Beyond “Or”
Learning and Evolving the Dance of Duality
While watching the Daily Show last month, I was struck by how well Jon Stewart explored one of my favorite topics, duality, in his opening monologue titled “Good-Bad Fellas.” I envy how well Stewart can take an age old philosophical debate and phrase it in such a way that just about any audience can understand.
In my last piece, words Words WORDS, I issued the hyperbolic statement that language is our culture’s most pressing challenge, and this hyperbole I stand behind. Hyperbole is, in the end… a word.
For this post, I’d like to explore what I consider to be the most misused and divisive (by definition!) word in the English language: or. The ideological noun use of “either/or” is what I’m calling into question; that which judges phenomena arising in the world, rather than than the conjunctive “or” of choosing between various objects.In other words, the problem lies in usages like “Good or Bad,” “Positive or Negative, “Black or White,” etc.
This coffee mug “or” that book is perfectly acceptable usage, as this is discerning between two or more physical forms in space, rather than the “or” that creates a divisive, unanswerable rift between phenomena (ie: happenings) in the world.
This basic principle is beautifully presented in the book that most inspired very essay, Alan Watt’s The Book—On the Taboo against Knowing Who You Are.
“Thus for thousands of years human history has been a magnificently futile conflict, a wonderfully staged panorama of triumphs and tragedies based on the resolute taboo against admitting that black goes with white.
It is like a stage fight so well acted that the audience is ready to believe it a real fight. Hidden behind their explicit differences is the implicit unity of what Vedanta calls the SELF, the One-without-a-second, the What there is and the ALL that there is which conceals itself in the form of ‘you.’ If, then there is this basic unity between self and other, individual and universe, how have our minds become so narrow that we don’t know it?”
Or Is the Problem
Using “or” to judge between unfolding phenomena poses a false sense of simplicity, as if reality and manifestation could be so easily divided in half and selected from. Despite this illusion, in our culture we ask these “either/or” questions constantly and without second thought as if answerable one way or another.
Let’s take a hotly contested American topic in that of “Government,” and ask the question: Is it Good… or Bad? Even typing this question out seems completely rhetorical and borderline insane, but this is still a common question that is the basis of endless discussion, be it in the main stream media, on a blog, or at the dinner table.
Certainly, government does plenty of good for the people, and plenty of bad. This is obvious, of course, yet we fight to the death—libertarian vs liberal (note—both seek “liberty”) for one side or another, right vs left, us vs them, until we’ve reached the death-grip of partisan gridlock that is our current mode of governance.
If this is so painfully obvious, why do we continue to ask this terribly inadequate question?
“Or” is easy in the near term, and we Americans love easy like peanut butter loves jelly. But once that ever-so-easy either/or line is drawn in the sand, we stand back to back forgetting that we stand on the same beach. We’ve become addicted to the easy for its imminent satiability of our ego, yet run from the challenge of a more nuanced, subtle perspective that seeks to integrate good with bad, right with wrong, and of course… black with white.
This usage of the tiny little word “or,” my friends, is the fundamental linguistic problem we must address in order to evolve beyond the petty divisiveness. And if as Heidegger would have it, “language is the house of Being,” its time to use sustainable building materials.
From an evolutionary consciousness perspective, the “or” problem manifests itself most definitively—and dangerously—with the Ration/Mental/Modern perspective. This stage highlights the confusion between Meta-Reality and reality most readily, as it attempts to deny other stages by insisting that humans are exclusively rational beings. There is “nothing but” observable, measurable reality to this perspective.
Prior stages are also are highly defined by their illusionary use either/or, yet the tools at hand become most threatening when wielded by the Modern man, capable of splitting atoms into pieces so small they can wipe out entire cities with one spark.
Since the rationalist thrives on the reductive tendencies of naming, dividing, and compartmentalizing all things, the use of “or” persists and becomes increasingly destructive with the powerful tools of technology.
The rationalist must see it to believe, be able to touch it for it to be “real.” There is an implicit confusion of the metaphysical with the physical. In fact, there is no “meta” at all to this perspective; either you can measure it with the tools of science, or you can’t. Black vs White. Self vs Other. Good vs Evil. The battle wages on as literal wars continue to be fought in the name of the triumph of one side over the other of the same single coin.
The consciousness structure has the highest density in our culture and controls much of our lexicon and discourse.
Are you with us, or are you against us?
And Is the Solution
At the top of this post, you’ll see the logo for my creative media studio, Learned Evolution, called the “Seeds of Duality.” With this simple design, I’ve tried to convey the solution to the problem of “or.” The logo reveals two circlers at the center, one open, and one closed. The circle is an Eastern shape, and of course a feminine one. The center circles are intended to be both soft and endless, a nod to the Yin/Yang, and representative of the duality that pervades life in all of its glorious contrary manifestations.
Framing the opposing circles we find the square context brackets of Western thought; hard and ridged with certain, definable end points. Like the mental/modern/rational mind always seeking to give context, these brackets frame the debate that is the basis for the illusion of separateness.
The intended perception with this logo—and this life we love (hate!) so—is to see this singular design as One, and not the either/or that begs division and definition that could so easily be seen if one were to choose to do so.
It is a determined choice, after all…
Learning and Evolving the Dance of Duality
The goal then is not to choose one side of the sandy coin or the other, rather to find ways to make them dance together in harmony. The space between the two circles is intended to be filled with radiant friction that shoots off sparkly energy from the singular, Ever-Present Origin.
How long can you hold off the breaking point between the opposing poles of two magnets? That feeling just before they break apart—that is the Dance, the great Dance that need never end and is always available, the Dance of Duality that comes only when Or is transcended. Hold it while letting go as long as possible.
Act within this Presence in the world; face the Light without turning, and Dance the Dance of Duality at every given moment… the only given Moment—NOW.
Thus the answer to the endless either/or is forever Both+And…
…to what degree?
love Love LOVE,
jb
@jbolognino
