Counterpart Theory

[Akamu]

I have recently talked to several friends, acquaintances and teachers about the nature of war and peace, happiness and suffering etc. I have received a mixed bag of responses. Some people believe that happiness can exist without the presence of suffering in one's life...that there is necessarily no balance that must be achieved between the two. Others buy into Counterpart Theory which states that in order for us to appreciate or even experience peace and happiness, suffering and war are required. Just as our notion of "tallness" requires us to look outside of ourselves and compare others' heights with our own, we have to be able to witness or conceive of suffering in order for us to experience its opposite.

Personally, I'm not sure if I fall neatly into either group. The "tallness" and "shortness" analogy that I often hear is flawed in my opinion. If I were the only human on the planet, then perhaps I would have no concept of tallness or shortness as I know no other state of being than my own. However, If i were the only person left on the planet and I stubbed my toe on a chair, I would certainly feel pain without the need for my comparing my suffering to that of those around me. It seems peace and suffering perhaps exist independently of each other whereas height is a relative term. On the other hand, I have this feeling that nothing can exist in its extreme form without being balanced out by its opposite pole. For example, someone could be the richest person in the world and have all they ever wished for but they still suffer from an emptiness inside of them that cannot be filled by material possession.

Any thoughts? :unsure::think:

[schrodinger]

However, If i were the only person left on the planet and I stubbed my toe on a chair, I would certainly feel pain without the need for my comparing my suffering to that of those around me. It seems peace and suffering perhaps exist independently of each other whereas height is a relative term.

Give some thought for the chair!

[the_aphid]

If I were the only human on the planet, then perhaps I would have no concept of tallness or shortness as I know no other state of being than my own. However, If i were the only person left on the planet and I stubbed my toe on a chair, I would certainly feel pain without the need for my comparing my suffering to that of those around me. But you would be comparing it to the 'peace' you felt immediately before you stubbed your toe. If you were the only person left, you would likely walk around searching for food, suffering in the absence of companionship, but still be capable of finding moments of peace, happiness, and tranquility. And thus a distinct contrast of 'good' and 'bad' would be made.

Furthermore, you might be alone and have no language in which to create a term 'tallness', but when approaching a tree, or an elephant, you would have a distinct understanding 'that is taller than thou'. ;)

I'm almost hesitant to admit it, but I think I have to agree with the counterpart theory, although perhaps not entirely. I don't necessarily believe that one cannot transcend suffering, but I do believe that it must be experienced in order to form an understanding of peace and happiness. Also, I want to point out that I believe the concept of Utopia, here on Earth, is untenable.

[Chan Tiger]

Any thoughts? :unsure::think:


All predicates, such as "tall", "short", "pleasurable", "painful", etc, are inherently dualistic. I don't see any way around this. The Aphid put it very well when he described the process of stubbing one's toe. The experience of "throbbing pain" stands out only because of your experience of "no-pain" moments earlier. Likewise, even if you were the only human being on earth there would be other objects possessing properties like "height" to which you would necessarily compare yourself in order to understand the concept. The world is relational; nothing exists a se in a vacuum.

I think the Tao Te Ching summarizes this pretty well:


Chapter 2

When the world knows beauty as beauty, ugliness arises
When it knows good as good, evil arises
Thus being and non-being produce each other
Difficult and easy bring about each other
Long and short reveal each other
High and low support each other
Music and voice harmonize each other
Front and back follow each other


...

[Akamu]

Here is a more specific example of what I was questioning:

I once had a conversation with a friend about war. I believe it is technically possible to exist without any major conflicts (I certainly admit this is very ideal and difficult to achieve, but possible). He was saying that even if it were possible to do so, it would be undesirable because engaging in warfare is what allows us to be able to appreciate peace. I think there is something wrong with this statement.

Do you think our appreciation of peace really is observing an absence of war just as darkness is the absence of light? Or do you think one can experience peace without necessarily also counterbalancing it with suffering? I think suffering and peace are both innate and dependent on something, but not necessarily dependent on each other. I think it is way off to say we must engage in war so that we can appreciate peace.

