Every Quality has Opposite Poles

[JosephM]

Thanks Snoopy,

Very short and profound quote.

JM

[soma]

There are opposites each is necessary and a vital force for all the possibilities of the macrocosm to become actualized. In the absence of these opposites, the positive and negative, the universe could not hold together and would cease to exist. To go beyond these polarities is to realize Christ consciousness. Pure Consciousness rises above the disconnected, the dissociated and becomes unified with the whole.

http://thinkunity.com

[wil]

All the polar opposite examples are interesting...and regarding the light/heat/good, dark/cold/evil discussion these are cases where the negative is simply lack...lack of light, lack of heat, lack of good...

Not quite the same as the poles with N and S....and magnetics...but interestingly enough we get to live in the time while they are working on switching so they are moving more rapidly the strengths are not as certain around our globe...and there exists large areas where if it wasn't for the stars, a clock, sextants or GPS our ships would not know where they were as compasses will not give accurate directions...

Love...what is its polar opposite...is it hate or fear....or does love as an attribute have an issue with itself..does it fall into the lack category...can love be utilized negatively in the extreme? I think it can.

How about forgiveness, knowledge, will, zeal, strength, faith...all wonderful attributes...but they all require balance...inside each and everyone of them are 'opposite poles from 100% to lack' where if utilized to their extreme, they become an issue and if under utilized they are an issue...

Like salt or sugar in cooking a balance must be achieved. But they are not opposites.

[Bruce Michael]

Hi Br. Wil,

>Love...what is its polar opposite...is it hate or fear....

Yes there is a theosophical understanding that fear is the opposite of Love.

That's a funny thing about opposites: they tend to cancel each other out. High pressure will release into Low pressure, heat to cold etc.

>Like salt or sugar in cooking a balance must be achieved. But they are >not opposites.

I guess I would say bitter is the opposite of sweet.
True opposites in cooking are your alkalis and acids- and of course when you put them together they react and become inert salts. Again we see the dynamic relationship which enables us to create a light tasty sponge cake.

>How about forgiveness, knowledge, will, zeal, strength, faith...all >wonderful attributes...but they all require balance...inside each and >everyone of them are 'opposite poles from 100% to lack' where if utilized >to their extreme, they become an issue and if under utilized they are an >issue...

All virtues work together in harmony.

Let's have unity not uniformity,
Br.Bruce

[Bruce Michael]

Hello Br. JosephM


>In my view, what is being described to you is a very important concept of >the mind that until it is undone spiritual progression can be severely limited.

It only prevents progression along the path that you might be advocating.
As for me, on the Christian Rosicrucian, or Christian Esoteric path, it is a very useful tool for understanding. And certainly the great teachers that I admire have gone to great heights in their ongoing development, and subsequently have given practical gifts to the world.

In to discerning whether good and evil exist you need to define them. Indulging in abstractions will not lead to any "good" result.

If you say you don’t believe in something, you need to define what it is you don’t believe in.
“I don’t believe in cats and dogs. There are no cats and dogs, just animals.”
In reality, those who say they live outside laws, don’t. They still have to abide by the laws of physics etc. They can’t lift themselves up by their own pigtails.

You will have no argument whether there is a brick wall in front of you when you try to walk through it. There is the duality of the empty space and the wall. That is reality.

We all understand human laws, such as driving our car down the right or left side of the road- depending on what country we are in. We know the consequences of not doing that.

And so those who advocate a world without duality, a kind of 'blancmange' of circumstance, do not really live their day to day lives like that. They are indulging in an abstraction.

In science there is cause and effect. In karma there is cause and effect- however long that effect takes to affect. In the topsy turvy astral world effect precedes cause.

In ancient India there was a concept of non-duality, so called. In ancient Persia, Man came to understand the nature of duality as taught by the great Zarathustra. Our Greek thinkers spoke of the Good, True & Beautiful as being qualities of God.

We can come to an understanding of Monist, Dualist and Trinitarian ideas without resorting to a dogmatic approach which states that there is "no such thing as one or the other...".

There really is such a thing as Goodness. It is understood by all.

In this age of the Consciousness Soul or Arterial Self, we will be able to establish our own “moral imaginations” as to what actions are right or wrong. Of course we must be aware of our own gross egotism, which always tends to cloud things.

