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]

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?