Friday, March 28th, 2008

Another way of say­ing “binary think­ing” is “dual­is­tic think­ing.” It’s become some­thing of a cliché in post­moder­nity to decry “west­ern dual­ism,” so I’m going to avoid the phrase to stave off my own bore­dom and per­haps make a more tren­chant point.

I’ve noticed that North Americans are ter­ri­ble about see­ing things in (cliché again) “black” and “white”, good or bad, this or that. To some extent, just to use ordi­nary con­ver­sa­tional eng­lish you have to employ antonyms but that’s not what I’m talk­ing about. Somehow for Northams (I’m not going to use the term Americans b/​c of course that includes our friends in Canada and Latin America, and I’m not talk­ing about them in this cri­tique, mainly because I have lit­tle knowl­edge of whether they tend to see things the same way, but I sus­pect not… ) we hypo­sta­tize all of our dualisms into Manichean cos­mo­log­i­cal strug­gles. So you’re left wing or right wing, “saved” or “unsaved,” skinny or fat, whatever.

You know, at one point in my life, in a more spir­i­tu­ally and philo­soph­i­cally con­ser­v­a­tive head­space than I am in now, I was told that the cri­tique of dual­is­tic think­ing is actu­ally an evil –even dia­bol­i­cal — decep­tion to get peo­ple to reject the most fun­da­men­tal tenet of moral­ity — a deed is either good or evil. It can’t be both, and it can’t be some­thing else entirely. There was a sense that, if you began to ques­tion the fun­da­men­tal bina­ry­ness of moral­ity, you were approach­ing a “slip­pery slope” whose end was antin­o­mi­an­ism (no moral law at all) and moral and eth­i­cal anar­chy — the damna­tion of the indi­vid­ual and the ship­wreck of soci­ety. Even pro­found thinkers such as C.S. Lewis (in his Space Trilogy for exam­ple) fall into this thinking.

I won’t deny that antin­o­mi­an­ism has its dan­gers, but there is more to life than 0 or 1, this or that. We are not faced with just two choices in life, but a myr­iad of choices with con­se­quences. Really mak­ing sound moral and eth­i­cal deci­sions is an explo­ration of a rich land­scape. In that scape are fas­ci­nat­ing char­ac­ters, places, trea­sures, and some mon­sters. (Okay I played too much d&d grow­ing up…)

Rather than the binary this or that approach, I sug­gest we try at least exper­i­men­tally to think of moral life as an expe­ri­ence of choice and rela­tion­ship within a rich matrix of pos­si­bilty and con­se­quence. (Yes I used the m word, but the Matrix tril­ogy actu­ally does deal with some of these very same philo­soph­i­cal con­cepts.) As this meme expands into other areas of our aware­ness, we may find our­selves not con­sign­ing oth­ers to one of two cat­e­gories, and may have much richer emo­tional lives because it. We may find — I believe Kierkegaard said it — that life is not a prob­lem to be solved but a real­ity to be experienced.

 

–Tony Jones

 

Copyright© 2008, by Spinozablue and Tony Jones
 

Related Posts: