Yin/Yang, later development?

[ewald]

I agree about the real science and real religion. Unfortunately what we see most is not that, but systems built on authority. It's members believe in that authority, often to the exclusion of more real ways of experiencing truth. Belief is not truth, it's a cheap imitation of it.

 

[bruce_g]

I do not think the obvious excludes or disqualifies extensions of reasoning, and if it does, chances are it is the extensions which have wandered off from a truth, not the obvious. I see this here a lot, especially as of late, and I admit that I am frustrated by it. If I overstate the obvious it is to remind people that the extensions which are constructed often lose their connection with a truth’s foundation.

For example, Ewalds comment: “Yet in Western culture, a yin/yang dichotomy did not develop.” This thinking leaves the obvious so distant that it makes of itself a premise which is entirely misleading. But if Hilary’s definition of academia is “a complete refusal to accept obvious”, then let Ewald’s statement speak for academia. I’d rather follow the Maori’s “Father Sky, Mother Earth” definition of Yang and Yin. Oooh, that’s right… the Maori culture hadn’t developed a Yin/Yang dichotomy either.

 

[hilary]

mmm. Now, where is the foundation?

For me it's also in what feels true - which is utterly unintelligible to that ideal scientist, who will pursue truth devotedly, and sees such an attitude as intellectual dishonesty. And after some time living under the searchlight of that megawatt honesty, I find fewer and fewer things are obvious.

 

[bruce_g]

Well, good! I’m glad intuitive feeling is still active and encouraged!

I agree, I also find few things as being entirely obvious, but not all things. Not the fundamental concepts of sun burning or moon reflecting, nor the seed of a father or the womb of a mother.

 

[denis_m]

It's important how a duality is posed. Sure, every culture recognizes dualities. But If spirit is something wholly other than matter, how do we visualize the ebb and flow between them? How to we see ourselves participating in that ebb and flow?

Extreme dualistic views make a gulf between things. Spirit is supposedly the driver in the car of the body (not a healthy way to look at things), and the highest spiritual entities are above nature. Revelation gives an ultimate basis for morality, and it comes from a source that transcends the natural world, which is unreliable. This kind of dichotomous thinking can turn rigid. At present, we see how it accentuates sectarian strife. It's a kind of thinking that could use a little softening/leavening from the yin-yang world view.

Touching on the gender-as-root-of-yin-yang issue: Gender is certainly built into our thinking, but as the Yi shows us, every duality links up with other dualities.
The upper and lower halves of the Yijing are at one level of symmetry. Within that you can find many other interlocking symmetries. This is the Yijing's model for dualities out in the world. On one level you have pairs of hexagram counterposed with other pairs; on another level you have the fire trigram counterposed with water; on another level there are boken and unbroken lines.
I saw an interesting item that throws light on the origin of gender. (This was reported in Matt Ridley's book THE RED QUEEN.) Some scientists experimenting on single cell algaes found something remarkable. It is normal for single-celled life to exchange genetic material. They extend a tube and exchange goodies in a process called conjugation. It's sex without gender. It happens all the time among bacteria. (That's why resistance to antibiotics is spreading.)
Anyway, scientists found that some kind of internal strife happens within algae cells after material is exchanged. The introduced nuclear DNA meshes fairly well with the host's DNA. But the introduced protoplasm carries mitochondrial DNA, which tends to get into competition with the host's mitochondrial DNA. Clashes can even happen, with toxins and toxin blockers, so that one population of mitochondria will win out over another in the cell sap.
This is not an ideal way to exchange nuclear DNA---too many side-issues of conflict! Amazingly, the scientists found some closely related strains of one-celled algae, say strain A and strain B, in which the mitochondrial DNA is killed off while material is being transferred from one cell to another. Therefore, only nuclear DNA is provided. Hence no war among mitochondrial types. Hence, more energy for the cell to get about its business of growth (using its newly reshuffled genes).
This is not a proven theory, but it points to a possible kind of proto-gender. In case of gender, one gamete--sperm--only provides nuclear DNA, and one gamete--the ovum--provides both nuclear DNA and protoplasm. As for these algal proto-genders, the strain providing material has its mitochondria killed off, and the receiving cell doesn't. In both cases, one result is the prevention of an intra-cellular war.
On the way to the duality of gender, there are other dualities at work. There is the tension building up within one cell that says "I'm self-sufficient within my own membrane" vs. "I need to conjugate." There is another duality that says "I am ready to donate material," vs "I am ready to receive material." There is another dualism that says: "I want my mitochondria to go in there, kick ass, and win the war," vs. "I don't want a war to happen as a result of this exchange." And I'm sure many below that. Out of that eventually pops a duality of gender. But so much pushing, so many wars and palace revolutions had to occur within the physiology of the cell, just to get to that!

 

[getojack]

Sorry, I have a short attention span when it comes to stuff like this, but Denis's statement:

"It is normal for single-celled life to exchange genetic material."

reminded me of a conversation I once had. I don't want to rehash the whole thing here, but the gist of it came down to the question, "Is a single-celled organism a cell or an organism?" You could say that it's a stupid question... obviously it's both a cell and an organism.

You could also say that the part is the whole, the one is the many, and the only distinction between "this" and "that" is that we label this "this" and that "that."

In a previous post, someone (I think it was Bruce) said that if the Chinese hadn't come up with the concepts of Yin and Yang, they would still exist. I'm not so sure.

Without labels, we not only can't talk about these unnamed concepts... we can't even *conceptualize* them. So for us, they might as well be non-existent. The concepts only become meaningful and real to us when we can name and think and talk about them.

