What is duality?
One of the basic principals in reality is that of duality. Duality means that whatever exists, so does it’s opposite.
In a very practical manner, this is how spatial relationships exist. There cannot be an up without a down, left without right, black without white, etc. One “pole”, by default, describes the other pole and both poles describe the total experience.
This is the theory of relativity, and when followed through, it becomes obvious that I cannot exist without you and the universe itself could not exist with one missing part.
When talking about balancing a duality, we are not talking about the physical duality, but rather our approach from a human perspective.
The physical universe exists in a state of balance, and we as humans have the gift, or curse, of interpretation. If this interpretation cannot see both sides of any given polarity, than a metaphoric “blinding” to a reality which is whole occurs. And in that blindness it is easy to take one side of a polarity to be isolated, creating a perceptual split.
I was sitting today while pondering this article, and 3 examples of interpretive balance came to mind:
- Self and Other
- Grounded and Open
- Being a “son” and being an Independent Person
Self and Other
In every personal relationship there is a -self and other- being experienced.
When -self and other- are balanced, both are recognised as having a view, which is neither right nor wrong in any ultimate sense, and yet which can be freely agreed or disagreed with in a temporal sense.
When -self and other- is out of balance, either self thinks itself to be the ultimate word based on personal experience, or the other is put onto a pedestal as having an ultimate authority of correctness. Both of these unbalanced views create a halt to further collaborative exploration.
If we do not need to agree in order to communicate, then space for exploration is opened up. The goal of rightness no longer becomes the only reason for the communication, and creative solutions and further discovery may arise “of itself so”.
Grounded and Open
In this article, “grounded” means “what is up with the collective consensus”. To talk about this can be difficult if we have realised the pluralistic “many truths” which reality adheres too. However, to be grounded wherever one is, is to be able to get a sense of the collective consensus of the current space. “Open” means open to possibilities, which are not necessarily agreed upon as possible.
When -grounded and open- is balanced, the collective consensus is taken into consideration and worked with rather than against. We can ground into “what is known” without feeling stuck there, knowing that “what is known” is an ever changing field. At the same time, “what could be” is taken just as seriously, and does not need to fight with “what is known”, bridges are then sought after without the risk of “looking stupid”, as the group is opened to both “what is known” and “what could be” without having an emotional stake in one or the other.
When -grounded and open- is out of balance, grounded insists that it’s version of reality is the only way, and open insists that grounded does not matter. Where grounded does not have room to move at all, open starts to use experiences as a “means to an end” to achieve a new possibility.
When balanced, the space between -grounded and open- becomes an “alchemy” of isness and possibility. With willing “bridges”, that space can then produce the “fruit” of the alchemy with ease.
Being a “Son” and Being an Independent Person
I am two people’s “son”, without a doubt. A sperm from a male and an egg from a female were required for me to be Josh Coleman. I am also, a human being which is independent of my parents, in that, I have my own preferences, experiences, and pathways to explore.
When -Being a “Son” and Being an Independent Person- is in balance, I can accept and acknowledge the ancestral roots from which I was born. I can appreciate the conditions created for me to survive the time in the uterus, childbirth, early childhood, puberty, teenage development, and in my case, early adulthood. Those conditions are not however, the conditions which I may choose to live further explorations in my life. These differences in conditions may take the form of physical, mental, and emotional experience.
When -Being a “Son” and Being an Independent Person- is out of balance, I deny my past experiences as “what they were”, and “wish that things were different". In that denial, I may continue to live in the multitude of conditions which I was brought up in, while at the same time not recognising the experience as such. This can create a split between my own path, and the path wished for me by other people.
When balanced, some of the paths I have been given will remain, as they fit the natural experience which I am having. At the very least, I accept where I have come from, and in that acceptance, I can now choose to make alterations without denial. Even if I wish to make drastic alterations, I do not direct rage at my parents for their experience. The space that is created in this experience is not “for or against” my past, but is inclusive “as things are”. The future however, is not pre-determined in a sense of details, though perhaps has overarching themes.
These are 3 examples of what it means to perceptually balance dualities. They are guides to point one to their own investigation, followed by possible inner transformation.
If one is willing to expand their awareness to include both “sides” of any given situation, the type of space that is left is transformative by nature. The space is both local and non-local, and so although it has definition, it also includes a space without definition. All inner exploration has a launching point, or roots, and a free flow for flying. One without the other has limitations.
