CC BY
61
Ontology of duality
Section 11. Philosophy
Egorov Anatoly Grigorjevich, candidate of philosophical sciences, associate professor of the Department of Philosophy, Political science and Sociology of the Faculty of Economics and Management, Alexander I’s Petersburg State University of Railway Transport.
E-mail: [email protected]
Ontology of duality
Abstract: Based on the concept of biner developed by the author in recent years, in this article he explores the notions of duad, duality and polarity. The results which were obtained in the given study can be used as a preliminary tool in the study of basic ontological and epistemological problems.
Keywords: biner, duad, duality, polarity.
Nothing in the world can exist without distinction. The first and the simplest but also fundamental kind of differences in this case is duality, or biner. It is in biner where complete identity of form and content takes place. The principle of biner underlies any ontology, epistemology, philosophy, mythology, and, in general, everything. Biner is the first manifestation of the Unity proceeding to the creative process. Biner is not identical to contradiction, since alongside with contradiction it contains a number of components which are rarely considered in the traditional concepts of contradiction (such as the integral androgynous, thesis, antithesis, neutralization, and harmony). The notion of contradiction primarily includes the signs of confrontation, while the unity indicates, first of all, the moment when harmony and identity appear. However, biner also includes both of these points; it is the synthesis of contradictions and harmony, struggle and cooperation. Therefore, the concept of biner is richer and more synthetic compared to the notion of contradiction or antinomy, although the identity between them is significant too.
Without going into the complex and detailed analysis of the structure and dynamics of biner, I will only note here that the most important manifestation of the binarity, duality and contradiction of being is the interaction between the poles of biner which normally takes the most diverse forms. In the course of its actions and manifestations biner penetrates and is projected on all levels of being; it reveals itself in endless forms and processes.
The simplest expressions of biner are such notions as duality, dyad (duad), duplicity, and polarity. These concepts suggest the need for distinction. The presence of differences allows us to make comparisons. In its turn comparison leads us to identifying the relationship and interaction. As a result of understanding the essence of a particular interaction reflection occurs.
The interaction between the moments of biner manifests itself in such forms as fighting, cooperation, hostil-
ity, harmony, dialogue, denial, and suffering. The transition and interaction between the poles of biner are realized in the form of vibration (that is, the mutual transfer of energy and information between them).
The duality of all elements of being necessarily leads to doubt and choice as well as to the problematic nature of any existential or life situation; however, this way it leads to freedom and responsibility. The lack of proper unity and harmony between the poles of biner leads to fighting, hatred and tragedy, inequality and disharmony.
Duality is also manifested in the form of various dualisms. Complex manifestations of binary relations include such epistemological phenomena as dilemma, alternative, aporia, paradox, and antinomy.
Biner is a manifestation of the simplest rhythm of Logos — the world Mind, or the law of all orderings. In old Greek, the etymological meaning of the word «Logos» is related to the verbs «to bind» and «to collect». Two other meaningful aspects of the word «Logos» are the word and proportion [1; 13]. In other words, Logos connects, collects, reveals and orders everything in some proportion. At the same time, to be able to implement all this, everything should be already discernible and manifested from the Unity and Chaos. Duality and duadness are the first manifestation of the future order and harmony. Logos begins its work precisely with bin-ers. It also becomes one of the poles of the first biner: Absolute (Single) — Logos, — namely, its antithesis.
In many ways, the concepts of duality and duplicity are similar to the concept of biner, but, nevertheless, in their essence they are its aspects. Another reason for which it is worth starting the introduction to the theory of biner exactly with the concept of duality is the fact that the essence of any analysis is binomial rather than polynomial [3, 366]. In the long run, even the most sophisticated analysis to binary oppositions leads to various manifestations of the binary archetype.
77
Section 11. Philosophy
Take, for example, the «Book of Changes», the system of Arcanas Tarot, the ratio of sefirot in the Kabbalah, Plutarch’s dyadic logic of constructing paired biographies [7], the mechanism of duality in the works of art by many famous writers as well as the binary code used in computer programs. Therefore, we start the binary analysis with the study of the essence of binarity itself. However, this is just the very first, preliminary step in any study. A more complex form of analysis is the ternary analysis when the transfer to the conceptual level actually takes place.
A more complex task is to investigate the nature of speculative specificity [4,520]. Developing the concept of biner becomes another approach to clarifying the true nature of speculative specificity.
