A First Look at Unity, Duality, and Complexity
Daniel Casasanto

Science, as we understand it in Western culture, arose during the Golden Age of Greece. Greek mystics in the sixth century B.C. did not distinguish Science from philosophy and religion, but combined them in an endeavor to discover the "essential nature" of things, which they called Physis. (Capra, 1975) Heraclitus of Ephesus proposes in Concerning Nature (ca. 500 B.C.) that all things are in a continual process of "Becoming"; (Capra, 1975) He depicts a world composed of paired opposites (hot/cold, wet/dry, etc.) which struggle eternally to dominate one another. Each pair of warring opposites simultaneously exists as a unity, which contains and transcends them. (Capra, 1975) Heraclitus uses Logos, the Greek word for reason, to describe the principle of order and intelligibility which governs the interplay of opposing forces. He compares his universal principle to fire, and uses fire to symbolize "the continuous flow and change of all things." (Capra, 1975)
The dynamism which Heraclitus propounds was opposed by Parmenides of Elea, who believed "Being" to be something unique and invariable. (Capra, 1975) Whereas Heraclitus taught that whatever appears to be static is deceiving, Parmenides considered change to be impossible, and apparent changes to be illusions of the senses. (Capra, 1975) Philosophers in the Periclean Age sought to reconcile the Heraclitian and Parmenidian views. They concluded that Parmenides' "Being" implies certain indestructible and invariable substances, which would soon be termed "atoms." These indivisible units moved, but they were not responsible for their own motion; their mixture and separation was the result of forces first described as Heraclitus' "Becoming." This distinction between an object and its mover gave rise to the division between "matter", the "building blocks" of which are atoms, and "spirit", a force fundamentally different from matter. From this distinction arose the duality of mind and matter, body and soul. (Capra, 1975) Twenty-five hundred years later, we have yet to restore their unity.

Aristotle's organization and codification of Greek Science and culture became the basis of the Western view of the universe, and underscored the line between body and spirit indelibly. Aristotle advanced the preeminence of spiritual concerns, subjugating the bodily and material. This attitude has been propagated and exploited by the Christian church since its inception. The most extreme philosophical formulation of the mind/matter duality was developed by Descartes, in the seventeenth century. Descartes based his view of nature "on the fundamental division into two separate realms: that of the mind (res cogitans) and that of matter (res extensa)... Descartes' famous sentence 'Cogito ergo sum' -- I think, therefore I exist -- has led Westerners to equate their identity with their mind, rather than with their whole organism." (Capra, 1975) Newton furthered Descartes' idea that matter is separate from the "self." In explaining his elementary physics, he proposed a mechanistic world -- a machine which ran according to laws imposed by a distant and monarchical God. (Capra, 1975) The nineteenth century industrial revolution gave rise to the most pronounced sociological illustration of mind/body fragmentation. Millions were asked to give up decision-making, to relinquish individuality, and to submit their bodies to becoming cogs in the world- machine. The disembodiment of the worker has led to the individual's disconnection from his environment, which has resulted in its abuse. The advancement of Science and technology has increasingly widened the fissure between body and spirit. Paradoxically, it is the advancement of science which promises to overcome their fragmentation.

Scientists and mathematicians are developing theories of complex, non- linear, dynamical systems to explain and describe observations made in the context of quantum theory and relativity. With these systems comes the opportunity -- and the necessity -- to fundamentally redesign the models on which science has depended for two millennia. Four pillars which have supported science through the ages have recently begun to crumble: Duality, Causality, Objectivity, and the Hierarchy of forms. These principles intertwine in ways which make it difficult to discuss one without invoking the others. This will be the case until a new vocabulary develops -- one which will reflect new scientific paradigms.