So some people may call it a cell... others may call it an organism... others call it a single-celled organism, but what is it really? Without all the names? In that non-realm that the Chinese called "wu" and which contains the brewing potentiality of all life? It's not yin and it's not yang. Not cell and not organism. It doesn't have a name or a form. And it's impossible to conceptualize or speak of.

So I guess I'll just shut up about it.

 

[bruce_g]

I knew someone would come up with the single cell example. That or organisms which can change gender when needed to reproduce.

There's always a space for anomalies in nature: that spec of Yin in Yang and of Yang in Yin. Nothing is entirely one or the other. Anima and Animus is evidence of that.

Jack, if you knew of no titles whatsoever, and you gazed up at the full moon on a dark night, would it evoke feelings or thoughts or both or neither? If I had no prior association with moon labels, I think the moon would evoke feelings. And not only feelings but deeply rooted feelings of the sort we attribute to Yin. I imagine this how the deity Kuan Yin came about. It was experienced first before any identity was given to it.

When I walk beneath the hot desert sun, it beats down on me without relent. There is no softness or tenderness as with the moon. It is judgmental and harsh. I really don't require a label to tell me that. I evaluate it within my own experience. Perhaps later, as I describe the experience to someone, I give it a name. Maybe a name like Brutal, or Great Light, or Father, or God.

My point is, labels don't define our experience, but they do categorize our experience. The experience comes first. Isn't it peculiar how so many cultures throughout history come up with the same labels for the same things; some with no prior knowledge of other places in other times? I’m not only referring to archetypes here, but to local legends and folklore as well. Why is the moon so widely labeled as a woman and the sun as a man?

 

[Sparhawk]

and you gazed up at the full moon on a dark night, would it evoke feelings or thoughts or both or neither?

I don't know about Jack, and I'm no psychologist or philosopher, but I believe that in a straight timeline feelings precede 'thought'. (there goes another duality...)

Why is the moon so widely labeled as a woman and the sun as a man?

Duh!! Because the Moon is easier on the eyes...

L

 

[getojack]

Jack, if you knew of no titles whatsoever, and you gazed up at the full moon on a dark night, would it evoke feelings or thoughts or both or neither?

It would simply be an experience equal in magnitude to any other experience... nothing special. I don't think I would attribute masculine or feminine qualities to it. The most I might think is, "Hey, what's that?"

 

[luz]

Getojack,

Just curious:
You answered Bruce's question which had the following condition: "if you knew of no titles whatsoever".

In actual reality (with that condition missing) is your perception different?, And, if so, why do you think that is?

Just curious..

 

[getojack]

In actual reality, I associate that disk I see in the night sky primarily with the English word "moon" and its definition. I also associate it with the Latin "luna." In the context of the I Ching, I may associate the phases of the moon with various hexagrams. I might also associate it with the properties of the trigram "lake" or the digram "lesser yang." I would probably only associate the "new" moon with the properties of yin, however. I would make completely different sets of associations in the discussion of the moon in the context of astronomy, and others in the context of astrology, and still others in the context of geophysics (tides and so on.) I would also associate the lunar cycle with natural biorhythms of humans and other animals. Thinking about the moon, I might remember situations in my life where the moon played a prominent role in my life.

Why do I think my perception is different? Because my experiences color my perception of everything.

 

[bruce_g]

http://www.menstruation.com.au/periodpages/mooncycles.html

http://www.epigee.org/menstruation_lunar_fertility.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menstrual_cycle

Google has 793 links, connecting women/menstruation/moon.

 

[getojack]

I wrote, "I would also associate the lunar cycle with natural biorhythms of humans and other animals." Women's menstrual cycles would be under that umbrella. To limit the meaning of the moon to that definition, however, would be wrong.

 

[bruce_g]

I wrote, "I would also associate the lunar cycle with natural biorhythms of humans and other animals." Women's menstrual cycles would be under that umbrella. To limit the meaning of the moon to that definition, however, would be wrong.

I'm not limiting anything, Jack. I was in the process of looking at links before you even posted.

 

[bruce_g]

Oops, checking the time of your post, I'm wrong. But I was reading these links, not associating them directly with what you said. There's some interesting information there.

 

[bruce_g]

Besides, everyone knows the moon is made of cheese. Now, is cheese yin or yang

 

[stevev]

Is that old, hard, smelly parmesan or young, soft, sweet camembert ?

 

[heylise]

Being outside in the dark and seeing the moon... assuming my feelings are open and good. I mean without being preoccupied with any problem, not with emotions, a discussion, another experience. Just being there in an inner rest.

Then I would not asscociate the moon with anything, I would look, and see a serene disk among dark threatening clouds which sweep past it, darkening it, but every time that calm still shiny disk comes out again. It looks as if it is moving along at high speed, but I realize that that is not so. It stays where it is, all the movement around of wind and clouds cannot even touch it. Causes a very strong feeling inside.

Another time it is end of the day, the sky is still blue, totally clear, and that pale silent disk of light hangs there, in a calm sea of pure space. Huge universe. Another strong feeling.

Or is it pitchdark, impossible to see anything. Just a tiny sickle of the moon up there. The only presence which gives me something to hold on to not to get lost in the darkness.

Or I am filled with emotions about something which happened, and I lie in my bed. Moon is up there, in the frame of the window. Soothing, calming my mind. It will be there all night, just traveling slowly towards a new morning.

All those feelings have something in common. When I try to find a name for it, I would search among words like serenity, darkness, protection, cool, silent, mother. Or make a name for it which includes those feelings. Shady cool side of a protecting mountain would be a good one. Yin.

And then, looking up at night, I would smile at the moon and tell her "Hi Yin, love you".

LiSe