Conflict

“Not.”

A single concept that creates multiplicity. 

From “Not,” through its distinguishing opposites, its introduction of duality, springs “All that is”—“Everything” in all its multiplicity.

It also introduces contradiction.  From “Everything” and “Not” comes “That which is not,” the opposing border of “Everything”.  A contradiction to be sure, for if “That which is not” is not “Everything”, it is itself a distinct thing and therefore to be counted among “Everything”.  We must accept this contradiction if we wish to conceive, distinguish, recognize, acknowledge our existence.  Contradiction is, in fact, the very stuff of all our discernment in life, for if a thing has parts their existence surely contradicts the unicity of the whole.  In fact, it may be the single most useful tool in carrying out that conception, that search for understanding.

Laozi used it to justify a Way or Path that is intended to deal with one other manifestation of contradiction: conflict.It's a powerful idea.  By removing desire we implicitly remove the undesirable.  We become instantly powerful, inexhaustible.  The unattainable doesn't exist.

But in fact the idea doesn't solve all our problems as we are something, and not whatever we aren't, and therefore smack in the middle of conflict anyway.  We can't remove our desire for nourishment, rest or love.  The ideal, like the ultimate contradiction, must realistically be defined recognizing the ideal isn't attainable.  Surely the Path cannot be spoken of, but we can look at this contradiction in the small, and see if it applies here within the multiplicity of things in our reality.

I desire to be able to travel from my house to the park instantly.  I desire this because after carrying out enriching activities at home, I wish to carry out enriching activities at the park and the activity of walking to the park isn't particularly enriching.  But I do distinguish activities at the park from activities at home, so I do desire to maintain the duality in the functions of the home and park.  So is the unobtainable nature of this desire of my own making?  In a sense I desire my own conflict in that I want a barrier between home and the park, yet I must now navigate my own barrier to appreciate it.

Can we come to terms with our own definitions and experience more proportionately degrees of dissatisfaction and enrichment, thereby removing disproportionate conflict?  Why not?  In fact this act provides understanding, while embracing the contradiction! However, we'll apply some of that proportion here, and say let's not be surprised when this path we seek will by definition have a barrier between us and it.  It's lesson one that the perfect way cannot be known.  But at least we accept it now. 

If you identify yourself with the universe—become one with the universe—its actions become yours.  This inspires some degree of awe in the power thus conferred.  The power of the fifty-foot oak is mine.  The power of the hurricane is mine.  The power of the furnace of the Sun is mine.

As with the power of duality, its extent is limited by its own definition, so I can't raise a hurricane at will as I can my right hand.  But the power can be tapped.  It is by allying yourself with the events, characteristics, effects, “Way” of the universe.  One might question how much power is received by merely allying yourself with a thing.  It can be seen to have various answers:

• All.  By being one with a thing, you are that thing.  Your power is all the power of the thing.  Your desires identical to the thing.


• Some.  As with any identifiable thing, its definition comes with some barriers that delineate what that thing is not.  So with the strength of the oak comes the limitation of immobility.


• None.  In allying yourself completely to a thing, you give up whatever nature of yourself that was once there, so you—that which is not the thing—don't possess any power at all, the thing possesses it all.

The three answers identify aspects of duality the tool. 

• “All” comes from lack of distinction, thereby identifying the whole, or the mysterious, unknown source from which it comes.


• “Some” comes from distinguishing parts—identifying and naming.


• “None” is the complement of “All” and the recognition of the allied thing's characteristic of being really an effect of some other thing—being a distinction in some other context which, if at all, wields any power present.

To effect the correct proportion in the conflict in your life recognize it is all by definition.  Take your frustration over those things you have struggled fruitlessly to master only to find them master you, recognize that just as they flipped the coin from being “None” in your context to being “All” with you in their context, and apply your experience to flipping the coin on the context to which you belong.  Recognize the contradiction in it: you must yield control to be in control.  Recognize this isn't a mystery designed to woo you into complacency, but a genuine contradiction.  An impossibility.  Life is an impossibility and yet it exists.  There is no reason, choice or hope, and knowing that you have no control anyway, take that there is no answer why, stop and ask: why not?

tags: conflict  freedom  correspondence  contradiction  distinction  choice  proportion