I enjoyed the pleasure today of lunch with a good friend. He was courteous enough to buy me a delicious Pot Roast Sandwich and to engage in delightful conversation. (Lucky me, huh!) Between chomps of the Incredible Beef and Onion Sensation that was mine to devour, I talked with him about duality/polarity.
It all started with the comment that "Bad" or "Evil" was a necessary force - that it was only through its existence that one could enjoy "Good" or "Pleasure". Essentially, that a person is unable to define something without knowing its relational opposite and then comparing/contrasting it against said opposite. My friend, whom we shall call 'da Doktor, held that without such comparison, true awareness could not be had - nay, could very probably not even be conceived of. (Did I get that right, my friend?)
But ... eh ... I dunno ...
In the first place, that sounds a lot like "black or white" to me. Granted, there would necessarily be a grey area between them, but said grey scale seems to exist only as a means of HOW black or HOW white rather than as a lens of its own. Furthermore, I have mentioned before that I've prefered to see reality through the shades of grey rather than as a black and white contrast. My other friend, Multi-B-To-'da-Three, though, broadened my vision by describing the vividly colorful tapestry that illustrates his life. (Naturally, once I caught a glimpse of his, I immediately painted a gloriously-hued masterpiece of my own ). And with THAT said, even the shades of grey seem archaic and wretchedly limited...
'da Dok presented a very well stated argument, however, by furthering that perhaps appreciating the world through the eyes of contrast may well be the *simplest* way to really get a satisfying bite of this juicy thing called Life. The simplest to do, and the simplest to teach.
Hmmm. I'm just not sure of how that's easier ... Doesn't it seem easier to just choose to enjoy (or not-enjoy as it were) something rather than to run it through some sort of comparison model to decide if it's "good" or "bad", or "gooder" or "badder"? Don't comparisons seem like a totally convoluted and unnecessary quagmire capable of making life much more complicated than it needs be? Especially considering that one can simply choose to experience whatever is happening in the Now just as it is ... nicely and deeply and fully? I tend to think that comparisons such as sweeter or more bitter are really irrelevant to whether or not right now is painful or pleasurable...
In fact, I'll even go so far as to assert that requiring a comparison to define an experience will always leave that experience lacking - that it will rob it of its authenticity by subjugating it to something else.
It seems to me that by taking something and determining its value based on how it relates to something else is to be in a dependent and reactive state of living - whereas to experience it at face value for nothing more or less than what it IS is to infuse life with independence and active appreciation...
What are your thoughts?
It all started with the comment that "Bad" or "Evil" was a necessary force - that it was only through its existence that one could enjoy "Good" or "Pleasure". Essentially, that a person is unable to define something without knowing its relational opposite and then comparing/contrasting it against said opposite. My friend, whom we shall call 'da Doktor, held that without such comparison, true awareness could not be had - nay, could very probably not even be conceived of. (Did I get that right, my friend?)
But ... eh ... I dunno ...
In the first place, that sounds a lot like "black or white" to me. Granted, there would necessarily be a grey area between them, but said grey scale seems to exist only as a means of HOW black or HOW white rather than as a lens of its own. Furthermore, I have mentioned before that I've prefered to see reality through the shades of grey rather than as a black and white contrast. My other friend, Multi-B-To-'da-Three, though, broadened my vision by describing the vividly colorful tapestry that illustrates his life. (Naturally, once I caught a glimpse of his, I immediately painted a gloriously-hued masterpiece of my own ). And with THAT said, even the shades of grey seem archaic and wretchedly limited...
'da Dok presented a very well stated argument, however, by furthering that perhaps appreciating the world through the eyes of contrast may well be the *simplest* way to really get a satisfying bite of this juicy thing called Life. The simplest to do, and the simplest to teach.
