![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Jan. 31st, 2002 11:07 pmThe Taoist philosophy states a universal principle of duality -- one cannot have hot without cold, good without evil, light without darkness. The yin/yang symbol itself represents the duality of male and female, though the origination of the terms represents the light and dark sides of a mountain.
This is one area of universal existence that science, with its rigidity of reproducible results, can be at odds with philosophy. Taoism says that there can be no cold without heat, science says that cold is no heat. Taoism says there is no darkness without light, science says darkness is no light. The difference is subtle; philosophy says extremes are equal, yet opposite, while science states that one exists and the other does not, that extremes may be, in fact, completely unequal. The scientist may pass off this paradox as the difference between the subjective and the objective. The philosopher may pass off this paradox as the difference between the forest and the trees.
Happiness, at the cost of sadness. Success at biz, mixed with the threat of it all falling apart into the fog of a dream, half remembered in the fuzzy drowsiness of dawn. Subjective forest or objective trees? Objective forest, subjective trees?
As the philosopher and the scientist, how do I split the paradoxes within my own life?
This is one area of universal existence that science, with its rigidity of reproducible results, can be at odds with philosophy. Taoism says that there can be no cold without heat, science says that cold is no heat. Taoism says there is no darkness without light, science says darkness is no light. The difference is subtle; philosophy says extremes are equal, yet opposite, while science states that one exists and the other does not, that extremes may be, in fact, completely unequal. The scientist may pass off this paradox as the difference between the subjective and the objective. The philosopher may pass off this paradox as the difference between the forest and the trees.
Happiness, at the cost of sadness. Success at biz, mixed with the threat of it all falling apart into the fog of a dream, half remembered in the fuzzy drowsiness of dawn. Subjective forest or objective trees? Objective forest, subjective trees?
As the philosopher and the scientist, how do I split the paradoxes within my own life?
