| On the Dual Nature of the Universe Part II | 3 comments |
|
7 Jan 2008 @ 09:41, by John Grieve
On the Dual Nature of the Universe Part II
Elsewhere I have referred to the fusing of opposites, and a new possibility of science and mysticism coming together. If spirit and matter are indeed fusing, and in Hegel’s formulation, presenting a synthesis in the form of ‘Mind’, and in my words, also as ‘Information’, then after this period of alienation a new Oneness, a new Monism, a new Monad is emerging. What is this.
In my Millennium essays of a decade ago, I put forward a view, new to conventional ideas if not mysticism, that the personality was like one side of a coin, the other side of which was the Soul. I will now expand and develop this.
In the Buddhist/Hindu tradition the personality is compared to a jewel of myriad facets, each one reflecting an innumerable number of other faces, like a hall of receding mirrors. Depth upon depth, image upon image. The personality, or Self, if not actually infinite, is manifold and complex. In literature we have the remarkable view presented by Hermann Hesse in Steppenwolf. He first mentions that his protagonist, Harry, is both a man and also a wolf of the steppes ( a ‘steppenwolf ‘) not surprising, when we consider the title of the book. Then he proceeds to say that Harry’s personality is much more complex than this simple schema suggests, and is in fact manifold and practically infinite, divided into different sub-personalities and identities. Later on, in the surrealist/hallucinogenic episode where Harry is in a theatre, strangely reminiscent of a renaissance Memory Theatre, he can go into different rooms with titles on the doors referring to his past, and which are filled with mirrors, images and crystals, where he encounters more sub-personalities and identities.
Clearly, there is a profound view that the human personality is complex and deeply-nested with sub-personalities, identities and characteristics which reach off into infinity.
Building on this view, I add a passing comment on Eric Berne’s theory of Games and Transactional Analysis. Berne’s whole approach is built around just three archetypes, namely the Parent, Adult and the Child. Using this template he creates a rich analysis of society and psychology featuring as a key aspect alienated psycho-social behaviour which he calls “ games”. All this can be done employing just three archetypes ( Jung’s term), so demonstrating the amazing power which is inherent in these archetypes, sub-personalities and identities.
However, there is more to this. Some people believe that the psyche is physically based, in our genes and also in our brains. That is, that it has material aspects and foundations. Also, that while manifold and complex, it is not actually infinite. Furthermore, each of us being a unique individual, it is discrete, in the same way that an individual particle is. Also, all theories of the personality agree that it is highly structured. In Freud we have Ego and Super-ego and also Id. In Jung we have archetypes, Collective Unconscious, Animus and Anima. In Assagioli we have sub-personalities and identities. All this suggests that the individual human personality is an aspect, at the material end of a pole of a contradiction, as I put forward in part I of this piece.
The infinitude of the personality, referred to earlier in those accounts, is by no means certain for the simple reason that there has always been ambiguity, and even confusion, in most traditions when discussing these three things : the personality, the Self and the Soul. It is my belief that the central thing is the Self, of which the material aspect is the personality and the spiritual aspect is the soul.
We are treading upon sacred ground here and must proceed with caution. According to Kant, in his 1781 book ‘ The Critique of Pure Reason’ there are things which are inherently unknowable, things he averred belonged to the noumenal world of “things in themselves” or essences. The Soul belongs among them. Among other things in that remarkable book, Kant reintroduced antimonies or opposites into philosophical thought which were to achieve a pinnacle a few years later in Hegel’s theory of contradictions, known as dialectics. By the way, Hegel did not share Kant’s view about things being unknowable. Even essences, he believed, were knowable.
Much has been written about the soul but it remains a misty area of vague notions and speculations. I am not conversant with the opinions of Church Fathers or theologians but I believe my opinion will merit consideration.
I believe in an inherent duality of all things in the universe, based on a prime duality of Spirit/Matter which together make up the Monad, which is One, but not a monolithic One. More on this later.
In this view, the soul is the spiritual aspect or half of the Self. It is infinite, continuous just like a waveform of light, and contrary to the discreteness of the personality, its continuity provides a bridge to all the other souls that exist. All these souls are part of the Monad, the World Soul or Self, which together connect and interconnect everything and thereby provide the universal web, which mysticism/perennial philosophy asserts as one of its basic beliefs.