1. Duplicity (dyad, or duad). Duplicity is the first, special difference. It is already in opposition to the unit — the most primary formation, which, however, is unknowable and indefinable by itself. Duplicity is the principle of evil infinity and abstract indefinite divisibility. Everything consists of two parts, and, in its turn, each of these parts also consists of two parts [See 4, 430].
Duplicity is a symbol of division in unity. Duplicity is a kind of twofold formation, — that is, it is something that contains two unities in itself; however, these units are still not incorporated into a new unity; it means that they have not become yet a terner, trinity, or trinity concept. Duplicity is the principle of doubling, divisibility, growth, decrease and generally the process of formation [7]. We can say that duplicity has not yet become a biner, because there is still no interaction between the two elements of the dyad. Duplicity has two units which are not equal to each other. That is, it is the duplicity where difference appears at first.
Unity can manifest itself only through the dyad, or when creating differences in itself. Unity itself and its very idea are already an example of duality. However, the duality itself can be comprehended or understood only through the triad. True and more adequate understanding of the simple takes place with the help of using the more complex. Dyad itself is a thought about the indefinite [3,289]. Biner as such also has something vague. However, in this study we will not consider biner in terms of a more advanced concept — terner, although we will sometimes cover a number of aspects connected with the relationship between biner and terner.
Duplicity is the first breath and manifestation of the spirit. Duplicity is the number of love and the first condition of love. In the single devoid of duplicity, love is impossible. “Duplicity is the female number... The life of duplicity is the life of senses, but without mind control...” [6, 782]. Another name of duplicity is dyad, or duad. Even Pythagoras believed that dyad is one of the most fundamental principles (along with monad). Monad is committed to serving and specific reason, that is, to God or to the mind. However, dyad aspires (applies) to the passive and material cause, — that is, to the visible world. This antithesis of monad and dyad has the basis of all dialectics [5, 93].
Those who are already familiar with theosophy, occultism and eastern teachings of Kabbalah will understand why dyad is Mülaprakriti, cover Parabrahmam, and Shekinah-Shakti.
What is the difference between duplicity or dyad and biner? Symbolically, this can be expressed as follows. The symbol of biner (or, more precisely, one of the easiest of its characters) is a straight line. At the same time, the symbol of dyad is two straight lines that are unable to form a geometrical figure (as Pythagoras himself expressed dyad). Based on this symbol, it is possible to conclude that the dyad is a combination of two biners which are not able to interact with each other due to the lack of an element which would unify and synthesize them. S. L. Frank claims something similar to this: “... duplicity, which is rationally conceivable, — that is, logically and mathematically understood, assumes being of just two independently of each other, i. e. some kind of their equivalence” [9, 489]. This equivalence implies indifference or a slight difference.
2. Duality. Duality is an open, not closed, i. e., indefinite space (not only from the physical point of view). Duality is a combination of the active influencing principle and the principle of mirror, the perceiver. In other words, duality is already a more meaningful expression of biner, it is one of its rather adequate projections. The active, influencing principle is the thesis of biner, and the receptive principle is the antithesis of biner.
Duality is inherent in any form or in any level of consciousness. Duality is a manifestation of the binary nature of being. Every phenomenon stands “on the verge of double existence” [4, 223]. This manifestation has a universal and diverse nature. Duality is a basic law of life. The duality of life and of human consciousness is the real foundation of any thinking process and of any philosophy. As the first manifestation of plurality and difference, every duality reveals the way in this world. If there were no duality, there would be no way. However, if this duality is not defined and not clear to a human being, it becomes a source of various sufferings experienced by that man.
All spiritual torments of man take place because of different bifurcations of his/her spirit, soul and body. At the same time, in the case of overcoming uncertainty duality of his/her being a person converts the source of his/her sufferings into the source of creative harmony [10,62]. The development of relevant human consciousness is possible only through duality [10, 50].
3. Polarity. A more developed form of expression of binary archetype is polarity. It means not only the difference of elements but also their unbreakable connection with each other [3, 83]. Several philosophers have been engaged in comprehending polarity since ancient times (including Lao Tzu, Pythagoras, Schelling, Whitehead, Bachofen, Berdyaev, and A. Bam). In particular, F. Schelling believed that it is the polarity of properties and attributes that is a universal property of all existing things. “The law of polarity” was formulated by F. Schelling in his paper “About the World Soul” (1798).