The era has ended in which time could be thought separate from space, and matter separate from energy. Relativity has shown this, yet the popular conception (and even the intuitive notion of scientists) persists. Since matter and energy are not only interconvertible, but constantly in the process of interconverting, they must be considered to be different aspects of the same phenomenon: matter-energy, for now. It is difficult to think this way, since our experience of energy is very different from our experience of matter. Energy seems intangible and ephemeral, while matter seems tangible and comparatively permanent. Light, one of the most easily observed forms of energy, cannot be felt, even if heat that accompanies it can. Furthermore, light seems to cease to exist at the instant that it ceases to be generated. Imagine turning off a flashlight. It is, of course, absurd to conclude that light no longer exists once we can no longer observe it, but most of us think this way! In contrast, we think of matter as behaving far more reliably. We can touch our skin, a desk, a wall, and we can feel reasonably certain that these objects will persist indefinitely in the same form that we experience them. Nevertheless, if matter is equivalent to energy, and energy is inherently dynamic, objects will certainly not be the same from one instant to the next, despite our perception of them. What we consider concrete objects are specific patterns of matter-energy which appear to have some permanence, and to occupy a finite space when we observe them in our time-frame. This is a disconcerting notion if you start thinking too hard about the chair you're sitting on, but an exhilarating one in many respects. Our understanding of the biology involved in touching an object, and processing the sensation, is that of an energy- requiring physical process. How must we redefine the act and perception of touching a "material" object once we have concorporated matter-energy? Once we have accepted the synonymy of matter and energy, there is no longer any need, nor any justification for the separation of body and mind.

Logic: pursued and revered by scientists since the Golden Age. Invariably, whether the chop-logic of Seneca, the metaphysical logic of Hegel, or the empirical logic of Mill, arguments rest upon cause and effect. Indeed, the scientific method is a disciplined means of determining cause and effect, and it is this method which Complex Systems challenge. Phenomena in complex systems can be described as "orderly ensemble properties", which can be "understood in terms of the properties and interactions of sub-phenomena" or "elements" (Grobstein, 1997) One characteristic of complex systems is that "the behavior of ensembles is both influenced by and influences the behavior of elements." In other words, "there is a reciprocal causal relationship between parts and wholes." (Grobstein, 1997) This reciprocal, or bi-directional causality has been indicated in neural function. It is possible, however, that the idea of reciprocal causality may require revision. Perhaps a more accurate description of the brain and other dynamical systems is a web of mutual causality. If all forms are continually composed and dissolved, reciprocity breaks down as soon as the sender and/or the receiver cease to exist in a recognizable form. It may be time to revise our notion of causality further, or it may be necessary to do away with causality altogether.

What's wrong with causality? Two things: it implies an observer, and it implies a hierarchy of patterns or events. The observer is necessary to evaluate cause and effect. Physicists have known for decades that the act of observing alters the observed. Bi-directional causality indicates that the observer, too, is changed by the process. A dynamic web of interdependence would suggest that it is presumptuous even to call one's self the "observer" since it is not possible to know one's relationship to the experimental conditions, nor one's own place in the web at any instant.

It is unfortunate that we are constrained by our incrementally evolving language to describe the new in terms of the familiar. Our best descriptions are still encumbered by linear, pre-quantum-relativistic constructs. Even Gestalt Psychologist Christian von Ehrenfels, who asserted the Complex idea that "the whole is more than the sum its parts" continued to search for the "single irreducible pattern" of perception. (Capra, 1996) We have tried to fathom all of the levels in the hierarchy that we keep hoping will describe the universe. We have searched two thousand years for the "uncuttable" -- the truly fundamental building block from which everything else is made. Perhaps there are no "building blocks."

There is a problem with describing Complex "ensemble properties" in terms of "sub-phenomena" or "elements." Sub-phenomena implies that these patterns of matter-energy are somehow less important than others: inferior in size, scope, complexity, or permanence. The idea of something "elemental" suggests a static entity, rather than a part which is itself a dynamical system, and itself a whole. "Wholes" and "parts" are not much better descriptions, at least not without much qualification. The problem is that these words imply a relationship which is inconsistent with the emerging idea of a network of parts that exhibit "self-consistency" : a web in which "things exist by virtue of their mutually consistent relationships...[which] follow uniquely from the requirement that the components be consistent with one another and with themselves. In such a web, there won't be anything primary or secondary, and there won't be any foundations." (Capra, 1991)

Reciprocal causality implies that communicating parts become alternately primary and secondary to one another. This is a step in the right direction, but it still suggests a linear, mechanistic model in which (shifting) hierarchies determine outcomes. We assume causality because we observe phenomena preceding and following one another. The perceived sequential relationships among phenomena may be illusory: the products of a limited conception of space-time. The language of causality ties us to our obsolete predisposition to think that change only occurs when something is acted upon. The words we use to describe Complexity impede our progress toward seeing the universe as a mutually-and-self-consistent web of patterns. Perhaps this Complex, non-mechanistic web will prove to be the "mechanism" of Heraclitus' dynamic unity.


