are very useful as an understanding of what make people tick, but doing therapy is a different thing altogether.
Part of of the issue I think is that people tend to moralise the polarities, spirit good vs. body bad, sin vs. good nature, etc, they either reject the idea of duality because they don't like the "ugly" side, or get too stuck in the duality missing the whole.
The contradiction is that when we reject duality, we are implicitly creating another duality!

My understanding of the theories of personality, is that we human beings are masters at splitting reality, mostly as a defense or coping mechanism, we do it all the time, because it simplifies the complexities of reality substantially.
For example a soldier sees the enemy as the enemy, he doesn't think that the enemy is another human being with a name and a life of its own, because the soldier is inmersed in the busineess of waging war, name your enemy and name your cause.
Or perhaps we idealise that teacher or minister, we choose to ignore the bits that we dislike because that idealised fantasy meets our needs.
Health in this context is appreciating and accepting reality as a whole, as it is, no judging, no generalising, no splitting, no preconceptions, integration. This resonates with unconditional love, the here and now, and the ego-lessness of mystics. This of course is utopia, but one can improve.

Now the goal is not to remove splitting, because you need your defense and coping mechanisms to survive, what you need to do to is to overcome the fears, hurts and memories that keep you hungup, then you won't need your defences anymore.

Sorry, I don't know where I am going with this post anymore.
Anyway, imo dualism explains by splitting, and non dualism experiences by integrating.

 

[neosnoia]

This seems logical, and somewhat evident, imo. Some would say that the dualistic mindset keeps us from enlightenment, that it is a cage in which humanity is bound even.

I don't understand how a person can view life in any other way, but through this mindset, though.

I'm trying to learn not to use the term "dualism" because it usually summons up images of two seperate things in the minds of those who hear it. I do prefer the term "polarity" for that exact reason, because it shows that some ideas (or things) that we think of as "dualities" are actually necessarily-connected-polarities.

For your reading pleasure, I offer a few weblinks about "coincidentia oppositorum," the coincidence of opposites. The first link is a pretty easy read. The second two are very good, but rather long.

http://www.integralscience.org/cusa.html

http://www.newkabbalah.com/CoincJewMyst.htm

http://www.kyrie.com/symbols/mandorla.htm

 

[moseslmpg]

There exists a Hermetic principle called "The Principle of Polarity" The Kybalion states this:

"Everything is Dual; everything has poles; everything has its pair of opposites; like and unlike are the same; opposites are identical in nature, but different in degree; extremes meet; all truths are but half-truths; all paradoxes may be reconciled."

This seems logical, and somewhat evident, imo. Some would say that the dualistic mindset keeps us from enlightenment, that it is a cage in which humanity is bound even.

I don't understand how a person can view life in any other way, but through this mindset, though.

Am I missing something?

I think you are missing something actually. The principle of polarity clearly shows that things with opposite poles are the same in nature. So when they use the temperature analogy, we see that hot and cold are really opposite poles or viewpoints of the same thing. You shouldn't quote the Kybalion out of context.

The dualistic perspective the considered the lowest of the three perspectives (being dualistic, qualified non-dualistic, and non-dualistic) because it is the level that most people operate on. There is me and not-me, hot and not-hot, God and not-God. The problem is that the perceived duality is merely a way of us coping with something that is utterly transcendent, it's a safety mechanism for people who are not ready or unable to comprehend the true nature of whatever ultimate principle you believe in.

As the Kybalion also states, The ALL is the only thing that exists and nothing else exists outside of it; it is the ultimate reality. Yet even within it there are perceived differences, a difference between the male and female aspect of it. However, the caveat is that the difference is not actually within The ALL itself, but it is merely a differentiation made within the human mind to make The ALL more accessible.

Daniel Feldman aslo writes about this from a Qabalistic perspective, the difference between the vast face and the small face. I can't really recall everything he says, but I will provide a link later. One of the analogies he gives to the projection of human minds on the Divine is the rope-snake: There is a man who is walking along a dirt road and he sees a snake. Fearing for his life and surprised, he jumps back and wait to see what the snake does. After a while he sees the snake is not moving and he goes up to it, and kicks it. It is at this point that he sees that the snake was not a snake at all, and merely a piece or rope lying in the middle of the road. The snakiness of the rope was merely a projection of the finite human mind on the objective reality of the rope. Likewise, the perceived duality in things is taken to be a projection (of a slightly different type)of the finite human (or otherwise) intellect on the Infinite.