78
Ontology of duality
As one of the most adequate manifestations of binarity polarity can be found everywhere. It includes the cosmic struggle of the sun and the earth, personalism and collectivism, the men’s and women’s [2, 60]. The relationship between movement and mass is the original polarity of classical mechanics. In a more complex form, the same polarity is expressed in the formula of Einstein in which movement is substituted with energy. The concept of a “universal man” introduced by F. M. Dostoevsky expresses the combination of all the polarities of the human nature [11, 125]. I. J. Bachofen believed that polarity is the basic feature of human beings.
In any polarity there are positive and negative poles. The positive pole is the thesis of corresponding biner, and the negative pole is its antithesis.
Thesis is the statement of affirmation and the negation of negation. Thus, by itself even thesis is already biner; it splits into two opposites, two poles, or two different ways of its manifestation. However, as biner the thesis is only available to such thinking which has reached a higher stage of development and ability to conducting a new level of synthesis.
The thesis is an active member of biner, it is the bearer of reality. This positive member of biner can not be comprehended directly It is always given to us indirectly through its antithesis, or rather through the system of its antitheses (how many and what antitheses the given thesis produces depends not only on the qualities of the given biner but also on the cognitive characteristics of the researcher of that biner, i. e., on the set of epistemological biners which are already available to the given researcher).
Our empirical, earthly consciousness can comprehend theses only through the evolution of the antitheses revealing them. The thesis in the biner of the first kind (i. e., vertical, or hierarchical biner) is characterized by ontological immutability and is “only currently disclosed in the evolving antithesis” [10, 458].
Antithesis is a denial of approval and an approval of denial. Antithesis is a minus or negative member of any biner. V. Sh-makov notes identity of the nature of evil and the nature of antithesis. As well as antithesis, evil has no self-sufficient value. However, if for some reason the antithesis of the given biner loses the contact with its thesis, if it stops getting creative impulses and the corresponding energy from it, it can turn into a vampire ghost devouring all available energy around him, though without any benefit for itself. A typical example of this at the everyday level is alcoholism and drug addiction. Alcoholics and drug addicts are those people who have lost the unity of their being, who has fixated on one side of their
lives and who devoted their lives only to antithesis. As a result, sooner or later the antithesis will swallow all their resources, time and energy, and there will come the complete breakdown of their personality, body and soul.
Antithesis is a passive member of the biner; it is a sort of detonation action of the plus members, or the thesis. The task of antithesis is to implement realization, actualize the content of the thesis, assist with the transformation of this content into the concrete speculative content as well as with the implementation of synthesis and the fusion of the abstract speculative with the concrete empirical.
The antithesis of any biner is different from its thesis because of the presence of the secondary binarity of the lowest order. V. Shmakov calls it “additional binarity”. This means the following. The antithesis for actualizing the influences of its thesis falls into a biner at a lower hierarchical level by itself as compared to the thesis. Without having any distinction in itself, antithesis can neither express the content of the thesis nor perceive its energy and its impact. For example, in a biner mysticism is the mind; the mind is the antithesis and has a secondary binarity of the lowest order. However, that very mind is a biner too, as it splits into the mind (where it is already the thesis of a biner) and the reason (that is, the antithesis of the reason). In this connection it is necessary to take into account another important element which is the mind, a synthesis of reason and understanding; it is different from the mind as from its aspect. It means that, in spite of the fact that they have a significant, substantial resemblance with each other, as an integral the mind is not quite the same as the mind being the thesis,
In each concrete state of antithesis there is present its entelechy, but the content of this entelechy is not relevant from the point of view of this antithesis. Only passing through the chain of its states in conjunction with holding in itself all the essential points of the chain the final entelechy of the antithesis begins to appear. Any idea is disclosed in this consciousness in strict accordance with the perception and knowledge of its antithesis.
To sum up, it is necessary to note that, despite the fact that biner is the simplest kind of ontological and epistemological formation, nonetheless, it has a very complex and dynamic nature. In the study discussed, we reviewed with you the very first projections of biner in the world and in the human mind, namely, duplicity (dyad, or duad), duality, dyad and polarity. The analysis showed that all this is not as easy as it may seem at first when becoming superficially familiar with these concepts. In the next articles, we will continue our research in this area.
References:
1. Автономова Н. С. Рассудок, разум, рациональность. М., Наука. 1988.
2. Бердяев Н. А. О назначении человека. М., 1993.
3. Гегель Г. Наука логики. Т. 1. М., 1970.
4. Ильин И. А. Философия Гегеля как учение о конкретности Бога и человека. СПб., 1994.
