Thank you, Ashvin, for forwarding the link to Scott's mumorphic logic, and much respect to Scott for seeking a solution to this challenge. A few days ago Curt Jaimungal and Robert Kuhn discussed tetralemma logic on Jaimungal's podcast. As far as I can tell, this logic is the Hindu/Buddhist method for transcending a worldview based on oppositional thinking. As noted previously with respect to such a practice, only a few, extremely dedicated people ever succeed, and even then they cannot offer much guidance for society other than "those who have the fortitude should do the same."AshvinP wrote: ↑Wed May 12, 2021 4:46 pmJL,JLPratt wrote: ↑Wed May 12, 2021 2:44 pmGood observations, AshvinP. Bernardo in a podcast also talked about how "the knowledge of good and evil" is related to descent and dissociation. Again, paralleling Genesis, the Dao De Jing's second chapter talks about a dissent into "the knowledge of good and evil," though translations of the text often obscure this point.AshvinP wrote: ↑Wed May 12, 2021 4:21 am
Great quote! I also mention Teilhard de Chardin in Part 2, Incarnating the Christ. We should remember mythology is always taken from sense-perceptible phenomenon. In that sense, the literalists who say Genesis is an accurate account of what actually happened are correct, but they have no idea why they are correct. It is precisely because what we now call "psychic" was also 'externally' perceived in that epoch. It has become so abstract for us we can scarcely imagine how such psychic processes would appear to them. Creation accounts such as those in Genesis 3 are always related to the descent of Spirit into 'material' world to the extent that there develops awareness of the ego-self - "Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked."
It is about the "knowledge of good and evil", because once we know that our various bodies are vulnerable in certain ways, we also know that other people share those vulnerabilities. None of that is at odds with the natural evolutionary account, as Teilhard de Chardin indicates, only with the materialist evolutionary account which only focuses on outer forms and not on the "Within in the organic arrangement of bodies". Self-aware consciousness truly becomes the dominant selection 'mechanism', although "mechanism" is not a great term because it implies mechanical procedure rather than organic fluidity of the Spirit. Similarly "evolution" carries much materialist baggage, hence the substitution for "Metamorphoses".
In the Judeo-Christian context, does this descent represent a quasi-absolute descent into contradiction or merely the possibility of a descent into a contradiction-of-opposites logic, along of course with an over-identification with the separate self and certain pride? In other words, is humankind necessarily fallen or is this descent only one possibility of everyday existence?
If the latter, is a misguided relic of such a descent the false duality of even the metaphorical versus the literal? As you point out, the literalists are in some respects right about Genesis. Unfortunately, however, the literalists themselves are stuck in polarized thinking--they normally don't think Genesis is metaphorical. And of course they don't think any sort of elevated state is possible in ordinary life, albeit for a few saintly people.
Then, could the solution to this conundrum--as in an ordinary "ascent," or return to an ideal, harmonious day-to-day state--be to use complementarity-of-opposites thinking and terminology? Instead of "metaphorical versus literal," would it better to use, "archetypal and practical" or "archetypal and pragmatic"? The Daoist texts often go one step further, juxtaposing everyday concepts like "action," "name," and "form" simply with "emptiness."
Finally, could most people, whether of a scientific or religious inclination, appreciate this complementarity, as opposed to recognizing wholeness and unity as something that simply transcends an otherwise contradictory world, a la Hegel, for example? If idealists now want to move society or even accord with idealism in their own lives, do we need a subtle shift in logic, from say the Aristotelian dialectic to the YinYang?
As far as how this point relates to the evolution of human life, Teilhard de Chardin following a long line of Christian thinkers was bridging the ideal as in religion and the real as in science, seeing the two aspects as necessarily complementary. He lived and worked in China for long spans, but did not think Chinese culture had influenced his own thinking very much (and indeed, it need not have). In any case, his ideas are very much in line with traditional Chinese thinking.
Those are very good questions. I like the idea of substituting "archetypal and practical" for "metaphorical vs. literal". The term "metaphorical" has less and less meaning the farther we go back into human history. I know it seems like a cop out, but I really don't think the "solutions" will be found at any intellectual level of thinking and terminology. It is fundamentally a spiritual question, so I think we will need to involve the individual capacity for imaginative and intuitive thinking in any suitable answer. Such an answer must involve experience of the spiritual reality which gives rise to the polarities in the first place. As for the bolded part, though, Scott's "mumorphic logic" could be very helpful with communicating these ideas.
The Daoists, on the other hand, would offer that instead of attempting to transcend opposition through an arduous process of negation, or even affirmation and negation, a person and indeed a society can achieve a positive-sum wholeness through an effortless complementarity--basically, the YinYang aspects complementing, supporting, and attaining each other. In logical terms, it is the difference between (i) the YinYang as both one and two, and (ii) the YinYang as two, even if worded as "both Yin and Yang." Again, you can get back to the "one" by denying the substantiality of the opposition but that practice is not so useful, socially or physically, as in natural science applications.
The Yellow Emperor's Medical Canon, which many Chinese scholars believe was compiled to convey Daoist insights to a skeptical or even hostile Emperor, employs the YinYang logic, emphasizing correspondence, integration, and harmony, as many here no doubt know. Marco might even consider this text in his efforts to formulate a modern ideal account of the evolution of life.
Are there any examples where mumorphic logic or tetralemma logic has been applied in everyday practice? As far as I know, Ayurveda medicine revolves around the same properties as Traditional Chinese Medicine, and both traditions date back to around the time of the just-mentioned text.
