The necessity of conflict and the empirical observation of the nature of duality?

I have observed the nature of my own reality and deducted from my own conscious experinces in my life time that their exists a fundamental devision in the way our universe expresses itself. And that is duality; good/evil, light/dark, positive/negative actions and reactions and so on and so forth. It to me was evident. Their was no way for me to consciously ignore it, and so i have questioned deep into the logic behind these fundamental attributes of reality and too me it seems to paints a picture of something that greatly unsettles my conditioned morality and the maturity both psycologically and spirituly of our species. And that it the necessity of conflict. Without conflicting forces stagnation appears evident. Everything in the universe is a construct of conflicting forces and principles. We ourselves seem to be ignorant of that. I would really like to hear others opinions and interpretations on this subject. It's ah very deep thing for my young naive mind to fully grasp at this moment through my thoughts alone.

 

Creation is a law without opposite. What you refer to as duality is respiration. We inhale and we exhale and that is one breath. We rise, propagate, and fall, and that is one life cycle.

Creation is arrayed in spectrum or frequency of oscillation. From low to high, from less complex to more complex. These are not opposing poles but the extremes of a single sliding scale.

 

i agree with your synopsis... i try to keep things simple... so, imo, nothing matters but the intent behind the choices we make...

 

What division of the universe?
Do you mean that earth and sky are distinguishable from each other because we
interpret it that way or do they really represent distinct densities?

Does that mean that the mind is split?

 

So results don't matter?
Who measures intent? Can you marry intent with results in every instance?

 

Appearances can be deceiving. Let's watch a sunflower grow. A seed is planted and heat and moisture cause the seed to sprout and the young plant reaches up to the light. Occasionally it rains and the plant drinks water and elements in solution which contribute to it's growth. It matures and bears fruit, more seeds and the plant looses it's vitality to the production of new seeds. The body of the plant then becomes elements in solution as food for growing plants. Where is the opposition in the life of sunflower? These are complementary, not opposing processes.

 

The circle.

 

Humans have been often said to be above the Animal Kingdom for reason of their intellectual capacity and "gift of free will".
From a social standpoint, while war and conflict "keep the pot stirred" it does little in terms of advancing the expression of life that is Mankind.
If we continually focus on that which divides us and let that division drive this Endless war we've fought against ourselves how are we ever to realize we are all one, a part of a whole?

Looking at History & Geography, the reasons in the past were clear, limited resources available for those of a like mind to our own necessitated the elimination of those who did not think similarly to us, but sadly it seems that from force of Habit alone if anything, we choose to keep these patterns of behavior even knowing that Scarcity of the fundamental needs of Man in terms of fresh water, food and power are but simple fabrications of Leaders caught in outdated modes of thinking and driven mostly by instinctive behavioral patterns in a Pavlovian manner, getting our "Fix" as we follow Socio"logical" patterns which were more meant to ensure the survival of early hunter / gatherer tribes.

The real question is, do we evolve, do we take advantage of this free will we've been blessed with and Advance as a Species united or do we allow our Addictions to simple neurochemical cause and effect to drive us onward into Endless war against ourselves and waiting on some external "Savior entity" when the tools to save ourselves from ourselves have been apparent for at least 150 years or so?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100614114445.htm

Time to get the coffee on, sorry if I drifted a bit.

 

True empiricists tend to balk at such notions because of the difficulty of getting a handle on them "scientifically". But I think there's good reason to take this dualism seriously. Jung talked about the "shadow"--the dark side of ourselves that lies buried in our unconscious. Freud spoke of the id which often clashed with the superego. Both agreed that if we fail to acknowledge it, it will come back to bite us. Our conscious self (ego) is a contest between opposing forces:right brain, left brain; feminine, masculine. Chinese philosophy spoke of yin and yang--literally shadow and light. In Aztec-Toltec theology, there is a similar concept of nagual (spirituality) versus tonal (worldly energy), which underly the whole of reality. Actually, yin-yang, nagual-tonal are complementary aspects of a single reality, personfied by the Toltec god Quetzalcoatl--the feathered serpent (feathers that soar, serpent that crawls). Both, though polar opposites, are fundamental, interdependent sides of reality.