Dear Banjo,

We can consider male and female along with life and death. It is our minds and our identification with our species that make those differences meaningful.

Male and female as differentiated organisms arose only during the last 600,000,000 years of the development of life. Most living biomass consists of bacteria which do not have the male/female dichotomy. It is important to us since we have a greater sexual dimorphism than most species and are more clearly differentiated in that regard than most species. Even those species which are differentiated into male and female may change sex spontaneously during their lifetime. Some species of fish are female when younger and male when older. Even in our own species the differentiation is not always clear. There are people who are attracted to and make partners of those of the same sex. There are people who have an incompatibility of the sex of their bodies with the sexual identification in their minds. The boundaries of male and female sexuality is only clear at a distance, and those species which are sexually differentiated are only a small subset of the biomass.

The boundaries of life and death are also not clearly marked. Viruses not in a host are crystalline substances which do not exhibit any of the characteristics associated with living matter.

Life and death along with sexual differentiation into male and female are dichotomies made by human beings and not a duality basic to nature. What does a clam know of garter belts?

.

Dear George,

.

« if you see Yin and Yang as “forces” you can add a third one to them, the “life force”. Here “force” is probably the best translation of the Chinese concept.”
.

That is not my understanding. My impression is that the Chinese see yin and yang as entities, characteristics or qualities with complementary attributes which combine to form a harmony.

Yin and yang correspond to the duality observed in nature. Whereas the third element, the qi (chi), as I previously indicated, seems to be more a supernatural concept, similar to the holy spirit of Christianity.

Obviously, the function of the qi is not exactly the same as that of the holy spirit because it is conceived as representing the life force or energy, whereas the holy spirit is not defined in terms of a particular function, but rather as a “third person” of a triune god.

I do understand your metaphor of the magnifying lenses but from my limited knowledge of Chinese culture they do not give me the impression of sharing that point of view. They tend to be very superstitious and whatever their degree of intelligence and culture, always careful to respect the ancient rules and customs of “Feng Shui” (literally, wind and water).

Through Feng Shui, which was developed over 6,000 years ago, people are believed to be able to make themselves more compatible with nature, their surroundings and their own everyday life, so that they can make an impact on their finances, health, and emotions. It is based on the awareness of the relations between human beings and nature. Only when the world is well-manipulated, can it be well availed of and become productive and favourable to humans. Yin and Yang are determining factors of Feng Shui.

There is little doubt in my mind that for the Chinese, yin and yang are not just magnifying glasses but dual characteristics of nature.

Whereas qi (chi) is a (human) concept of a sort of supernatural life force or energy.

.

.

Dear David,

.

Yes, all that you relate can be found in nature and is quite amazing.

What you say is true.

But, for ,the time being, I am sticking to my guns and firmly consider that what I say is true too: duality is not just our perception of nature, it corresponds to a characteristic of nature.

.

banjo..<<..I agree..that we must be constantly..on our guard
*..not to confuse subjectivity with objectivity,>>

thats an important point
the real..from the imagined?

NOT to con-fuse..the*sub-ject..with an ob-ject,,
<<..but not to the point..of denying reality itself..[its]..existence.

<<>>It is my view that..*if such a broad public..EDIT..not just of perceiving,..but of recognizing and attesting,..a certain duality in nature,..[only?]..*then there is..ample circumstantial evidence to support such a case.>>

and its not sounding..all that good

<<..Life and death..along with sexual differentiation
into male and female..are dichotomies..*made by human beings..and not a duality basic to nature.>>

dichotomies..:..<<..A dichotomy..is any splitting
of a whole..into exactly two non-overlapping parts,>>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dichotomy

this..in natural../natures duality=birth/death
but again its subjective division..

[nature must be objective..[there]..or not..ie[subjective[..
a duality..yet not nature?

plitting/overlapping part..<<..meaning it is a procedure*..
[by/via]..in which..a whole is divided into two parts.

It is a partition of a whole(or a set)
into two parts (subsets) that are:

* jointly exhaustive:
everything must belong to one part or the other, and
* mutually exclusive:
nothing can belong simultaneously to both parts.

Such a partition is also frequently called a bipartition.>>

next
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dichotomy

<<1. Division into two usually contradictory..parts or opinions:>>

duality=living nature..[objective]/dead nature..[subjective]?

Dear Banjo,

Human concepts are inherent in nature because humans are a part of nature. However, those dualities, concepts and dichotomies did not exist before humans were around to make them.

.

Dear David,

.

« Human concepts are inherent in nature because humans are a part of nature. However, those dualities, concepts and dichotomies did not exist before humans were around to make them.”
.

Absolutely, David! Your logic is impeccable. And I’m glad to see that we finally agree.

The concept of a tree, the air, a bird, a flower, for example, never existed before mankind arrived on the scene. Who could have imagined two love birds huddled up together on a wire? Nobody. Because nobody existed before mankind arrived.

It seems that man is a relative newcomer on the cosmic time scale. A recent addition. Almost an afterthought. A final touch of fantasy of the chef. The icing on the cake, as it were.

I wonder what mother nature got up to all those billions of years before mankind finally emerged from the beasts of the jungle loaded up with all that intellectual paraphernalia of “dualities, concepts and dichotomies”.

Who on earth could have put all those ideas into his head before he rushed off with them to the moon for further extension.

.