Valued And Non-Valued Dualities
Many thought systems are dualistic; however dualities are construed differently. I would like here to make a distinction between valued and non-valued dualities.
With non-valued, such as man and woman, business and labor, and nature and civilization, neither side is good and neither side is bad. Both have the capacity for both. With valued dualities, such as good and evil, health and disease, or knowledge and ignorance, one side is good and the other side is bad.
This means that there needs to be a different approach for the two kinds of dualities. With non-valued dualities, the solution is to maximize each side's potential to do good and minimize each other side's potential to do wrong. With valued dualities, the solution is to maximize the good side and minimize the bad side.
The correct way to deal with non-valued dualities is through synthesis within the framework of check-and-balance. At the bottom level, the two sides stand to check each other's destructive potentials by affirming their rightful prerogatives. At the top leve, the two sides stand to work together to achieve what neither can accomplish in itself.
Woman has right to protect herself from man's violence, and man has right to protect himself from woman's viciousness. And at the top level the two stand to work together to produce and sustain new life.
Business has right to protect itself from those who want to slaughter the propertied class, and labor has right to protect itself from corrupt and rapacious business practices. And at the top level the two stand to work together to produce goods.
Civilization has right to protect itself from harmful viruses and bacteria, and people concerned for the well-being of the environment have right to protect rich and beautiful environments from destruction. And at the top level the two stand to work together to allow people the benefits of technological lifestyles as well as being able to enjoy vibrant nature.
Whereas with good and evil, or health and disease, or knowledge and ignorance, no such synthesis is desirable. The solution is to maximize the good side and minimize the bad side.
I do not believe that this argument has been made before; and it should be. We are dealing here with completely different things. We are dealing on one side with dualities that are value-neutral, and we are dealing on the other side with dualities that are valued.
And it is for everyone's benefit to understand this distinction in order to know how to deal with either set of dualities rightfully.
With non-valued, such as man and woman, business and labor, and nature and civilization, neither side is good and neither side is bad. Both have the capacity for both. With valued dualities, such as good and evil, health and disease, or knowledge and ignorance, one side is good and the other side is bad.
This means that there needs to be a different approach for the two kinds of dualities. With non-valued dualities, the solution is to maximize each side's potential to do good and minimize each other side's potential to do wrong. With valued dualities, the solution is to maximize the good side and minimize the bad side.
The correct way to deal with non-valued dualities is through synthesis within the framework of check-and-balance. At the bottom level, the two sides stand to check each other's destructive potentials by affirming their rightful prerogatives. At the top leve, the two sides stand to work together to achieve what neither can accomplish in itself.
Woman has right to protect herself from man's violence, and man has right to protect himself from woman's viciousness. And at the top level the two stand to work together to produce and sustain new life.
Business has right to protect itself from those who want to slaughter the propertied class, and labor has right to protect itself from corrupt and rapacious business practices. And at the top level the two stand to work together to produce goods.
Civilization has right to protect itself from harmful viruses and bacteria, and people concerned for the well-being of the environment have right to protect rich and beautiful environments from destruction. And at the top level the two stand to work together to allow people the benefits of technological lifestyles as well as being able to enjoy vibrant nature.
Whereas with good and evil, or health and disease, or knowledge and ignorance, no such synthesis is desirable. The solution is to maximize the good side and minimize the bad side.
I do not believe that this argument has been made before; and it should be. We are dealing here with completely different things. We are dealing on one side with dualities that are value-neutral, and we are dealing on the other side with dualities that are valued.
And it is for everyone's benefit to understand this distinction in order to know how to deal with either set of dualities rightfully.
Comments (5)
Probably. Hopefully.
Things like nature and civilization are both typically valued, for different reason. They are not “non-values” or “value-neutral.”
Polarized dualities contrast things that have positive and negative value.
I agree that trying to transcend dualities is a beneficial practice. Have you even touched on a reliable method for doing that?
If they are non-valued, are they dualities?
Man and woman are valued as man and woman; if they are not, are they man and woman?
Good and bad are valued as good and bad.
Good is good for itself and bad is good for itself. If bad is bad for itself, is it good for good?
And whatever that is works for you??