[Chan Tiger]

I once had a conversation with a friend about war. I believe it is technically possible to exist without any major conflicts (I certainly admit this is very ideal and difficult to achieve, but possible). He was saying that even if it were possible to do so, it would be undesirable because engaging in warfare is what allows us to be able to appreciate peace. I think there is something wrong with this statement.


I would agree that this is flawed reasoning. But there's a difference between acknowledging the inevitable duality of the human thought process (as regards tall and short, beauty and ugliness, being and non being) and claiming that the reality of war is somehow required for the reality of peace. They are two very different arguments.

Having said that, there is a way in which war creates peace. The people of a nation are never so united as when they are facing a common enemy. And so there is a deep irony that the very force which would seem to threaten society can be used to keep it together.

The Ancient Greeks were well aware of this ambiguity, as we can see by looking at some of their language. The word pharmakon (φάρμακον) is where we get the word "pharmacy" from in English. However in Ancient Greek it was an ambiguous word---depending the context, it could mean either poison or cure.

Likewise, the word pharmakos (φαρμακος) meant "scapegoat"---the one who is cast out (or in ancient Athens, "ostracized (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostracism)") from the city. Apparently, the scapegoat is a poison, which is why he needs ostracizing---but by acknowledging a poison, the public is united behind a single cause. The 'poison' is also the 'cure' for civic unrest. It's the same with war. By creating a common enemy, causes us to forget our differences and focus on a enemy we can share. Of course, this perpetuates a cycle of violence, since in order to keep the community together there must always be enemies...

But it doesn't sound like this is what your friend had in mind. It's worth asking just who is doing the "appreciating" and who is doing the suffering in war. The conditions that allow war to arise very rarely allow those who suffer any sort of enjoyment whatsoever. Would your friend be willing to have his hand blown off, so he can better appreciate his feet? Would he be willing to have half his family slaughtered, so he can better appreciate his surviving kin? I somehow doubt it. In the age of fighter jets and unmanned drones, the people who are "appreciating peace" are far removed from the people who are suffering.

This is kind of a long winded post, so I'll just end by noting that I think the relationship between peace and war is not as simplistic as your friend seems to imply. "Peace" isn't just the absence of an overt or officially declared conflict. To quote the Reverend Martin Luther King: "True peace is not merely the absence of tension: it is the presence of justice."

[jufa]

When dealing with duality, man will continuously seek two positions because man has a split personality. When dealing with non-duality, man is confined to an inner opinion based upon what others have taught, and are teaching, who are living from a dual position. Counterpart theories can never being conclusions, and therefore peace cannot reign.

What then is a viable outlook for one who truly seek a balance? In traveling the path of my journey, I have found that two position must be considered to void the belief that the nature of error, which produce the belief that war has a nature as does evil, suffering, greed, good, pleasure, etc, is to contemplate the Nature of God. In contemplating the Nature of God, than one would have to comprehend God's nature is omnipresent. If this is true, and who can doubt God for God is Life and Life is omnipresent, then one would have to understand that God fills all space and voids, and is the only power in existence. Not a power in the sense of overcoming another power, because there can be no other power if God is omnipresent. But a power in the sense of God as a Presence.

From this standpoint, there can be no nature of error, and therefore no nature of war, greed, lust, etc. What then is the structure of the war, or awareness for each and every individual? Who can say they are innocent or not when human thought in the perpetrator which divides the individual from him/herself? If the nature of God is omnipresent, then all that an individual is aware of, without exception, must be God. If this is true, then what beginning cause, or laws, or principles give the nature of error, or war, or anything in the material world power of influence within the omnipresence of God when God has not ordained the nature of error to exist in His Presence of Allness?

The wars, the suffering and struggles and, the outer influences, the good and evil are not powers, for God is the only power. God therefore can only become the all and all of individuals lives when God is seen as a power only in the sense that He is so only in maintaining, sustaining, and as the guiding Spirit of His Principle upholding His creation. This means God is not a power in the sense of a power to overcome anything in this world, because if it has not been ordained by God, then it does not exist in the omnipresence of the creation of that which He is.

