The Field of Opposites

[profundis]

Recent discussions on some friend's LJ's have me ruminating on Joseph Campbell's writings on the Field of Opposites - the polarized reality in which we live - with its day/night, hot/cold, male/female, good/evil etc pairs of opposing forces.

Rich/poor, black/white, law/chaos, up/down, liberal/conservative,gay/str8, North/South, East/West, left /right...the list goes on and on.  Of course you *can* divide up the zillions of physical and mental phenomena into other arrangements but doesn't it seem that the biggest movements and forces in society tend to fall back on this pole /opposite pole axiom at least as abstract ideals if not concrete manifestations?

Seems like the most powerful and often the most violent conflicts are about thing / anti-thing.  Us/them, communist / capitalist, Jew/Arab, insider /outsider, Democrat / Republican, commoner /royal, nurture /nature, socialist /individualist...

Obviously some of those are not objective opposites and there are spectrums of grey between the blacks and whites but the blacks and whites are there, if only as conceptual paragons that spur and motivate people's actions.

Doesn't it seem it always comes down to this sort of thing?  Even macrocosms like "Four Elements" and "16 Temperaments" are essentially subdivisions of two.  Even the Trinity concept of Christianity still boils down to God / Devil in everyday usage.

I wonder if this is because we have left and right brains...dual-sided symmetry in our biology?

Comments

[profundis.livejournal.com]

Lazy/Industrious

Simple/Complex

[shawnsyms.livejournal.com]

It's my tendency to believe that all dichotomies are ultimately invalid.

Of course I can't prove if I am right/wrong or if my perspective is true/false!

;0)

[profundis.livejournal.com]

ROFL! Thanks for your input/Go soak your head!

[shawnsyms.livejournal.com]

:0) / :0(

!

[profundis.livejournal.com]

OLOL!/!LOLO

OLOL!

[shawnsyms.livejournal.com]

That made my day. :0)

[profundis.livejournal.com]

Valid/Invalid

Your precept sounds like the opposite of a dichotomy.

*runs*

[johnjohn20.livejournal.com]

Your intellectual thinking only makes you so much hotter......I want you so bad! lol (no really)

Anyway, the Chinese believe in dynamic opposites called Yin/Yang. I think you have heard of it ;) But the point of the dynamic opposites is to come together to create balance. Actually the Greeks also believe in harmony balance as evidenced in their architecture - not too much and not too many. Anyway, in summary, I think of it as balance.

[profundis.livejournal.com]

Oh yes I should have included Yin/Yang most definitely, just slipped my mind. They also have the 5 element thing, which I think is pretty cool because it isnt static and even like the classical Western 4 element model. THat's one way to beat the Yes/No polarity I reckon - odd numbers.

[bookbear.livejournal.com]

The "opposites" working together, not against each other, right? Without the one, there can not be the other. They are the thing that helps define their "opposite." We can not wipe out evil, because then there would be nothing to show as good.

[profundis.livejournal.com]

Many of these pairs work together *by* working against one another. It seems paradoxical, but a balance of opposition can still be balance...if a tumultuous one. I tend to like the idea of the overall balance being the unity that supercedes the dualities. I think that's what johnjohn20 was getting at.

[monarchprime.livejournal.com]

I think too, it stems from herd mentality. When herd animals (which we were to a degree in our genetic past) group together for protection, we automatically see anything else out there as "not us." Hence the dichotomy is formed.

[http://users.livejournal.com/big_mama_/]

I realize this is an intelligent, thought-provoking topic . . . . . . . but that icon completely creeps me out!!!

[xkot.livejournal.com]

Binary thinking is one of my biggest frustrations. I try to remind people there are unlimited answers and options for every question - especially when talking about sexuality. Some people have such a hard time understanding shades of gray.

[bookbear.livejournal.com]

maybe/maybe not

I think it's just where humans feel most comfortable, being able to identify, categorize, shelve, delineate, anything and everything into its proper niche. Humans are inately fearful/distrustful of the unknown. So when we can identify, even if that identification is incorrect or incomplete, it just makes us feel better.