One link from the WoC, to clarify the Qabalistic perspective since it's applicable as ever to this (replace * with t and & with w).Read the Kybalion once more, I would recommend:
h**p://&&&.workofthechariot.com/TextFiles/Back-MysticalQabalah.html
h**p://&&&.workofthechariot.com/TextFiles/Teachings-Faces.html

 

[jiii]

It would seem that "duality" gives the impression of mutually exclusive opposites growing, as it were, toward each other from the extremes of a scale (linearly speaking). But, in the concept of duality, the extremes never do come to meet in the middle...they just get infinitely closer without ever actually reconciling. The "dualistic" interpretation of the world sees all things as the result of contradiction between two opposites, and this contradiction cannot be reconciled for the same kind of reason that is expressed in Occam's Razor. If you divide the distance from an armchair to the doorway in half, and then divide it in half again, and so on ad infinitum, you never get to the door. You come to find an infinite amount of distance between yourself and the doorway. So, too, the distance between good and evil, or right and wrong, cannot be bridged in a dualistic perspective. They are ultimately seen as mutually exclusive.

It is by courtesy of "dualism" that we have such curious ideas nowadays as "unnatural", "unreal", and "inhuman" (un-human). As far we can reasonably tell, and as far as most dictionaries are concerned, everything is intrinsically natural (at least, "everything in the material world", and thus, whatever has a representation within that world). But, the various dualistic philosophies of our ancestors as we inherit them through modern culture give us a strange sensation that many things are inherently "unnatural"...not of nature, but it's opposite, apparently. What the opposite of nature might be is suggested in innumerable different ways by different religions and schools of thought, but the concept in and of itself remains a pretty strange one. One would argue that every apple on a tree, whether an excellent fruit or a deformed one, naturally grew out of the tree, and is thus natural. The idea of something being inherently "unnatural" is, in a certain respect, like saying that the deformed apple cannot have come from nature...which we observe to be false.

The idea of "unreal" is also one of the flagships of modern dualistic thinking. In this viewpoint, there is a distinct reality and a distinct unreality...which is everything else. The term "unreal" is of much controversy amongst thinkers, though, because as much as we believe that a distinct and pure pole that is "reality" exists, we can't seem to determine what it is...and it has proven to be of the utmost confusion in Western philosophy for a long, long time. (That is not to say that Eastern philosophy has a better grasp of reality, by the way. In a very general sense, Western philosophy just seeks to define reality positively -This here is reality- in a way that is eternally consistent in its meaning, while Eastern philosophy just expounds upon reality negatively, by showing what is not consistent enough to be considered reality.)

I've been lurking the boards lately, and have noticed that the concept of duality seems to be frowned upon around here. My question is "why"?

To me, the principle of polarity is self evident...

Maybe, those who resist this principle can shed some light as to why it is viewed as being a flawed concept?

I just think that "duality" is misinterpreted often. The idea of duality is a common sense kind of concept, probably because we use a dualistic model of the world, in the form of language, to communicate. However, some people confuse the principle of duality as hearkening to the generic Eastern idea of "implied opposites", where there are poles, but they are complementary rather than contradictory. That balancing act is not involved in the pure outlook of "dualism". Thus, from the standpoint of a principle, "dualism" is a valid method of looking at the world...but from a philosophical and spiritual standpoint, it is an outlook with blatantly large holes that shouldn't be ignored.

-jiii

 

[neosnoia]

However, some people confuse the principle of duality as hearkening to the generic Eastern idea of "implied opposites", where there are poles, but they are complementary rather than contradictory.

Interesting. I've had just the opposite (no pun intended) experience.

I think it would help the discussion if we clarified exactly what Cage means: implied opposites (polarities) or ontological dualism (God/man, body/spirit for example).

It's confusing that the word 'duality' (and 'dualism') carries a definition that basically say "implied opposites," but it also carries a definition of ontological seperation. Duality is a slippery word, that's for sure. I'm a qualified non-dualist (panentheist), so I have a bit of a hard time using the word dualism, because in my experience, most people aren't thinking of coincidentia oppositorum, but rather the word dualism makes them think of the below underlined portion.

