At Tue, 16 Mar 1999 11:03:12 EST, you wrote:
>
>Joe, while the syllogism you state (A is A, etc.) is indeed the foundation of
>all western logic, I think it is important to point out that it is also, as
>such, the foundation of dualistic thinking. We indeed live in a dualistic
>world, and thus logic is a great tool for understanding the working of things,
>as you point out. But we know from Heisenberg's Principle that it doesn't
>ALWAYS apply (as once was thought), so its not invalid to question dualism.
>In my view, dualism is the underlying paradigm of patriarchy and patriarchal
>religion, i.e. take everything that doesn't fit the model, and project it
>outwards, thereby forcing it into a dualistic relationship with us, fall down
>and worship it as greater than us because we don't understand it. I'm sure
>that as a wiccan you have experienced moments when the "ALL" (for lack of a
>better term) seemed to permeate you and everyone in the circle in a very
>dualism-erasing way, and provide a "truth" beyond logic. I feel that we need,
>in a sense, to liberate dualism, to not make it stand for more than it is, to
>let it be a system we use for the tasks for which it is helpful, but not be
>our entire definition of reality. I think this is what Heather was getting
>at. I think, as humans, we are unavoidably drawn into dualistic thinking
>beyond all other modes because human language is inherently dualistic. On the
>morphemic level, we change/add/delete meaning to words by changing one phoneme
>(bat/cat/that), which dualism provides a dualistic structure on which to hang
>all thinking. (It's even deeper in language, actually, but I use this as an
>example). So I don't deny the necessity of dualism, but do feel it limits us,
>and that reality is much "larger." And I don't think someone saying that
>logic is a basis for patriarchy is an attack on you at all, but an attempt to
>understand how we have trapped ourselves in these seemingly unassailable
>categories that dualism so readily supplies, and we can be free. I don't have
>enough philosophy or science to debate these issues very worthily, but I do
>have vision, so am struggling to make a point I know you are more well versed
>in than me.
>
>Jane
It is true that the major problem which dualism presents is that people tend to take
it as actual rather than archetypical (the unity/duality tension is really symbolic
shorthand for the unity/multiplicity tension). Of course, in the recursively systemic
view embraced by most ecofeminists, the actualities of gene, mind, ecology, society
and evolution lie fractally beneath and between these digital and integral
alternatives, and unity and duality are special tools and signifiers to be used as
aids in special cases of more inclusive and general comprehensions. There is even
more than one duality, as Riane Eisler points out. I can think of many; unequal and
one-way dependence (the patriarchal model), equal, indistinguishable and equivalent
(the civil rights model), differing but equally valuable and mutually complementary
(the partnership model) being three. The duality memetrap is activated when one
begins to lump all Not-X's together into one big Anti-X, as if everything, inc!
!
luding arguments and personal or political positions, was coin-shaped, admitting of
only two sides, so that anything not on one side has necessarily to occupy "the
other." The world is more complex and multifaceted than that; as in the
anti-immigration hook I proposed to get conservative politians to agree to help
replace central american hurricane-stripped topsoil with mulched and composted plant
material which would otherwise clog our landfills (an elegant win-win situation, I
called it, and so it is), a friend on one front is a foe on another, and everyone
flies the "us" flag. If we want other ideologies' help in achieving common goals. we
have to understand what they value, so that we may frame our proposals in such a way
that they feel they are benefitting their own priorities by expending their energies
in our assistance (and there's nothing wrong with enabling people to once again be
able to feed their families from the produce of their land, whether or not this means!
!
they're less inclined to leave it), while not compromising our own integrity, always
a delicate balancing act, as is any coalition-building effort. BTW, Heisenberg's
both-and and Aristotle's either-or still form twin legs of a duality; kinda weird,
doncha think? ;~)
Joe E. Dees
Poet, Pagan, Philosopher
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Access your e-mail anywhere, at any time.
Get your FREE BellSouth Web Mail account today!
http://webmail.bellsouth.net
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