Selected Bibliography
Capra, F., The Tao of Physics. Shambhala Publications, Boston, 1975

Capra, F., The New Physics Revisited. Shambhala Publications, Boston, 1991

Capra, F., The Web of Life. Anchor Books, New York, 1996

Crystal, D., The Cambridge Biographical Encyclopedia. New York, 1995

Grobstein, P. Insights From Complex Systems.

Grobstein, P. From the Head to the Heart.

Grobstein, P., Variability in Brain Function and Behavior.

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro98/202s98-paper1/Casasanto.html

The great Essene teachers that taught master Jesus explained duality as follows:
______________________________________________________________

"Everything is dual; everything has poles; everything has its pair of opposites; like and unlike are the same; opposites are identical in nature, but different in degree; extremes meet; all truths are but half-truths; all paradoxes may be reconciled."

The Principle of Polarity embodies the truth that all manifested things have "two sides"; "two aspects"; "two poles"; a "pair of opposites," with manifold degrees between the two extremes. The old paradoxes, which have ever perplexed the mind of men, are explained by an understanding of this Principle. Man has always recognized something akin to this Principle, and has endeavored to express it by such sayings, maxims and aphorisms as the following: "Everything is and isn't, at the same time"; "all truths are but half-truths"; "every truth is half-false"; "there are two sides to everything"- "there is a reverse side to every shield," etc., etc. The Hermetic Teachings are to the effect that the difference between things seemingly diametrically opposed to each other is merely a matter of degree. It teaches that "the pairs of opposites may be reconciled," and that "thesis and anti-thesis are identical in nature, but different in degree"; and that the "universal reconciliation of opposites" is effected by a recognition of this Principle of Polarity. The teachers claim that illustrations of this Principle may be had on every hand, and from an examination into the real nature of anything. They begin by showing that Spirit and Matter are but the two poles of the same thing, the intermediate planes being merely degrees of vibration. They they show that THE ALL and The Many are the same, the difference being merely a matter of degree of Mental Manifestation. Thus the LAW and Laws are the two opposite poles of one thing. Likewise, PRINCIPLE and Principles. Infinite Mind and finite minds.

Then passing on to the Physical Plane, they illustrate the Principle by showing that Heat and Cold are identical in nature, the differences being merely a matter of degrees. The thermometer shows many degrees of temperature, the lowest pole being called "cold," and the highest "heat." Between these two poles are many degrees of "heat" or "cold," call them either and you are equally correct. The higher of two degrees is always "warmer," while the lower is always "colder." There is no absolute standard-all is a matter of degree. There is no place on the thermometer where heat ceases and cold begins. It is all a matter of higher or lower vibrations. The very terms "high" and "low," which we are compelled to use, are but poles of the same thing-the terms are relative. So with "East and West"- travel around the world in an eastward direction, and you reach a point which is called west at your starting point, and you return from that westward point. Travel far enough North, and you will find yourself traveling South, or vice versa.

Light and Darkness are poles of the same thing, with many degrees between them. The musical scale is the same-starting with "C" you move upward until you reach another "C" and so on, the differences between the two ends of the board being the same, with many degrees between the two extremes. The scale of color is the same-higher and lower vibrations being the only difference between high violet and low red. Large and Small are relative. So are Noise and Quiet; Hard and Soft follow the rule. Likewise Sharp and Dull. Positive and Negative are two poles of the same thing, with countless degrees between them.

Good and Bad are not absolute we call one end of the scale Good and the other Bad, or one end Good and the other Evil, according to the use of the terms. A thing is "less good" than the thing higher in the scale; but that "less good" thing, in turn, is "more good" than the thing next below it-and so on, the "more or less" being regulated by the position on the scale.

