Yin/Yang . . . Feminine and Masculine (?)

[Wu Ming Jen]

yin female, yang male that  is all. Heaven yang, earth yin that is all. Red Yang, black yin that is all. Polar complete opposites that also contain the opposite. With Yin and Yang we are talking about specifics that are moving and changing we can not transfer one over to the other like fire is not a man and woman is not the water BUT we all have the energies of all manifestations in the universe.

 

Gender less is the energy of yin and yang but we can say in one aspect a woman is yin and a man is yang but lets get specific it needs to be correlated with the actual subject we are discussing. There are no absolutes. A man or woman could be very yin compared to a woman or man that is very Yang and so on.

[Rocky Lionmouth]

2 hours ago, vonkrankenhaus said:

YinYang is about polarity.

 

Qi is movement between the poles of any polarity.

 

Humanity is also exhibiting Polarity as Male and Female.

 

The development of Humanity is the Movement between these two poles.

 

The degree and kind of movement depends on the nature of the polarity.

 

If we destroy the Polarity, we destroy the movement.

 

No polarity = no Movement.

 

No Movement = No Qi.

 

No Qi = No Life.

 

 

 

 

-VonKrankenhaus

 

Kranky i take it you’re following up on me so i’ll adress it as such.

 

Ah, yes of sorts, just like a perfect balance of exact 50/50 kills the dynamism eventually. However, in claiming yinyang IS about polarity i’d say you’re erring/restricting on the side of bidimensionality and losing the beauty of yin yang as a model of explanation and analysis. Qi is energy, no qi no life no party and what have you sure but just polarity is not what yin yang is about.

 

Yin and yang expressed in the taijitu for instance exemplify it rather conciesly: dynamism and the movment of complementary forces, their respective impact and interplay and their overpowering of and subsequent transforming into eachother. Not as the things themselves, but in their interplay. It describes the most fundamental rule of the universe at meta-level. The taijitu refers to all those movements lacking only in the fact that its not a gif (except for when it is animated obviously).

 

Humanity exhibits all kinds of polarity without forgetting that the ”grey area” is also exhibited and manifest. Dont get stuck on male and female, i wasnt trying to propagandize on anything.

 

My initial point, pre-quote, was about my drustration in speaking with folks who arent in the process of bypassing the, fairly common notion ime, that externally observable physiocultural does not support an essential or fundamental dichotomy of difference. While such an assumption is sometimes helpful it is not going to be helpful if held at a standard of natural and self evident truth.

 

That, was my point. Now, onward and forward.

[vonkrankenhaus]

43 minutes ago, Rocky Lionmouth said:

Yin and yang expressed in the taijitu for instance exemplify it rather conciesly: dynamism and the movment of complementary forces, their respective impact and interplay and their overpowering of and subsequent transforming into eachother. Not as the things themselves, but in their interplay. It describes the most fundamental rule of the universe at meta-level. The taijitu refers to all those movements lacking only in the fact that its not a gif (except for when it is animated obviously).

 

Yes, Qi is the movement between the poles of any polarity.

 

That's the interplay.

 

The interplay is play of polarity.

 

The TaiJiTu is simultaneous. 

 

It is not like an animated movie.

 

The western idea of "Animation" of it makes it seem like there is a "timeline" of YinYang, and there isn't.

 

One thing appears, and this one thing does not "grow" or "acquire" this Yin and Yang.

It HAS YinYang - it HAS "Polarity" - a beginning and end, inside and outside, etc.

 

The way that Human HAS Male and Female - simultaneously - and doesn't "acquire" these.

 

These do not changing or transforming into each other.

Only at the extreme does the energetic reversal happen. As you point out, this is not physical.

 

Male is not changing into Female, for example. And we never see anything ever get "un-burned".

 

That's a mistake from a materialist view.

 

 

 

 

-VonKrankenhaus

[Rocky Lionmouth]

17 hours ago, vonkrankenhaus said:

 

Yes, Qi is the movement between the poles of any polarity.