God is a Presence. God is the Presence of all that is. In realizing the omnipresence of God is to comprehend the nature of error is a nothingness and has no beginning cause, laws, powers, or influence outside of the carnal mind

[Thomas Knierim]

The argument that there cannot be peace without war or that we cannot appreciate the first in the absence of the latter is about as reasonable as saying that there cannot be fire without ice. There are enough large globs of matter in the universe which demonstrate the opposite. The real question is whether mankind can create a global consciousness that allows the world community to coexist without war. The fact that this has not been achieved in practice does not mean that it is impossible in principle.

Cheers, Thomas

[Akamu]

But you would be comparing it to the 'peace' you felt immediately before you stubbed your toe. If you were the only person left, you would likely walk around searching for food, suffering in the absence of companionship, but still be capable of finding moments of peace, happiness, and tranquility. And thus a distinct contrast of 'good' and 'bad' would be made.

Furthermore, you might be alone and have no language in which to create a term 'tallness', but when approaching a tree, or an elephant, you would have a distinct understanding 'that is taller than thou'. ;)

I'm almost hesitant to admit it, but I think I have to agree with the counterpart theory, although perhaps not entirely. I don't necessarily believe that one cannot transcend suffering, but I do believe that it must be experienced in order to form an understanding of peace and happiness. Also, I want to point out that I believe the concept of Utopia, here on Earth, is untenable.

Well yes, this actually meshes with my point...I simply used a bad analogy. My point was that tallness and shortness are dependent upon external sources whereas suffering and peace are not. Actually, I am not so sure suffering and peace are the appropriate dichotomy....perhaps suffering and pleasure/happiness? Peace appears to be the absence of both extremes, the sort of default, uncolored state of being. Suffering is neither non-intrinsic nor relative, whereas other dualities are. So when you say that you would be "comparing the pain in your toe with that of the peace you felt just before," you are not really comparing the two because you can't compare suffering to something that essentially doesn't have any substance can you (given that 'peace' is not a metaphysical property, but a lack of extremes)? I may totally be mistaken in this, but it just seems suffering/pleasure are not dependent on each other in order to exist...but they are still dependent because something external has to give rise to them.

[Akamu]

The Ancient Greeks were well aware of this ambiguity, as we can see by looking at some of their language. The word pharmakon (φάρμακον) is where we get the word "pharmacy" from in English. However in Ancient Greek it was an ambiguous word---depending the context, it could mean either poison or cure.

Likewise, the word pharmakos (φαρμακος) meant "scapegoat"---the one who is cast out (or in ancient Athens, "ostracized (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostracism)") from the city. Apparently, the scapegoat is a poison, which is why he needs ostracizing---but by acknowledging a poison, the public is united behind a single cause. The 'poison' is also the 'cure' for civic unrest. It's the same with war. By creating a common enemy, causes us to forget our differences and focus on a enemy we can share. Of course, this perpetuates a cycle of violence, since in order to keep the community together there must always be enemies...
"

Right, but does forgetting your differences by uniting before a common enemy really establish peace? More like a temporary truce so that you may vent your frustrations with someone else. But of course society is dependent upon enemies; we would not have any societies if there were no enemies. So maybe peace within various societies can exist temporarily but certainly not cross-culturally?

[Chan Tiger]

I may totally be mistaken in this, but it just seems suffering/pleasure are not dependent on each other in order to exist...but they are still dependent because something external has to give rise to them.

Don't forget that pleasure and pain also require an internal judgment of "pleasure" and "unpleasant". This internal condition is as important as any external condition.

As I said in my reply, I think there is a big difference between acknowledging the duality of language and thought and claiming that certain realities are dependent on each other. I like Thomas' analogy of fire and ice, which shows how ridiculous things can get when the distinction between concept and reality is blurred.

Right, but does forgetting your differences by uniting before a common enemy really establish peace? More like a temporary truce so that you may vent your frustrations with someone else. But of course society is dependent upon enemies; we would not have any societies if there were no enemies. So maybe peace within various societies can exist temporarily but certainly not cross-culturally?

I addressed this in the rest of my response. Much of this discussion hinges on how you're using the word "peace".

