yin yang

Note: This is not to meant to be a line by line, paragraph by paragraph attempt at Yin-Yang. This would take hundreds plus pages. This has been done thousands plus times over the course of recorded, written time. This piece is only a prosaic attempt at what has been known over the centuries as the balance of the kosmos, life in living, through the eyes of yet another observer. I write, I believe, as a poet, attempting to express the ultimately inexpressible, what might be scratched but not fully incovered. It is therefore with the eye of the skeptic and heart of a romantic that I write. This can be more than disconcerting for some. I am sorry for this. I begin by acknowledging that I do not know anything comprehensively, and that I know less by experience. I acknowledge that I do know much about many things. I know. I know not. A person wrote me and expressed a specific idea about the preference of the need of person of the opposite gender than themselves, as a new discovery to them, like they were not able to be complet without the other gender. Yet, and this is the larger concern, because it is a new discovery there was no balance in their new discovery, thinking that 'now' they 'knew' what it means to be human and what it means to know love. Now, I believe is good.
One way of knowing is the way of information, the way of the process of accumulating information into our brains. This path is the path of catotphatic knowing, the way of affirmation: I believe. I think. I say. Or, this is the way that it is. For certain this way of knowing, this science is quantifiable and qualitatively verifiable. But, is it? For instance this way of knowing is found in the competing ideas of our species' genesis. The one group says that it is true science, i.e., the process of knowledge discovery, that our species is the byproduct of evolution or many evolutions of one sort and or another. The other group says that true science, i.e., the process of knowledge discovery, that our species is the byproduct of divine fiat come to being in one many or another. What neither like to admit is the more important part of their qualified, quantified, though competing affirmations. Their a-priori. Their presupposition and or presuppositions. Rarely will either honestly admit to the reality that all science is the process of discovering what is, and until you know the what and the is by virtue of being both and knowing what it means to be both, your knowledge, science is ultimately no more provable than a poets sonnet. What both say they know, neither know, both scientifically speaking, only know something about. Neither are able to demonstrate their thesis because neither experienced what they call the beginning, whether by a divine fiat, ex nihilio eis kai en nihilio, out of nothing in and into nothing, or from an already existence of some sort that explodes another existence that leads to what we now know, and this we do know, our present experience. The other way of knowing is the apophatic, the way of negation. When I say that someone or thing exists, I am also saying that it does not exist. Why? Because I have conditioned it upon my affirmation, which is merely the observation of something based upon the conditions that I have presently available in order to make an observation. I know some thing, I know no thing. The Logos, the neo-Platonic expression of the divine intellect, or the uncreated intelligence is incarnate. Herein is both an affirmation of non-existence and existence within time and non-time, whatever any of this truly means. I believe that true science is not concerned with proving anything true or false. This is an apologist's work, to our good or ill. Science observes what may be thought to be observable, gathers the various data, acknowledges that even the gathering of the date is not merely potentially suspect due to the bias of the one gathering, then like a lover, attempts to say, to express, to incarnate into some intelligible expression what one knows. This most assuredly means what one does not know.
Yin Yang
The Balance, The Way, The Tao, The Feminine and The Masculine,
The Moon and The Sun, The Shade and the Light, The Receiver-taker and The
Offerer-giver, Dual Cosmic Principles. Lao-Tzu, Chinese Philosopher in
recorded time around the year of 5600, in his compiled teachings received
simply refers to this truth as The Way. It is not an idea as it is often
caricatured, balance between good and evil, good and evil viewed as entities
of being, God or Gods and Devil or Devils. The Tao is the Way, the paths
being as many people, places and things that are possible, or are not possible.
We may change our paths, and do, by way of infinity, or whatever is the number
that we in our time and space measure the measureless. As our perception
evolves so do we. This is not a value, moral or religious judgement. An observation.
In Christian Theistic and Monotheistic thought God is mirrored as the One
God in Three real Persons. The Father-LORD Sovereign, the Word-Lord revealer,
The Holy Wisdom-Sophia enactor, though not viewed as Three separate or distinct
Persons by Jewish or Moslem Monotheists (And I am not pretending to project this
into their projections of other traditions.)
, they too still see a movement of sorts within their One God.
The Christian perceives more in the same original words in the
Creation Story. G-o-d is the El, the Hebrew One-’Yodth, the Elohim,
The One God in Plural linguist form. The Image-Icon of the
Earthen Family of Feminine, Masculine and seed-offspring is by
way of analogical perception given as The Father, and The Son,
and the Holy Spirit, One God in Three real Persons-Personalities.
This is what might be called the God-Family. It is from here that
we might receive our understanding of the Earthen-Family. By
way of analogy one is seen through the Icon’s window of the other.
I say by way of analogy because God is not Male or Female or
Sophia-Wisdom: God is. Better, God. Better: ( ). The same is the
case for Earthen Family. The Family is not Man-from the Earth, or is
it Woman-from the Earth’s Earth any more than it is their collective
and personal Offspring. Yes there is Feminine, Masculine and
the Offspring from the Two, therefore equaling at least Three,
with the compounding power without a quantified or qualified number.
However, there is no Person without Collective Being.
There is no Family of One. The Family is One, yes. The members
of the Family of One of One another. Together
we are Family. Together God is God. I believe this is
the force of the ancient words of the Hebrew-Christian-Muslim story
of our genesis, as is also the case in the genesis stories of
the Hindus, Buddhists, as it is with all:
“And God said, ‘Let Us make Man in Our Image;
Male and Female God created Them.”
Language of the Yin-Yang, as is all language of philosophy, religion
and science, is a window to look beyond our perceptions in order
to behold what is, what has been, what will be, again all words to open
our perception into the silence of two lovers exhausted by their
mutual self and collective discovery. In the entwined union of
the feminine and the masculine there is no need to identify who
or what is who and what. This balance is in its tension,
ever moving, inter-movement, outer-movement, extra-movement,
of giving and receiving, receiving and giving,
choosing to all the ‘I’ to swim away.
Like Jacob of old, who wrestled Y-a-w-e-h for a blessing, we fight
our way against the path until we relax and simply follow the icons
into their reality. We may, like Jacob,
walk with a limp for the rest of our Earthen living, reminded
of our choice to re-enter the place of The Garden, where we
once walked with God in the morning’s breeze, that this God
also has a scar in his side, between the ribs that gave us
all a womb to be birthed. This language of Yin-Yang is an Icon,
an entry beyond our prejudice of time, gender, politics, family, and more.
If we choose to walk its delicate path, we choose to continue to walk.
( ) x ( ) pÑx y²… ( Û x ¥ ).....................................