Blessings,
Br.Bruce

[JosephM]

Originally Posted by Bruce Michael

(snip)
That's a funny thing about opposites: they tend to cancel each other out. High pressure will release into Low pressure, heat to cold etc.
snip)
Br.Bruce

Br. Bruce,

Perhaps when you get the chance you will look up the word
con·tin·u·um (1. A continuous extent, succession, or whole, no part of which can be distinguished from neighboring parts except by arbitrary division.

It seems to me this definition may help you to understand why we do not see how high and low pressure are opposites. In my view, they are not 2 contrary or opposing forces as in opposites. The same goes for heat and cold. They are merely degrees of the same substance that are distinguishable from neighboring parts only by arbitrary division. However, if after investigation you still feel they are opposites perhaps you will enlighten us on the religious, faith or theology benefit we would receive by that understanding. I would be most interested in your point.

If not, perhaps you would be interested in how this understanding of the premise of a continuum rather than opposites relates to religious or spiritual progression.

Love and Peace,
JM

[Bruce Michael]

>Perhaps when you get the chance you will look up the word
>con·tin·u·um (1. A continuous extent, succession, or whole, no part >of which can be distinguished from neighboring parts except by arbitrary >division.

Anyway Bro., we can argue about it until the cows come home.

It's not arbitrary if you can assign a specific value to it.

>It seems to me this definition may help you to understand why we do not >see how high and low pressure are opposites. In my view, they are not 2 >contrary or opposing forces as in opposites.

Since we are looking up the dictionary op·po·site
adj.

1. Placed or located directly across from something else or from each other: opposite sides of a building.
2. Facing the other way; moving or tending away from each other: opposite directions.
3. Being the other of two complementary or mutually exclusive things: the opposite sex; an opposite role to the lead in the play.
4.
1. Altogether different, as in nature, quality, or significance: The effect of the medication was opposite to that intended.
2. Sharply contrasting; antithetical: had opposite views on the subject.
5. Botany Growing in pairs on either side of a stem: opposite leaves.


n.

1. One that is opposite or contrary to another.
2. An opponent or antagonist.
3. An antonym.


adv. In an opposite position: They sat opposite at the table.

prep.

1. Across from or facing: parked the car opposite the bank.
2. In a complementary dramatic role to: He played opposite her.


As I stated before (but some have appeared to miss) it is linear- heat and cold, light and dark, linearly speaking, are opposites. You might say that the line is a continuum, but you yourself, or a thing in question, are placed on that line.


>However, if after investigation you still feel they are opposites perhaps >you will enlighten us on the religious, faith or theology benefit we would >receive by that understanding. I would be most interested in your point.

Thank you for the opportunity.
One practical outcome is the teaching of the virtue/vice pairs.
I will expand on this in a later thread.
Virtue/Vice pairs

Here are some further thoughts on duality and the nature of evil:
On the Nature of Evil

Shalom,
Br.Bruce

[JosephM]

No argument here, just a different view. Thank you for your response.

Love and Peace,
JM

[Impqueen]

Originally Posted by Bruce Michael

Hi Br. Wil,

Yes there is a theosophical understanding that fear is the opposite of Love.

In my experience fear increases love, rather than cancelling it out.

Originally Posted by Bruce Michael

it is a very useful tool for understanding.

I would agree that polarities can be a useful tool for understanding. It can be useful for a child to learn of bad behaviour versus good behaviour. That doesn't mean that as they grow up they shouldn't interrogate these definitions, shouldn't recognise exceptions to the rules and act accordingly. It's just a tool and there are times it's better to use a different tool, or just come at an issue with your bare hands.

We're all arguing from positions of belief and faith, so we could be here forever!

[Bruce Michael]

Originally Posted by Impqueen

In my experience fear increases love, rather than cancelling it out.



I would agree that polarities can be a useful tool for understanding. It can be useful for a child to learn of bad behaviour versus good behaviour. That doesn't mean that as they grow up they shouldn't interrogate these definitions, shouldn't recognise exceptions to the rules and act accordingly. It's just a tool and there are times it's better to use a different tool, or just come at an issue with your bare hands.

We're all arguing from positions of belief and faith, so we could be here forever!

What we have are polar opposite views .

As far as morality, moral decisions and acting morally goes, well that is a whole other question.

[Impqueen]

Originally Posted by Bruce Michael

What we have are polar opposite views .