A lot of what you'r etalkign about also deals with th equestion: How do we get information? Which then leads to what information we have to then go on to categorize. When information is stymied, as it so often is nowadays (because media outlets simply don't allow themselves the time and space to display th esubtle nuances, the gray areas between the black and white) then our ability to categorize is stulted, and we appear more ignorant, more reactionary, less full encompased in the world.

Feh, what do I know. except that, the concept of the Trinity has nothing whatsoever to do with the concept of the devil. The devil is completely removed from the Trinity. A completely seperate entity.

[profundis.livejournal.com]

I think you are onto something about only getting the highlights of info not the full tones.

Re: Trinity/Devil, I know the Devil is not part of the Trinity. ;) The point was that even starting from what could be a nice tripartite way of thinking, Xianity seems to fallback upon God/Devil as the primary polar dynamic of prinicipality. A triune deity doesn't quite engender the fullness of the number three in this sense - but winds up just being caught in the same old Good/Evil binary opposition conceptually speaking.

[lunenoire.livejournal.com]

Now you've got me pondering the Gnostics again...

[profundis.livejournal.com]

Mmmm, I *love* Gnocchi! Especially the potato-onion ones. ;)

[lunenoire.livejournal.com]

Hmm...Gnocchi="Deus Pasta"?

[bookbear.livejournal.com]

Xianity seems to fallback upon God/Devil as the primary polar dynamic of prinicipality.

Not really, no. And here's why. Acording to Christian beliefs, God created the devil. That's it. For all the other sets of "opposites" they are equally naturally occuring, for the most part. But for Christians, believing that God created the devil always puts God above the devil.

Now, that's not the same thing as saying that God created evil. God/Devil is not synonomous to good/evil. The secular thinker can postulate that good/evil (two equal, naturally occuring qualities IMHO) have always existed. But you can't couch the God/Devil discussion in the same language and context.

(and don't even get me started on your use of "X", the negative element, the symbol for nothingness, to replace "Christ". ARGH! Sorry, that's just my pet peeve. It's like a straight asshole thinking he can use the word "fag" or "queer" to mean "gay.")

[profundis.livejournal.com]

I agree with you on the hierarchy of who made whom in the mythos, but I disagree with you on the idea that God and the Devil are not seen as opposing powers. Perhaps its a denominational thing, my most primary and deep experience has been confined to popular Southern denominations and tenets.

You're assuming a tad that the X in Xian is a negative or nothingness element. X is also Chi as in Chi Ro, the Greek letters for CHR in Christ. I often write Xmas too, but that does bother some people anyway.

However I use it also as a means to create a conscious distance between the word and its associations, not to piss off Christians, but to add a layer of separation between the belief system /social construct and my thoughts - because frankly I don't want to be seen as one. I don't want to be seen as an adherent of any religion, because I'm not. I have a long and unhappy relationship with religion, including Christianity (I'm using the long form solely for your comfort in this instance).

I think its really reaching to equate X with "fag", but I can't help how you feel on the subject besides to say I like you for you, not for your religious views.

[bookbear.livejournal.com]

X is also Chi as in Chi Ro, the Greek letters for CHR in Christ.

See, this is why LJ is a wonderful thing. I didn't know about this, and can now stand down my previously displayed defensive stance on the use of X. Cool, thanks.

I don't think I said God and devil weren't opposing forces, merely that if God created devil, then they're not on an equal footing. (Of course, if I did say they weren't opposing forces, then that was a mistake. Of course they are.)

[profundis.livejournal.com]

I suppose the abbreviation should really be written as "XPianity" in that case, but that could summon the scorn of the Mac-abees. *snort*

Rightio on the God/Devil thing. I can see how one might prefer tidy polar oppositions where each pair is totally equal and opposing, but thats more of a science/math/logic thing than what I was getting at in general with this whole post.

Me arteest rightie brain, ungawa.

[monarchprime.livejournal.com]

I think the God/Devil dichotomy isn't exactly "good" and "evil," but "submission to authority" and "rebellion," both of which were defined to correspond to "good" and "evil," respectively.

[bookbear.livejournal.com]

In the liner notes for Plague Mass, Diamanda Galas's music is refered to as "satanic", following an older translation of that word as one who rebels.

Etymology

[monarchprime.livejournal.com]

I love stuff like that; I could read the Oxford English Dictionary for HOURS!...I'm a geek, no?

