Consider that the more we disagree with something, the more real it becomes. And, consider that disagreement actually holds agreement in place. (Remember our mantra?. . . the theory of renowned Swiss psychiatrist Carl Jung who stated that “what you resist, persists.”) In fact, you may wish to consider that the primary function of disagreement is to create agreement. As an example, I offer racism. If racism did not exist in some sort of shared reality, we would have no reason to disagree with it. It simply would not be. If it didn’t exist, there would be no reason for the disagreement of it. Therefore, it’s perfectly sound and logical to infer that racism exists because of agreement and that the agreement of racism continues to be held in place through disagreement.
In Chinese philosophy, yin and yang are generalized descriptions of the antitheses or mutual correlations in human perceptions of phenomena in the natural world, combining to create a unity of opposites. The term "liang yi" (simplified Chinese: 两仪; traditional Chinese: 兩儀; pinyin: liǎngyí) literally means "two mutually correlated opposites," also known as Yin and Yang.So to further explain, in the concept of Yin and Yang we can see that there cannot be “hot” if there is no “cold.” There can be no “sin” if there is not “righteousness.” And there can be no “good” without “bad.” If you consider this, I think you will find it to be true. There would be no reason for the concept of evil to exist if all we had was good. Good would cease to be good. It would just be the way that everything is and thus we would not require a name for it. There would be no need for a name as we would have no need to distinguish it from anything else.
According to the philosophy, yin and yang are complementary opposites within a greater whole. Everything has both yin and yang aspects, which constantly interact, never existing in absolute stasis. It is impossible to talk about yin or yang without some reference to the opposite: yin–yang are rooted together. Since yin and yang are created together in a single movement, they are bound together as parts of a mutual whole.
Yin–yang is not an actual substance or force, the way it might be conceived of in western terms. Instead, it is a universal way of describing the interactions and interrelations of the natural forces that occur in the world. It applies as well to social constructions – e.g. value judgments like good and evil, rich and poor, honor and dishonor – yet it is often used in those contexts as a warning.
Yin always contains the potential for yang, and yang for yin. Yin and yang are balanced: yin–yang is a dynamic equilibrium. Because they arise together they are always equal: if one disappears, the other must disappear as well, leaving emptiness.
If you immediately consider God however, you might say that God exists regardless of anything else. To this end, you must realize the difference between the person,”God,” and the concept, “God.” (I write person because even though we know God to be a spirit being, we still relate to him as if he were a person.) So, the person, “God,” exists without having an opposite or any other. The Yin-Yang philosophy does not apply to the “beingness” of humans or deities – only to concepts – describing the ebb and flow of how the world works.
The concept, “God,” exists only because there is an opposite – “Satan.” When we view God as concept, we are thinking of His attributes such as: Good, Benevolent, Loving, Healer, Omniscient, Omnipresent, etc. When we view Satan as concept, we likewise are considering his attributes such as: Bad, Evil, Destroyer, Tempter, etc. Each concept named above, must have an opposite in order to exist. If I asked you to prove God, you would most likely try to relay to me an experience you have had of Him through the expression of one of His attributes. But in trying to prove God’s existence based on an experience of one of His amazing attributes, you will always fall short of proving Him because your argument will merely focus on proving the existence of an attribute of God (and therefore also proving the opposite attribute of that which you are trying to prove).
There seems to be no way to empirically prove God. Therefore, should someone ask me to prove God, I would have to (arguably wisely) say that I cannot and I would point him to the scriptures that read:
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” - John 1:1 (NKJV)Any beliefs that you or I have about God will most likely diminish him. We don’t have to have beliefs about God. If you believe in God, your beliefs about Him are completely unnecessary.
“But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.” – Hebrews 11:6 (NKJV).
The same is true for you and me. You don’t need to have beliefs about me. You believe in me because you have experience of me. Therefore, any beliefs you make up about me, will most likely diminish my ability to be powerful for you in your life. The only way to get past this, is to give up any and all beliefs you have about me and just let me be – exactly as I am and exactly as I am not.
So where does that leave us? Well, it still leaves us with the question of how we, as individuals, can transform ourselves to operate so that we are not furthering (keeping in place) the conversations and realities of sexism, racism, hatred, bigotry, homophobia, etc. I will go into this inquiry in my next blog. Until then, I wish you every good thing.
To Be Continued . . .
Copyright ©2009. All rights reserved.