Lol

[Bruce Michael]

Hello Ben,
>Actually, what Impqueen has pointed out is that heat and light are both >scientific qualities which can be measured. Cold and dark, on the other >hand, are semantic and only exist in relation to the scientific qualities of >heat and light.

I have posted links to lectures which explain why this view is erroneous.
More from Bobby Matherne

This is a bit difficult to follow, so let me jump ahead and give you the Ur-phenomenon which Goethe derived from these experiments and observations of his: "Light through dark -- yellow; dark through light -- blue." (From page 76). Again one can observe for oneself this Ur-phenomenon. Any cloudless day look up into the sky. We all know from photos of space that space is completely dark. The darkness of space is flowing through a light-filled space during the day and thus we see a blue sky. (Yes, I am aware of the abstract concepts with which physics explains the blueness of the sky.) At sunset, the sky will usually appear yellowish to deep red. What is happening at sunset? The light is flowing through air that has become dark far to the west of where we stand to observe the sun as it sets: light through dark -- yellow. There are no abstract concepts involved here that Goethe asks us to swallow whole, but a simple description of something we can each observe and verify for ourselves. Thus the blue fringes at the top of the circle in the diagram above corresponds to a place which dark (dimness) is flowing through light; the yellow fringes where light is flowing through dark (dimness).

>Good and evil on the other hand are not scientifically measurable and are >both "merely" semantic differences.
No they are more than that. Just because something is not measurable in weight or number doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You can't put a number on life and you cant' weigh the soul- although some have tried.

We can measure through quality alone.

Further:

Your difficulty lies in the fact that you are always hankering after a phoronomical treatment of light and color. The strange education we are made to undergo instils this mental habit. Thinking of outer Nature, people will restrict themselves to thoughts of a more or less phoronomical character. They will restrict their thoughts to what is arithmetical, spatially formal, and kinematical. Called on to try and think in terms of qualities as you are here, you may well be saying to yourselves: Here we get stuck! You must attribute it to the unnatural direction pursued by Science in modern time.

>There is always danger when we try to explain spiritual ideas using >scientific terminology. The danger is that we trivialize the spiritual and >misrepresent the scientific.

The word Scienta means knowledge- it doesn't just refer to a materialistic science. There is a Spirit Science.
We can draw our terminology from anywhere that suits- it's the concepts that are important. The Vedic teachers did a great job inventing terms and we still use them today- that is fine too.



>It's wiser to use spiritual terms to describe spiritual ideas, and leave >scientific terms for discussions of actual science.

The time has come where we have to be more scientific in our spiritual studies. We use logic, yes, but logic cannot extend past its flat plain grid. We also require imaginative cognition.

More from the Light course:

by Rudolf Steiner

But now, what is this "dark"? You must take the dark seriously, -- take it as something real. (The errors that have crept into modern Physics since about the 16th century were only able to creep in because these things were not observed spiritually at the same time. Only the semblance, as appearing to the outer senses, was taken note of; then, to explain this outer semblance, all kinds of theoretical inventions were added to it). You certainly will not deny that when you look at light the light is sometimes more and sometimes less intense. There can be stronger light and less strong. The point is now to understand: How is this light, which may be stronger or weaker related to darkness? The ordinary physicist of today thinks there is stronger light and less strong; he will admit every degree of intensity of light, but he will only admit one darkness -- darkness which is simply there when there is no light. There is, as it were, only one way of being black. Yet as untrue as it would be to say that there is only one kind of lightness, just as untrue is it to say that there is only one kind of darkness.


When a space is filled with light it is always filled with light of a certain intensity; so likewise, when a space is filled with darkness, it is filled with darkness of a certain intensity. We must proceed from the notion of a merely abstract space to the kind of space that is not abstract but is in some specific way positively filled with light or negatively filled with darkness. Thus we may be confronting a space that is filled with light and we shall call it "qualitatively positive". Or we may be confronting a space that is filled with darkness and we shall judge it "qualitatively negative" with respect to the realm of light.