I would also disagree that society requires enemies. Just because that is the dominant form of society in the world today doesn't mean it was always so and it doesn't mean it must always be so.

[Akamu]

"Don't forget that pleasure and pain also require an internal judgment of "pleasure" and "unpleasant". This internal condition is as important as any external condition.

As I said in my reply, I think there is a big difference between acknowledging the duality of language and thought and claiming that certain realities are dependent on each other. I like Thomas' analogy of fire and ice, which shows how ridiculous things can get when the distinction between concept and reality is blurred.

I'm not sure I understand how an internal judgment is required. If someone fired an arrow into me, I am not going to pause and ask, "does this hurt? does this feel good? is it neutral?" It just hurts. I don't think there is any judgment required. The pain is self evident. My asking whether it hurts or not does not determine its metaphysical value.

[Akamu]

"I addressed this in the rest of my response. Much of this discussion hinges on how you're using the word "peace".

I would also disagree that society requires enemies. Just because that is the dominant form of society in the world today doesn't mean it was always so and it doesn't mean it must always be so.

Back in prehistoric times, there were many reasons to band together and form a tribe. Obviously, it was much more efficient to have a division of labor so that some people gathered food, some people hunted, etc etc. But the main reason underlining the formation of unified groups of people was the threat of a common enemy. Fear is powerful, and throughout human history, it has been the main force compelling people to create the foundations of tribes, communities, societies, what have you. It is no coincidence that countries like the U.S. can manipulate the fear of its people in order to accomplish almost any end it desires. When you have your finger on the fear-pulse of a nation, then you control it.

Perhaps it will be possible to form a society not based on fear in the future (ex post facto...now that we have knowledge of society), but for now, it is always the "us" and the "them" that underlies the sociological consciousness of a society.

[Chan Tiger]

I'm not sure I understand how an internal judgment is required. If someone fired an arrow into me, I am not going to pause and ask, "does this hurt? does this feel good? is it neutral?" It just hurts. I don't think there is any judgment required. The pain is self evident. My asking whether it hurts or not does not determine its metaphysical value.

I have no idea what you mean by "metaphysical value."

This discussion seems to be getting increasingly mired in terminology. You can call it a "judgment" or a "reaction" or whatever you want, but the point is that in order for the experience "pain" to occur there must be internal conditions (a functioning mind & pain receptors) as well as external conditions (an arrow). Only with these conditions can the experience of "pain" occur.

[Akamu]

I have no idea what you mean by "metaphysical value."

By 'metaphysical value' I am referring to the substance of its existence. My point was that there is no subjective judgment necessary in order for the existence of suffering to come about. There only is required the external condition of the arrow. Your mind interpreting to you the pain of the infliction is not a "judgment" is it? It is simply reaction.

But then, you are right...perhaps everything is just getting mired down in language, which is why I often choose not to participate in debates. Language skews everything and prevents us from seeing what is truly there. I am getting to the point in my "journey" where I just want to spend a few years in a cave :wallbash:

[Chan Tiger]

By 'metaphysical value' I am referring to the substance of its existence. My point was that there is no subjective judgment necessary in order for the existence of suffering to come about. There only is required the external condition of the arrow. Your mind interpreting to you the pain of the infliction is not a "judgment" is it? It is simply reaction.

My point was simply that "reaction" is still "subjective" insofar as it involves a "mind" which "interprets". This internal condition is as important for the experience of pain as the external condition of an arrow. An arrow by itself can't cause the experience of pain.

As for "metaphysical value" and the "substance of existence", I personally reject the metaphysics of "substance" altogether, but that's probably worth a whole separate thread on its own.

But then, you are right...perhaps everything is just getting mired down in language, which is why I often choose not to participate in debates. Language skews everything and prevents us from seeing what is truly there. I am getting to the point in my "journey" where I just want to spend a few years in a cave :wallbash:

I don't know if this is a debate. There is also such a thing as a friendly discussion. :) Equally, I'm not sure what the value of finding peace in a cave is if you can't maintain that peace in the world of people.

