> Tim Rhodes wrote:
> >Would this meme be analogous to the religious/spiritual concept of "seeing
> >past the duality" then?
>
> Only if you pretend there's no conflict between
>
> (a) seeing that two apparently conflicting concepts are actually
> different sides of the same coin, and
>
> (b) pretending there's no conflict, when in fact there is.
I think the whole point of the "seeing past the duality" meme is to enable
one to see a system as body in flux, with competing pressures rather than
identifying with the internal conflicts of the system.
Saying that a given political system is an outgrowth of the interaction
between Liberal and Conservative parties is not "pretending there's no
conflict". Rather it's recognizing the conflict as simply a part of the
system. The way talking about a chemical process does not mean pretending
acids and bases don't "conflict".
Likewise, saying that the Tao arises from the interaction between "good"
and "evil", light and dark, is not "pretending there's no conflict," but
rather understanding that conflict is itself an element created out of the
nature of the duality.
I see all systems growing out of this kind of evolution of thought. Past
the /conflict/ of the duality /nature/ of the conflict. I like to think
of it this way (which is a lot easier for me to draw out than try to put
in words):
1. Singularity (unity, wholeness) which divided creates,
2. Duality (black/white, male/female, good/evil) which creates
3. Systems (shades, relationships, religions/myths) which are composed of
three elements, both sides of the duality (1 and 2) and the interaction of
the two (3rd)
And I see the next step as,
X. Meta-System, the process of defining steps 1, 2, and 3 (in my drawings
step X is shown as a word balloon around the previous three steps).
-Prof. Tim