 

That's the interplay.

 

The interplay is play of polarity.

 

The TaiJiTu is simultaneous. 

 

It is not like an animated movie.

 

The western idea of "Animation" of it makes it seem like there is a "timeline" of YinYang, and there isn't.

 

One thing appears, and this one thing does not "grow" or "acquire" this Yin and Yang.

It HAS YinYang - it HAS "Polarity" - a beginning and end, inside and outside, etc.

 

The way that Human HAS Male and Female - simultaneously - and doesn't "acquire" these.

 

These do not changing or transforming into each other.

Only at the extreme does the energetic reversal happen. As you point out, this is not physical.

 

Male is not changing into Female, for example. And we never see anything ever get "un-burned".

 

That's a mistake from a materialist view.

 

 

 

 

-VonKrankenhaus

 

Hmm, i see your point of description but i dont agree in the statement that Qi is the movement between polarities, it doesnt fit with what i find necessary to take account for with the broad spectrum of definition of Qi. You might have a way to make it fit, i’m not there atm.

 

I do agree that the Taijitu describes a simultaneous dynamic, but i do believe we see it slightly differently.

 

I wasn’t implying a necessary linear progression or anything ”western” and if possible for you, please refrain from assuming my mindframe to be stuck in western or colonial ways, i find it condescending and if you didnt know better about me Kranky, now you do.

 

Of course anything HAS yin and yang, that is obvious. But, nothing afaik exists independently so while havin both yin and yang that thing that appears has them in relation to everything else. Interdependence and relational observation is key in for my view. I do understand your point, but i still find it limiting for my thinking, i cant absorb it and discard mine because i need it to work on a broad spectrum as well as in a smaller context.

 

A certain thing can also be said to acquire more of one or the other, this is basic. Growth is not part of my idea but i dont see myself banning the word in describing something with yin and yang as starting point.

 

Humanity has Male and Female, not all humans fall into this dichotomy without struggle and it is not absolute. Male changes into Female and vice versa also, socially and even physically nowadays, seeing your background in medical work i’m sure this is not news to you...  

We do not see something unburn no, not spontaneously and not immediately, but i think you can infer the logical ramifications if you take that example a bit further by thought experiment yes?

Exempli gratia: that which was once burned is today not burned in its current aggregate. The energy was never burnt in the first place either, it shifted form but it was neither created nor destroyed. We are waste products of a few supernovas after all, at our building block level at least.

 

Historically we could argue that Male and Female has been acquired, both from social and jurisprudential perspectives but also from an evolutionary standpoint. Our manifest form as a group as percievable by us today is not an absolute, nor is it wise to assume that it will always be, in our existance as a group.

 

I do not understand if you mean that what you paraphrase me to claim is a mistake, seeing it from a materialist view or if you mean my view is materialist and it leads me to make a mistake in understanding. Would you care to elucidate?

 

I do use materialist examples and perspectives at times when describing or reasoning but my view is not materialist per se, i am unconvinced when it comes to which of many perspectives to adhere to because there are many that give valid examples and formulations but no single one or combination of more has overwhelmed me as correct in all instances, if this is wrong or right is not a concern of mine, i value the personal utility of thinking higher than being correct or free of contraddiction. With that said i do lean towards pragmatism as a general school of thought.

 

 

(Rant warning)

Concerning the descriptive term ”western”:

