PDA

View Full Version : Polarity and potency.



Lo!
08-09-2012, 07:22 AM
If you've read my introduction you'll know that the majority of my activity on this forum will be reading, and learning from the trove of valuable and knowledgeable posts; every now and then I'll post my questions that I'd like to hear different views on. I hope the content of my questions, though they'll no doubt project a bright and revealing light of spiritual apprenticeship upon me, can promote thoughtful response from some of the journeymen and masters here.

The question that currently boils my noggin pertains to polarity. All opposites are really just polar expressions of the one same thing, correct? And it seems that in certain cases, one pole is the more true representation of the form. I'm thinking light, for example. Darkness is not its own, it is simply a lack of light. Likewise what we call cold is simply a lack of heat.

I was thinking about this in terms of order and chaos. It seems that darkness is by nature utterly overpowered by light. And throughout history, it seems that order is so easily disturbed and destroyed by chaos. Why is this? Should not order be the truer representation of divine form? Perhaps it is, and chaos is a result of beings who refuse to realize and submit to wisdom. What do you think?:confused:

Ghislain
08-09-2012, 10:11 AM
Lo!

I think you are quite correct in your assumptions that, “All opposites are really just polar expressions
of the one same thing."


Yin and yang are not opposing forces (dualities), but complementary forces, unseen (hidden,
feminine) and seen (manifest, masculine), that interact to form a greater whole, as part of a dyn
amic system. Everything has both yin and yang aspects as light could not be understood if darkness
didn't exist, and shadow cannot exist without light. Either of these aspects may manifest more
strongly in a particular object depending on the criterion of the observation.

Source: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yin_and_yang)

The, “depending on the criterion of the observation”, bit is probably a factor, where one observes a
conceptualised chaos because one is not looking at the bigger picture.


http://genius.toucansurf.com/seurat.png http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5d/Seurat-La_Parade_detail.jpg/220px-Seurat-La_Parade_detail.jpg
As it is with Seurat’s style of painting “Pointillism”. If one is too close it appears
chaotic, but if one moves to a better position to see the whole picture it comes
into order.

If all was to come into order then we would probably return to a singularity. There would be no you and me just one.
You and me are a result of the chaos.

See Entropy (order and disorder) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(order_and_disorder))

Chaos Theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory)

And

The Butterfly Effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect)

You could look at it this way...

If you purchase something new in general it immediately begins to depreciate, but again this is
“depending on the criterion of the observation”, as an old car may appreciate in value due to vintage
car collectors. Wine matures with age...but then it may not have been perfect when it was first bottled.


chaos is a result of beings who refuse to realize and submit to wisdom

I agree and disagree, I believe that chaos is a natural occurrence of any system not a result of beings, but I also believe that
the one divine system is perfection containing that said chaos. If you can realize that you are part of that system then you
are at one with perfection. If realization is wisdom then I agree.

Maybe :)

Ghislain

Edit: Everything may not be what it seems...

A white portion of my computer screen seen through a microscope and my TV remote first normal then with the button pressed.

http://genius.toucansurf.com/RGB%20Screen.png http://genius.toucansurf.com/remote%20LED.png

Notice there is no white; and that although we can't see the light on the TV remote the camera can.

As above so below :)

Andro
08-09-2012, 04:03 PM
All opposites are really just polar expressions of the one same thing, correct?

Yes. The primordial abstract/archetypal polarities are SOMETHING and NOTHING.

And while NOTHING is infinitely compressed SOMETHING, also SOMETHING is ex-pressed NOTHING.


And it seems that in certain cases, one pole is the more true representation of the form.

The SOMETHING pole, only gives the subjective appearance of Form. But it's actually just another NOTHING with a subjective name-tag :)


I'm thinking light, for example. Darkness is not its own, it is simply a lack of light. Likewise what we call cold is simply a lack of heat.