5. Лосев А. Ф. Античный космос и современная наука.//Бытие. Имя. Космос. М., 1993.
6. Платон. Сочинения в 3-х тт. Т. 2. М., 1970.
79
Section 11. Philosophy
7. Уваров М. С. Бинарный архетип. Эволюции идеи антиномизма в истории европейской философии и культуры. СПб., 1996.
8. Флоренский П. А. Столп и утверждение истины. Т 1., М., 1990.
9. Франк С. Л. Непостижимое.//Франк С. Л. Сочинения. М.: Правда, 1990.
10. Шмаков В. Основы пневматологии. Киев.: «София», Ltd., 1994.
11. Эпштейн М. Знак пробела: О будущем гуманитарных наук. М., 2004.
Patsan Vasyl Olexiyovich, Dnepropetrovsk National University, Senior Lecturer, the Faculty of Social Sciences and International Relations
E-mail: [email protected]
To the problem of the genealogy of personalism
Abstract: The article focuses on origins of the personalistic philosophy and explores its ways of formation and national variants. It has been clarified that personalism as a philosophical movement took roots in Christianity having been inspired by the concept of person formed by this teaching.
Keywords: Christian teaching, personalism, subject, subjectivity, person, personality, individual, genealogy.
The recent history of philosophy is characterized by the search for such reasons of personal self-identification that will ensure overcoming its crisis, marking the end of the twentieth century. Provoked by the postmodern differentiation between person and subject based upon the refusal of metaphysical presumptions, the loss of identity felt and realized against the philosophical background of postmodernism predicts its historical and cultural outcome. Revealing in the early twenty-first century as a motive in renovating the criteria of the personality, the revision of the rationalistic subjective principle performed by post-non-classical philosophy predetermines the perspectives of humanitarian reflection, aimed at reviewing the concepts of the subjectivity connecting the authentic kernel of a unique self with the rationality.
It is all-known, that a departure from the classical type of philosophizing, significant for the transformations of worldview occurred in the last century, was initiated by the new perception of the subject which had developed throughout the nineteenth century as a reaction to perceived depersonalizing elements in seventeenth century and Enlightenment rationalism, Kantian epistemology of transcendental idealism and Hegelian absolute idealism. Such a revision of the rationalistic philosophical branches forming the basis of posttraditionalistic consciousness resulted in realizing the irreduc-ibility of the subj ective formation only to the laying and revealing of cognitive foundations equalized in the famous formula by R. Descartes “cogito ergo sum” (in spite of its rationalistic nature discovered, according to the author’s confession, under the mystical circumstances!).
The change of paradigmatic precepts of philosophical thought which led to the formation of non-classical philosophy, occurred in the course of identifying the aspects of the subject, exceeding his cognitive self-identity, substantiated in the dialectic of Hegel. Such an extension of the subjective limits revealed in the different areas of philosophical reflection,
including: the neo-Kantian advancement to the realization of the being as a dialogue initiated by the opposing “explanation” to “understanding” (W. Dilthey) and the nomothetic method to the ideographic approach (W. Windelband); the meta-description of phenomenological reduction actualizing the category of the inter-subjectivity (E. Husserl); the comprehension of irrational vital sources forming the basis of “philosophy of life” (H. Bergson,
F. Nietzsche); the perception of human existence reception as an experience, fundamental for existentialism (S. Kierkegaard, K. — Th. Jaspers, J. — P. Sartre).
In all these fields of vision the subjectivity uncovered his individual, personal character, which could not be exhausted by the rationalistic generalizations of the subject’s essence. Determining the formation of modernist worldview, such a turn of philosophical thought predicted its “epistemological uncertainty” delimiting “modernity” of “history”. In the course of their demarcation the philosophical discourse took aim at the disclosure of the personality in the diversity of his individual existential manifestations. This intention was realized on the ground of the personalistic philosophy, anticipated by the ideas of Russian philosophers of the second half ofXIX — early XX centuries and established in two variants — French and American. However, having formed the vision of the subjectivity, which inspired the renovation of philosophical consciousness in the last century, personalism was denied in its fundamental principles in the process of the formation of post-modernism, approving post-non-classical way of philosophizing. Having been inspired by the personalistic exposure of the limits of rational knowledge, the postmodern deconstruction of classical philosophical concepts destroyed the axiological dimension of the personality repudiating the whole worldview as the basis of subjective unity. But the dynamics of post-non-classical philosophical reflection which reveals in moving from the deconstruction
80