I’ve noticed a rise in the use of it lately on TDB and often in use as a negative connotation towards a certain formulation or thinking. All in all i find it pretty colonial in itself to consider western thinking [a pretty wide gouping  of  internally very discordant practices if i may say so] opposed to other compass directions of thinking because it is both a gross generalization (something that SOME eurocentric schools of reasoning are wont to do and therefore sometimes lack relevance) and kinda smells of exoticism, as if certain kinds of thinking are dumber because of their claimed geographic location. Its by the same mode of thinking that i’m pretty allergic to the use of ”primitive” while describing a culture or human activity or whatever: it presumes certain factors that makes difference of evolutionary stages within the pretty homogenous group of homo sapiens sapiens that has existed for a pretty huge chunk of time. Some call Mayan culture primitive, some call certain forms of contemporary tribal art that employs a strong stylization and symbolism of subject matter primitive because they assume that since it does not display adherence to standards set by ideals deriving from the Enlightenment-movement it must not be as advanced. It is lax if not outright lazy imo. When someone writes Western medicine, thinking, culture or whatever really it makes my mind cringe from having to infer A LOT of fuzzy thinking and grouped discarded concepts that are, i have to assume, disdained, abhorred or generally deemed of lesser virtue compared to whatever generalized geographical counterpart is preferred by the speaker.

Edited September 30, 2018 by Rocky Lionmouth
Spelling

[vonkrankenhaus]

On 9/30/2018 at 10:06 AM, Rocky Lionmouth said:

Concerning the descriptive term ”western”:

 

I simply mean "A-Z" alphabetic literacy and western ideas about causality and order.

 

As distinct from the pre-literate and simultaneous view that created Taoist philosophy.

 

This is not a "value" judgment. 

 

It's a "technicality" about assumptions and interpretations.

 

 

 

 

-VonKrankenhaus

[KuroShiro]

On 9/29/2018 at 5:51 PM, vonkrankenhaus said:

YinYang is about polarity.

 

Qi is movement between the poles of any polarity.

 

Is Qi movement or is movement "within" Qi?

 

 

On 9/29/2018 at 5:51 PM, vonkrankenhaus said:

If we destroy the Polarity, we destroy the movement.

 

On 9/29/2018 at 5:51 PM, vonkrankenhaus said:

No Movement = No Qi.

 

Are you sure about this?

 

This seems to make more sense to me:

No Qi = No Movement

 

[vonkrankenhaus]

6 hours ago, KuroShiro said:

Is Qi movement or is movement "within" Qi?

 

If there is YinYang or "polarity", then movement is going to be movement between the poles of a polarity.

 

That movement is "energy" - as per thermodynamics.

 

Qi is not a substance or material "thing". That is why scientists continue to fail in finding it as one.

So Qi cannot "contain" any thing, and anything posited to be happening "in" Qi would be happening "nowhere".

 

It is just the movement between the poles of any polarity, and that's all "energy" is.

 

In what we call "electricity" or "electronics", the polarity is the plus and minus electrical poles, and what is moving is electrons. The movement itself is referred to as "energy" or "power", and this is Qi, which is just the Chinese name for that movement.

 

There must be polarity for anything to move.

There must at least be a Here/There, for example.

 

More polarization = more or stronger movement, or "Qi".

 

Qi is not a material thing or substance.

 

Qi has no existence at all outside of a polarity.

 

 

 

 

 

-VonKrankenhaus

[Rocky Lionmouth]

On 2018-10-01 at 8:13 PM, vonkrankenhaus said:

 

I simply mean "A-Z" alphabetic literacy and western ideas about causality and order.

 

As distinct from the pre-literate and simultaneous view that created Taoist philosophy.

 

This is not a "value" judgment. 

 

It's a "technicality" about assumptions and interpretations.

 

 

 

 

-VonKrankenhaus

 

I suspected as much and i too have quarrels with certain schools and ideas of european origin where order and causality are problematic, to say the least. A lot of european ontology, metaphysics and theory of science (especially the popularized kind that is seldom more than watered down theoretic examples backed by emotive and dominant rethoric) makes me cringe a lot mor than terms like western and primitive. The context that birthed taoist philosophy was the one that also birthed what i consider the earliest methods of sound scientific research and reasoning, it was pre-literate and has thrived in literacy as well. Thinkers considered great in european antiquity for a barley scratched the surface would have likely been considered by contemporary Taoists as potificating geezers with their head lodged in their own rectal cavity.

 

I see what you mean and i do belive our ideas arent all that far apart in the end, but the devil is in the details of course. Cheers mate