Western minds seem to hear duality as "di-theism", while Eastern minds seem to hear "di-polarity." I think, perhaps, that I spent enough time studying Eastern philosophical concepts, that when I hear "dualism" I hear with an Eastern twist (which is not really dualism at all).

• The opposition and combination of the universe's two basic principles of Yin and Yang is a large part of Taoist religion. Some of the common associations with Yang and Yin, respectively, are: male and female, light and dark, active and passive, motion and stillness. Although, these interpretations are common and understandable misconceptions of the greater meaning. The Tai-Chi in actuality has very little to do with dualism.
  

The word duality has a variety of different meanings in different contexts:

• In several spiritual, religious, and philosophical doctrines, duality refers to a two-fold division also called dualism. The term dualism has a number of uses in the history of thinking:

• In a given domain of knowledge, the idea involves the existence of two fundamental classes of things, or principles, often in opposition to each other.
• In theology, dualism can refer the belief that there are two basic opposing principles, such as good, and evil.
• In philosophy of mind, dualism refers to the views that mind and matter are two ontologically separate entities.

• In physics, duality is present when two different models actually turn out to be equivalent.
• In analytical psychology, duality is an archetype, that is to say, one of the deep powerful symbols of the functioning of the psyche.
• In alchemy, duality is a dynamic principle of opposing or complementary elements.

• Dipolar - Adjective - having equal and opposite electric charges or magnetic poles having opposite signs and separated by a small distance

 

[jiii]

I think, perhaps, that I spent enough time studying Eastern philosophical concepts, that when I hear "dualism" I hear with an Eastern twist (which is not really dualism at all).

Yeah, I know what you mean. I had immersed myself entirely in Eastern thought for quite a few years, and I found that when I talked about dualistic-type things, the notion that they are complementary had become somewhat of an in-grained preconception. Personally, I don't know if it's really all that important for one to set out developing their taste for duality ...but being able to distinguish various pure principles from eachother is important. I guess what I mean is that the 'comparative' viewpoint tends to stand in the center of a thousand different philosophies, all which attempt to expound upon the same essential mysteries in innumerable ways and inevitably overlap and borrow. What a great place to work from! However, it is important that sight isn't lost of where these individual viewpoints are unique from all the others. For example, many people asking questions about Buddhism tend to think that it depicts a dualistic world. This misconception, I think, is the result of the last few decades of Buddhist ideas being conveyed to Western culture. The best way that many Westerners found to express Buddhist ideas was by introducing them in terms of a principle of Western philosophy that we can all understand pretty easily. Dualism happens to be just that, a pretty simple, concrete, common sense outlook of the world that most Westerners can easily understand. However, in the process, the principle of "dualism" and the philosophical expressions of Buddhism tend to become somewhat "smooshed" together, and we sometimes inadvertantly end up talking about a hybrid philosophy of the two as if it were one or other separately. Not a bad personal philosophy, at all, really...you get the whole 'yin-yang' connection going However, this causes much confusion when discussing such ideas...sometimes dictionaries need to be consulted just so that everyone is on the same page.

-jiii

 

[neosnoia]

However, this causes much confusion when discussing such ideas...sometimes dictionaries need to be consulted just so that everyone is on the same page.

Heh. No doubt. It definitely has it's flaws, but I don't know what I'd do without wikipedia.

 

[Snoopy]

Duality is perception on a relative level. It is the source of conflict and perceived differentness.
Non-duality is perception on an absolute level.
If one can move from the relative to the absolute then one would move from the dual to the non-dual.
To see both and neither is enlightenment.
Hang on though, if there is dual and non-dual that is a duality.
Maybe I’m just stuck in relative perception.
Maybe I need to lie down in a darkened room.

 

[seattlegal]

So the question is:
Relatively absolutist, or absolutely relativistic?
I asked a cow about it, and she said "MU!"