Darkness is NOT a 'lack' of Light. It's more like a lack of EXPRESSED Light. There is Light in all Darkness, as well as the opposite.


It seems that darkness is by nature utterly overpowered by light.

Cycles, my dear :) All Lights eventually implode back into Darkness, just as all Darkness eventually ex-presses its Hidden Light (Or Ganuz).


And throughout history, it seems that order is so easily disturbed and destroyed by chaos.

And the other way around. The police are trying hard these days...


Why is this? Should not order be the truer representation of divine form?

That would be the monotheistic party line, which is interestingly extremely dualistic :)

Preferring one over the other ain't gonna get you to Balanceville :)

A healthy mix is necessary to 'break the chains'.


Perhaps it is, and chaos is a result of beings who refuse to realize and submit to wisdom. What do you think? :confused:

So I get 'chaos' if I don't 'submit' to 'wisdom'? What kind of submission are we talking about? Borg type? ("Resistance is futile"? :))

The NWO motto 'Order out of Chaos'?
_________________________________

Once again, CYCLES :)

Both 'Chaos' and 'Order' are necessary. If they weren't, we wouldn't have them both :)

Bel Matina
08-09-2012, 07:11 PM
I can think of no end of ways to respond to this, but I think the most effective is to invoke the Discordian point of doctrine that all statements are true in some sense, false in some sense, and meaningless in some sense. I will point out that this is mathematically true. The variety of circumstances infinitely exceeds the expressions available to describe them. Order, then, may or may not be a property of the circumstances in front of us beyond the limit of our ability to describe (and therefore understand) it, but if fundamental order exists only on a level of complexity by definition beyond comprehension, what basis is there to distinguish it from chaos? I'm reminded of the Cartesian graph of the inverse of x - unable to follow the line to infinity, we must think what we like of the suggestion that the lines do in fact meet at the top of the sky and the bottom of the earth.

Andro
08-09-2012, 07:50 PM
all statements are true in some sense, false in some sense, and meaningless in some sense.

So you are practically saying there there is no absolute truth/falseness/meaning? I have expressed similar concepts (in different ways) in other posts.

I am very fond of 'Absolute'. I just don't like to attach attributes to it :)


If fundamental order exists only on a level of complexity by definition beyond comprehension, what basis is there to distinguish it from chaos?

The evolving order from a 'lower' chaos may be regarded as the primordial chaos towards a 'higher' order.

(IF we were to speak linearly...)

But if we drop the linear MO, the two are practically indistinguishable from each other...

:)

solomon levi
09-02-2012, 09:43 PM
If you've read my introduction you'll know that the majority of my activity on this forum will be reading, and learning from the trove of valuable and knowledgeable posts; every now and then I'll post my questions that I'd like to hear different views on. I hope the content of my questions, though they'll no doubt project a bright and revealing light of spiritual apprenticeship upon me, can promote thoughtful response from some of the journeymen and masters here.

The question that currently boils my noggin pertains to polarity. All opposites are really just polar expressions of the one same thing, correct? And it seems that in certain cases, one pole is the more true representation of the form. I'm thinking light, for example. Darkness is not its own, it is simply a lack of light. Likewise what we call cold is simply a lack of heat.

I was thinking about this in terms of order and chaos. It seems that darkness is by nature utterly overpowered by light. And throughout history, it seems that order is so easily disturbed and destroyed by chaos. Why is this? Should not order be the truer representation of divine form? Perhaps it is, and chaos is a result of beings who refuse to realize and submit to wisdom. What do you think?:confused:


I see that the polarity gives rise to the trinity - for example, the light and dark as two forces/poles
manifest an aether between them. Sometimes this aether is spoken of as a pole to the light-dark pole,
and it is, and it is also the antimatter, or how space and time define one another through light.
So yes, from a perspective, light and dark are the same, poles are one; especially I relate to these
things dimensionally.
Even the war between light and dark, or order and chaos is reflected in the world at large only projected
from our war within between existing and not existing.