[Akamu]

I don't know if this is a debate. There is also such a thing as a friendly discussion. And I'm not sure what the value of finding peace in a cave is if you can't maintain that peace in the world of people.

One has to learn to cultivate peace within themselves before they can exercise peace with others. This is the reason for extended retreats etc. Obviously I was half-joking about finding a cave somewhere just to highlight the point that discussion is often futile because of the barrier of language.

I also don't consider this a debate. I started this thread as an open discussion because I actually have no set view concerning the matter...you can see that when I argue opposing viewpoints. My comment went off on a tangent and did not apply to this instance except for where the problem of language arose.

[Chan Tiger]

One has to learn to cultivate peace within themselves before they can exercise peace with others. This is the reason for extended retreats etc. Obviously I was half-joking about finding a cave somewhere just to highlight the point that discussion is often futile because of the barrier of language.

I also don't consider this a debate. I started this thread as an open discussion because I actually have no set view concerning the matter...you can see that when I argue opposing viewpoints. My comment went off on a tangent and did not apply to this instance except for where the problem of language arose.

Okay, fair enough. :) Getting back to the discussion then, do you see my original point?

[Akamu]

Okay, fair enough. :) Getting back to the discussion then, do you see my original point?

Yes, I can see how the interpretation of pain by the mind is subjective...but I can't really go anywhere with that because I had no direction or point in the first place <_<

My mind is a bit "all over the place" today, so if you'll excuse me, I will return if I have anything productive to say :loveyou:

[the_aphid]

Wow. A lot has been said here. But I am curious, what does this particular conversation have to do with Counterpart Theory? Are you essentially questioning the existence of a 'possible world' that has peace without war? I can't help but feel that this discussion is more about duality than CT.

Also, I do not agree that 'peace' is neutral ground when compared to war. Basically I feel that peace is associated with a number of dualistic emotions. I could be wrong here, but I think of war and peace as being best represented as states of societal existence or perhaps better, possible traits of society. Traits are formed by moods, which in themselves are formed by emotions. For example, a combination of fear, anger, sadness (emotions), can lead to anxiety (mood) which can bring about a state of conflict. The difference between them all being their 'periods'. Emotions are very brief or fleeting moments, while moods can last the day, and traits can last for years, or perhaps lifetimes. Does this make any sense? :think:

[Akamu]

Wow. A lot has been said here. But I am curious, what does this particular conversation have to do with Counterpart Theory? Are you essentially questioning the existence of a 'possible world' that has peace without war? I can't help but feel that this discussion is more about duality than CT.

Also, I do not agree that 'peace' is neutral ground when compared to war. Basically I feel that peace is associated with a number of dualistic emotions. I could be wrong here, but I think of war and peace as being best represented as states of societal existence or perhaps better, possible traits of society. Traits are formed by moods, which in themselves are formed by emotions. For example, a combination of fear, anger, sadness (emotions), can lead to anxiety (mood) which can bring about a state of conflict. The difference between them all being their 'periods'. Emotions are very brief or fleeting moments, while moods can last the day, and traits can last for years, or perhaps lifetimes. Does this make any sense? :think:

Sorry, aphid, we probably did veer off topic a bit, but I can't help but feel one can't discuss Counterpart Theory without understanding the nature of duality and whether one extreme depends on its counterpart. So far, I feel we have established that all dichotomies don't necessarily depend on each other. For example, darkness is not substantial in its existence, it is merely the absence of light...one depends on the other, but not the other way around. However, in the case of peace and war it seems that if one is lacking, then it logically follows the other takes over...if we're not at peace, then we are at war; if we are not at war, then we are at peace (although I know there is plenty of gray area to play with). This relates back to the original argument I was questioning, namely that we need war in order to appreciate peaceful times. My question is, is this so in this particular relationship?

As for peace being neutral ground... I think Chan Tiger pointed out that peace keeps changing its meaning depending on how we use it. In peace's relation to war, I agree, It is not neutral...it is one extreme in effect due to the lack of its counterpart. However when I was referring to "peace" as neutral, I was invoking its application to a personal state of mind...ie the lack of emotional turbulence. In this case it seems more of a "lack of" as opposed to an extreme.