 

[InLove]

I love this discussion. It is a wonder, isn't it, that we humans seem to have an affinity for dualizing/polarizing/dichotemizing just about everything, even though most of us will readily agree that it is a worthwhile endeavor to try and "think outside the circle". Furthermore, once we manage to do just that, what do we do? We immediately tend to divide and categorize anything we discover there, as well.

Just look at the concept of "panentheism" (not to be confused, of course, with "pantheism"). A net surf will quickly yield hair-splitting controversies. Go figure (or should I say "divide"?). What happens then is that neosnoia and I might conceivably wind up having to "defend" ourselves as to which "side" of panentheism we subscribe! Yikes. (An amusing note here, I hope: If you look up "panentheism" on Dictionary.com, you will find there are no matches; however, it does ask you if you meant "pantheism", and your only other choice there is "pain in the a**". I'm not kidding.). And if I were to suggest to many people that I subscribe to the Christian concept of The Trinity, but I do not assume that God is limited to it, I'd bet my last kernel of popped corn that I'd be thrown out of some theatres.

I was thinking about the integrated circuit to which Cage alluded. I am no engineer, so someone correct me if I am mistaken, but from what I can understand, two opposite charges come together, mix energies, and create (and create, and create, and create) something beyond what could not have been before these energies touched one another--even when, as jiii pointed out, there may be no actual loss of individual charges, but they have come so close as to make some sort of exchange. So, from inside the "circle", we can experience something outside of it. Does this make any sense?

That said, Snoopy, I think I am with you--I'll bring the cucumber slices and maybe a scented candle in case the darkness becomes too "exclusive".

MU, too.

InPeace,
InLove

 

[Snoopy]

if you say mu you are wrong.
if you say no mu you are also wrong.




cows have got a lot to answer for.



I've got up too soon.............................................

 

[flowperson]

Muuu tooo Allll of Youuuuu:

Read the first words in Genesis. The very first thing that G-d did was to "let" there be light in the darkness. So light is the exception to darkness, and we found out as scientific discovery exploded in the 20th century that the Bible's first words were really about relativism, on a cosmic basis.

But the beauty of this is that the implicit messages of sacred works such as the Bible teach us unique and spiritual ways to discipline ourselves to overlook the relativism and connect with the wholistic aspects of the universe. This is what are called messages of transcendance. And, IMHO, that's what we humans were placed here to demonstrate and prove, mostly through the arts.


flow....

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

Muuu tooo Allll of Youuuuu:

Read the first words in Genesis. The very first thing that G-d did was to "let" there be light in the darkness. So light is the exception to darkness, and we found out as scientific discovery exploded in the 20th century that the Bible's first words were really about relativism, on a cosmic basis.


flow....

What's interesting to me is that God commences creating by seperating things. He seperates the light from the darkness, water from land...etc. It's not necessarily duality because both things are potentially inherent within the undifferentiated whole. Light and dark aren't opposites, neither are land and water...or good and evil for that matter.

Chris

 

[flowperson]

Ahh...but if one perceives them to be different things, then they are to that person. If this did not happen in everyone's everyday life, we would have a world without conflict....boring?

It is my opinion that to see the world and everything in it wholistically is the divine portion of our selves. Seeing things in the world as being different is the natural and human way of dealing with reality.

flow....

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

Well, if we weren't able to compare, contrast, and differentiate we couldn't function. So for anything to move, for creation to animate matter, there has to be an initial seperation to create space for the movement. If we say that God doesn't move, since It is both beginning and end, or the center of the wheel if you like, then it becomes obvious that the God who creates is Himself a seperated part of the Biggest, top turtle God who is changeless and motionless. So the prequil to "In the beginning..." should read "before the beginning God seperated Himself from Itself."

Chris

 

[Snoopy]

In the “West” we have Descartes to thank for the dualism of mind / body separation I think? (therefore I am).
Descartes’ mind-body dualism laid the groundwork in Western thought for the separation of theology and science, of materialism and spiritualism, of body and mind.
The mind and body are possibly not as separate as Descartes believed. Western science is beginning to see they may not be so separate. How else does our mental "will" translate into physical bodily movement? I don't think anyone accepts they are connected at the pineal gland (as per Descartes).

Snoopy.

 

[Snoopy]

Erratum!

I'm conflating duality and dualism. Therefore ignore previous post! (and possibly this one too)


s.