And so it is on the Mental Plane. "Love and Hate" are generally regarded as being things diametrically opposed to each other; entirely different; unreconcilable. But we apply the Principle of Polarity; we find that there is no such thing as Absolute Love or Absolute Hate, as distinguished from each other. The two are merely terms applied to the two poles of the same thing. Beginning at any point of the scale we find "more love," or "less hate," as we ascend the scale; and "more hate" or "less love" as we descend this being true no matter from what point, high or low, we may start. There are degrees of Love and Hate, and there is a middle point where "Like and Dislike" become so faint that it is difficult to distinguish between them. Courage and Fear come under the same rule. The Pairs of Opposites exist everywhere. Where you find one thing you find its opposite-the two poles.

And it is this fact that enables the individual to transmute one mental state into another, along the lines of Polarization. Things belonging to different classes cannot be transmuted into each other, but things of the same class may be changed, that is, may have their polarity changed. Thus Love never becomes East or West, or Red or Violet-but it may and often does turn into Hate and likewise Hate may be transformed into Love, by changing its polarity. Courage may be transmuted into Fear, and the reverse. Hard things may be rendered Soft. Dull things become Sharp. Hot things become Cold. And so on, the transmutation always being between things of the same kind of different degrees. Take the case of a Fearful man. By raising his mental vibrations along the line of Fear-Courage, he can be filled with the highest degree of Courage and Fearlessness. And, likewise, the Slothful man may change himself into an Active, Energetic individual simply by polarizing along the lines of the desired quality.

The student who is familiar with the processes by which the various schools of Mental Science, etc., produce changes in the mental states of those following their teachings, may not readily understand the principle underlying- many of these changes. When, however, the Principle of Polarity is once grasped, and it is seen that the mental changes are occasioned by a change of polarity-a sliding along the same scale-the hatter is readily understood. The change is not in the nature of a transmutation of one thing into another thing entirely different-but is merely a change of degree in the same things, a vastly important difference. For instance, borrowing an analogy from the Physical Plane, it is impossible to change Heat into Sharpness, Loudness, Highness, etc., but Heat may readily be transmuted into Cold, simply by lowering the vibrations. In the same way Hate and Love are mutually transmutable; so are Fear and Courage. But Fear cannot be transformed into Love, nor can Courage be transmuted into Hate. The mental states belong to innumerable classes, each class of which has its opposite poles, along which transmutation is possible.

The student will readily recognize that in the mental states, as well as in the phenomena of the Physical Plane, the two poles may be classified as Positive and Negative, respectively. Thus Love is Positive to Hate; Courage to Fear; Activity to Non-Activity, etc., etc. And it will also be noticed that even to those unfamiliar with the Principle of Vibration, the Positive pole seems to be of a higher degree than the Negative, and readily dominates it. The tendency of Nature is in the direction of the dominant activity of the Positive pole.

In addition to the changing of the poles of one's own mental states by the operation of the art of Polarization, the phenomena of Mental Influence, in its manifold phases, shows us that the principle may be extended so as to embrace the phenomena of the influence of one mind over that of another, of which so much has been written and taught of late years. When it is understood that Mental Induction is possible, that is that mental states may be produced by "induction" from others, then we can readily see how a certain rate of vibration, or polarization of a certain mental state, may be communicated to another person, and his polarity in that class of mental states thus changed. It is along this principle that the results of many of the "mental treatments" are obtained. For instance, a person is "blue," melancholy and full of fear. A mental scientist bringing his own mind up to the desired vibration by his trained will, and thus obtaining the desired polarization in his own case, then produces a similar mental state in the other by induction, the result being that the vibrations are raised and the person polarizes toward the Positive end of the scale instead toward the Negative, and his Fear and other negative emotions are transmuted to Courage and similar positive mental states. A little study will show you that these mental changes are nearly all along the line of Polarization, the change being one of degree rather than of kind.

A knowledge of the existence of this great Essenic Principle will enable the student to better understand his own mental states, and those of other people. He will see that these states are all matters of degree, and seeing thus, he will be able to raise or lower the vibration at will-to change his mental poles, and thus be Master of his mental states, instead of being their servant and slave. And by his knowledge he will be able to aid his fellows intelligently and by the appropriate methods change the polarity when the same is desirable. We advise all students to familiarize themselves with this Principle of Polarity, for a correct understanding of the same will throw light on many difficult subjects.

http://www.thenazareneway.com/pair_of_opposites.htm