Science and mysticism
As I demonstrated in Part I science is the product of a succession of alienations and of the most alienated society in the history of civilization (capitalist). Yet we must not thereby conclude that it is worthless or negative. Alienation is not necessarily a bad thing. Each of us has to separate from our parents, particularly our mother, during adolescence in order to become individuals and find our true identities. This is clearly a process of alienation. Similarly, as put forward by Hegel, Spirit undergoes a process of alienation when it becomes a myriad of individual, material things. Science has achieved many remarkable things. Particularly, in recent years with its growing fusion with mysticism in the form of quantum physics and Chaos theory it has produced some remarkable results. James Gleick in his book “ Chaos: the Making of a New Science” demonstrates some amazing mathematical objects and ideas. One in particular seems to tower above others and I believe people don’t really understand what it is.
First I will describe a traditional representation of the monad: the Yin/Yang symbol. A pair of interlocking spirals which together form a perfect circle but each half of which is of a different colour( polarity) and facing in opposite directions. This elegant, beautiful object is considered a perfect representation of the One and is a central icon of Taoism. I believe that Chaos theory provides another, similar icon
which is practically identical to this yin/yang symbol but different in informative ways. I am referring to that weird mathematical object known as a Strange Attractor (or Lorenz attractor). I will not baffle the non-scientific reader with overly technical details except to say that this “attractor” represents physical processes or qualities. It has two wings, like a butterfly, and is as beautiful in its own way as the yin/yang symbol. It is completely continuous with no breaks. When the “action” or “locus” of a moving point moves from one wing of the butterfly to the other, it represents either a reversal of direction of a physical system ( such as a pendulum) or the change of polarity from one quality to its opposite. Gleick comments that this mathematical object has strange properties and is almost mystical and similar to classical spirals. One strange property is that it is an infinite object in a finite space. The continuous lines that make up this unique object, upon closer and closer examination, keep splitting into two parts, which then split into two again, and so on infinitely.
We see then that opposites and polarities and contradictions and the number 2 are not just the preserve of philosophers. I believe that this mathematical object is another icon of the Monad equally as valid as the Yin/Yang symbol. It has been produced, quite independently, by scientists, many of whom have no interest in, or knowledge of mysticism.
If this is true it suggests some important conclusions. Dualities emanate from the Monad because it is by nature “One-Composed-of-Two”. It is not a monolith. It is actually composed of an infinite pair of opposites, joined together into one like the two wings of the butterfly, which can split into two ad infinitum. This is what they do as they emanate from the Monad. This scientific icon confirms the wisdom and correctness of the ancients, and demonstrates the unity of science and mysticism and points to the possibility that this observed fusing of opposites in the world of politics, media, economics etc. is just the monad calling us all back to Itself.
|
|
Category: Philosophy
3 comments
16 Jan 2008 @ 16:48 by jmarc : Wave–particle duality
In reference to your thoughts on light waves, Young and Fresnel's double slit experiments come to mind.
Are we the grid through which the monad shines, and are we not referring to Interference patterns
when we discuss duality?
wave / particle duality in quantum physics
16 Jan 2008 @ 17:52 by bushman : Thermodynamics
I just saw a show on PBS, about the race to absolute zero, where it was discovered that there is a new form of matter that forms a "condensate", where specific particals basicly forget what they are and become both a partical and a wave form, basicly becomeing one unit rather than individual atoms.
16 Jan 2008 @ 18:01 by mortimer : Young (interference fringes)
Young coined the term ''interference fringes''...
Dr Quantum - Double Slit Experiment - [link]
peace
Other entries in Philosophy
3 Mar 2008 @ 12:50: Taoism and Confucianism : Part II
22 Feb 2008 @ 09:33: Edward Carpenter, Gandhi and the Politics of Identity
27 Jan 2008 @ 09:37: On Creating and Resolving Contradictions on the ChessBoard: Part I
30 Dec 2007 @ 09:43: On The Dual Nature of the Universe Part 1
17 Dec 2007 @ 09:59: Superconsciousness
13 Sep 2007 @ 20:48: "Shadows in the Dark" or "Enlightenment - virtue or crime, blessing or curse"?
15 Aug 2007 @ 17:17: Our world as a simulation
9 Aug 2007 @ 14:44: Beautiful Lies, Ugly Truths and the Answer to an Age-Old Paradox
11 May 2007 @ 18:44: All Religious Writings (Bible, Koran, etc.)
1 May 2007 @ 16:35: Eureka!
|
