Was having an interesting conversation about polarity and multiplicity with synesis.
I maintain that the primary polarity in the universe is between inner and outer (and in fact there is a third aspect to this, which is the interface between the two). I got this idea from inclusionality, actually. But there are many other pairs of opposites, not all of which can be reduced to the primary ones. It is also helpful (if one must think in these categories) to think in terms of omplementarity - i.e. the concepts are mutually interdependent, not in opposition to each other. Think, for example, of darkness and light. If you say that the one requires the other in order to exist, that automatically excludes the idea of them being at war.
And then there's the twilight zone between the two.
Inner and outer are very useful concepts - the interior of the self is everything that is inward, hidden, involuted, dark, invisible. The exterior is everything that is outward, revealed, manifest, light, visible. But the darkness of the inner self conceals the divine spark of the soul (or perhaps the flint that struck the spark?) and the light of day conceals the darkness of dazzlement. And the permeable interface between the two is the boundary of the self - the skin, the fuzzy edges of the aura. When one penetrates or receives another, the boundary of self is transcended. Auras are intertwined, fluids exchanged.
So we need to think in terms of triplicity and not duality. This is difficult, since our entire culture is predicated on the Law of the Excluded Middle. Just think of the last time you tried to sit on the fence on any given issue (or adopt a third position) and recall how both sides hated you as a result.
Is it possible to transcend these triplicities altogether and think in terms of multiplicity?
Possibly, but quite often the energy in magic seems to be generated by the interaction of two phenomena to produce a third phenomenon. Often the first two phenomena are complementary to each other in some way, and what is produced is a synthesis of the two (either a child or a transcending thereof). But we certainly need to be more mindful of the third phenomenon - it is, in a way, the hieros gamos. In Wicca, the product of the divine union is the divine Androgyne; in Druidry, it is the divine Child - it would be interesting to explore the theological implications of this difference. One possible implication is that Druidry focuses more on playfulness and creativity (especially in the Bardic grade), whereas Wicca tends to focus on transcending the self. Maybe one needs to explore the possibilities of both the divine child and the divine androgyne.
Further reading:
© Yvonne Aburrow 2006
Comments (0)
You don't have permission to comment on this page.