How is it then with darkness? We have precisely the opposite feeling. We feel the darkness sucking at us. It sucks us out, we have to give away, -- we have to give something of ourselves to the darkness. Thus we may say: the effect of light upon us is to communicate, to give; whilst the effect of darkness is to withdraw, to suck at us and take away. So too must we distinguish between the lighter and the darker colors. The light ones have a quality of coming towards us and imparting something to us; the dark colors on the other hand have a quality of drawing on us, sucking at us, making us give of ourselves. So at long last we are led to say: Something in our outer world communicates itself to us when we are under the influence of light; something is taken from us, we are somehow sucked out, when under the influence of darkness.

More on qualities and measurement:

Many quantities measure directly perceivable qualities; examples are length, weight, volume, temperature, brightness, loudness, pitch. However, as you know, as science has progressed, the tendency has been to explain these quantities in terms of more fundamental quantities. So, matter and energy are explained in terms of elementary particles’ rest mass, charge, spin, etc., and the four fundamental forces (gravitational, electromagnetic, strong nuclear, weak nuclear). (String theory takes the reduction even deeper.) As a consequence, reality is explained in terms of quantities, which we cannot perceive, and ultimately in terms of quantities that are only very indirectly related to the qualities we do perceive. So “ultimate reality” is remote from our experience, and our everyday experience is explained as a sort of complex, inescapable illusion with little similarity to true reality. The result is that we are alienated from the natural world. Nature is seen as something abstract, mechanical, and non-living to be manipulated from afar. (It’s rather like trying to understand other people and to relate to them in terms of their neurons and physiological processes. If we were really capable to relating to people in this way, the effect would be to alienate us from them, for we would be viewing them as a kind of biochemical robot. To the extent you could view yourself this way, it would be self-alienating, for your intellectual understanding of yourself would be disconnected from your experience of yourself.)


Goethe’s approach is different, for he tries to keep the explanation at the same level as the phenomena to be described, that is, everything is in terms of qualities (which is all that we can experience). In this way, the explanations have the same reality as the phenomena, so that neither undermines the reality of the other. Nature is understood in human terms and experienced as a part of us, as we are experienced as a part of nature.

Blessings,
Br.Bruce

[MrK]

Originally Posted by Bruce Michael

Hello Ben,
>Actually, what Impqueen has pointed out is that heat and light are both >scientific qualities which can be measured. Cold and dark, on the other >hand, are semantic and only exist in relation to the scientific qualities of >heat and light.

I have posted links to lectures which explain why this view is erroneous.

I find this very interesting. I assume you are referring to the link you posted earlier to Steiners lectures on the thoery of heat. While you obviously believe that the opinions in the lectures are valid, the lecture does not actually answer the point made that heat is a measurable scientific quality and cold is not.

While the lecture makes some interesting philisophical points, the science is woefully out of date and many of his chains of reasoning would not stand up to interrogation by a moderately capable GCSE student. This is not the fault of Mr Steiner himself, since the lecture is 87 years old he would be limited by the scientific knowledge of the time, but I'm curious as to which parts of the lectures you think are particularly relavent to the discussion of polarity?

[Bruce Michael]

Hello MrK,
I had some more explanations about qualities in my last post.

>Steiners lectures on the thoery of heat. While you obviously believe that >the opinions in the lectures are valid, the lecture does not actually >answer the point made that heat is a measurable scientific quality and >cold is not.

You are talking about measure, weight and number- not quality.
This is an esoteric board- not materialistic science. What is your understanding of light and dark in the higher worlds? How does cold manifest in the etheric world?


>While the lecture makes some interesting philisophical points, the science i>s woefully out of date and many of his chains of reasoning would not >stand up to interrogation by a moderately capable GCSE student.

Not really. There are many eminent scientists who discuss and work with these ideas. Since I am not a scientist I suggest you debate these questions with the professionals.
Check out the archive for previous discussions.

>This is not the fault of Mr Steiner himself, since the lecture is 87 years o>ld he would be limited by the scientific knowledge of the time,

Newton is older.

Heat is not a measurable scientific but cold is. What is measured is lack of cold. Really there is no such thing as heat, just degrees of cold- stretching forth from "absolute zero"..

Basically you're just looking from the heat angle but my cold angle is just as valid.
Again we have polar opposite views .

We have sensations, we sense warmth and cold- everyone understands that. And these ergonomic qualities are valid for human life and our understanding of it.

Greetings,
Br.Bruce

Or maybe you could contact the other Bruce if you don't get it.

[bgruagach]

I'm not sure how playing semantics and blurring the lines between science and spirituality clears the topic up.

But maybe that's just me.