[capitalcor.livejournal.com]

Funny you should mention right and left sides of the brain. We use that technique alot here in french school and it does make a difference.

but its never goin to be solved

[profundis.livejournal.com]

That's kind of the point, right there actually. ;)

[profundis.livejournal.com]

Yes indeed, many of these are arbitrary pairs - some of them are entirely debateable - good/evil for instance. And I think Jeb is onto something with that "people want simple choices" thing, but What I wonder is do they tend towards YES/NO choices due to the bilateral symmetry within their bodies? I wonder how much the shape of our brains and bodies affects the way we conceptualize. I bet its a lot more than most people would think about on a daily basis.

[monarchprime.livejournal.com]

I think you're right about the dual-sided symmetry in our biology. Realize also that most animals/mammals that our primitive ancestors encountered where themselve bilaterally symmetrical (predators, herd animals, etc.). A lot of physical phenomena can also be broken down that way too: night/day, Sun/Moon, even the seasons "have their opposites." The fact that we have 2 genders also plays a big part in it also.

The world would be a different place if we had neuters and 3 moons.

[mjollnir.livejournal.com]

Simplification and generalization is a survival instinct. To be honest, I can't remember whether I picked up that tidbit in a psych class or out of a fantasy novel, but as an opinion I think it's pretty straightforward and accurate.

I disagree that duality has anything to do with right-and-left brains. There are a whole bunch of numbers out there that are just as popular (in some cultures more than other) than two. Three, for instance. Maiden/mother/crone, father/mother/child, grandparent/parent/grandchild, earth/sea/sky (which also extends into many nations' armed forces), morning/afternoon/night, past/present/future, body/mind/spirit, underworld/world/overworld, the triangle...three is just as powerful a number.

There's also "nothing"--nirvana. "Four"--fire/water/earth/air, north/south/east/west, left-right/back/forward, the four-pointed star, the cross, the fyflot (aka swastika), black/white/red/yellow (the native american colours), and the four seasons. "Five"--earth/air/sky/fire/spirit, or the same thing except 'wood' instead of spirit in the Orient.

"Two" is just one of a number of sacred numbers, with all the examples you presented and more. However, I think part of its power is in its description of opposites, which brings it into the 'simplification' thing it took me so long to tie into. "Us and them" is pretty much the most simple and the most primal set of opposites, which is the chief argument for 'simple is a survival instinct'. When opposites are presented as a choice, the better choice is obviously the one best suited for survival. "Food or hunger", "warmth or freezing", "fight or flight"...I think the duality you're talking about is because our need for simplification makes 'either/or' choices the easiest, and 'easiest' generally means a greater chance for survival. I don't think it has to do with left and right brains, if for no other reason than because we're certainly capable of decisions with more than two options.

[mjollnir.livejournal.com]

I should hasten to add, now that I think about it, that I'm positive having right and left brains does affect our thinking...I just think it's coincidence we have two halves of a brain and most pairs come in two. :)

[profundis.livejournal.com]

ROFL! Oh! Well I guess I should have read this first. LOL

But...pairs come in twos by definition, bud. ;) That much at least is not a coincidence. :D

[profundis.livejournal.com]

Thanks for expanding the discussion. Yes I know the other numbers have their say too ;) Although Maiden/mother/crone and Youth/father/sage simplfy nicely into Man/Woman...and grandfather/father/grandchild sounds tidy but isn't really since the string of "greats" in front of grand could go on ad infinitum.

But your points are well taken - however I think I should clarify just in case I was coming across too deterministic - I don't think we MUST choose in terms of duality, only that we have a tendency to boil concepts down into dualities - many of which are some of the most fundamental and powerful concepts that drive us as a species.

I think its no coincidence that we seem to like base-10 numbering so much when we have 10 fingers and 10 toes - especially the fingers - our primal primary tools are base 10 by default (barring accident or deformity) so I don't think its much of a stretch for us to tend to look for dualities.

I think the either/or simplification you mention might be a good example of that sort of thing at work. Not that one choice is left and one choice is right brained - but that these types of fundamental divisions in conceptualizaition being dual due to the architecture of that which is doing the thinking.