Hmmm. I'm just not sure of how that's easier ... Doesn't it seem easier to just choose to enjoy (or not-enjoy as it were) something rather than to run it through some sort of comparison model to decide if it's "good" or "bad", or "gooder" or "badder"? Don't comparisons seem like a totally convoluted and unnecessary quagmire capable of making life much more complicated than it needs be? Especially considering that one can simply choose to experience whatever is happening in the Now just as it is ... nicely and deeply and fully? I tend to think that comparisons such as sweeter or more bitter are really irrelevant to whether or not right now is painful or pleasurable...
In fact, I'll even go so far as to assert that requiring a comparison to define an experience will always leave that experience lacking - that it will rob it of its authenticity by subjugating it to something else.
It seems to me that by taking something and determining its value based on how it relates to something else is to be in a dependent and reactive state of living - whereas to experience it at face value for nothing more or less than what it IS is to infuse life with independence and active appreciation...
What are your thoughts?
Hey mama...
ReplyDeleteThanks for the kind words. Or at least, thanks for the kind reference. I am pleased that my meanderings have been of some enjoyment. ;-)
Check this article:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/reflective-equilibrium/#WidRefEqu
It's quite lengthy and scholarly, so I'll sum up what I enjoy out of it:
As living, learning beings, we learn from each situation we are in. Some episodes are "negative", while others are "positive". Nietzsche would say that all experiences short of death are positive, as they serve to strengthen one and provide experience. Thank you, Mr. Existentialist. (I hate and reject labels, BTW. Not very useful - in fact, usually more damaging and limiting than helpful.)
Reflective equilibrium is generally applied externally - that is, we (collectively - as a society) form rules of conduct that inform decisions moral and non-moral. Judgments about what is right or wrong in each situation is based on collective history, social norms, and perhaps biology/early home environmental training. As society becomes more informed, more mature, and more aware, we see these norms change. It is naturally a very slow occurrence, yet it happens inexorably.
I would suggest that we do this on a personal level as well. My mission in life is to learn as much as possible (perhaps sharing some seeds of what I've gleaned on my way). We're not alone on this mortal coil, though - each of our threads are intrinsically and irrevocably linked. A tug over on one side has an impact on all. Frankly, these gentle tugs make us all stronger.
There are those who resist the forces at work, stodgy, unmovable, and obsolete. These folks tend to view any incursion into their world view with distrust and even outright fear. These are the folks (in my opinion) who are those who see things as very clearly black or white.
One wonders how they survive. The world of such stark contrasts must be disappointing to the extreme, for who has ever truly reached the ideal? How could one love others if they exhibit a particle of faithlessness? How could one love/forgive one's self when imperfections are noted in her/his life?
I really believe that we are all in this together. I have so much to learn. I am not afraid of the little tugs on my world view - I welcome and relish them as a moment to reflect and reevaluate. In this way, I feel that my understanding is broadened, my love for other's is increased, and mutual respect and admiration is fostered.
So when I say I love you, this is what I mean. I love your spirit, your strength, your light. I love that you are different than me. I love your vibrancy and your vivacity. I love your darkness and your shadow. I love your colors, red and green and brown and all of them! And I love all the same. My heart can scarcely take it in...
I am overcome.
PS - when I wrote:
ReplyDelete"It's quite lengthy and scholarly, so I'll sum up what I enjoy out of it"
I did not mean to be patronizing. I just meant that it was kind of boring, so to save you from that I've offered my summation. I apologize if I gave offense. None was intended.
No worries - it's terrific stuff!
ReplyDeleteI think the dualistic frame of reference is a powerful tool, that has its time and place. To categorize everything as "good" or "evil", "gooder" or "badder" is just annoying. But for certain circumstances in life it's a really important metric.
ReplyDeleteSo my answer would be the obnoxious holistic middle ground of : use it with moderation.
Because really, if you think about it, by rejecting dualism as a whole, aren't you actual being dualistic - labeling dualism as "bad" and choosing a "better" route? He he he. Kinda funny actually - it can't be fully rejected without a little hypocrisy. Damn it, dualism is so sneaky!