'Beyond Dualistic Polarization'

In my personal estimation, the philosophy of non-dualism has been a much overlooked and underrated one. This article will attempt to discuss its relevance and significance in our current and future times.

Despite the way things may appear in our rather competitive and territorial world, non-duality as a philosophy has existed, albeit quietly, across many indigenous cultures around the planet, and beyond. Non-duality has been at its very essence, a part of the cosmos, since the beginning of time, so therefore has an important place in our daily existence. It would be safe to assume that non-dualistic thinking will continue to be around for a long time to come, and continue to have a powerful, even if gentle and unassuming impact on the lives of many people.

There are several reasons why non-duality as a philosophy is important and relevant to our times. One of the reasons given by proponents, is that non-dualism itself is not just a mental theory, but a fundamental truth to the very core of existence itself. It has been suggested that the logic of the 2 sided, dualistic, polarized approach to existence is 'flawed', in that a game based on such two sidedness of equal and opposing forces would be impossible to result in a winner, as each side crosses the other one out. This is so, largely because one polarity is very much dependent on the existence of the other polarity, and one cannot exist without the other.

Is it for instance possible to have 'good' without 'evil' or 'wealth' without 'poverty'?

It has been postulated by scientific minds, that this mechanical realm, is an atomistic 'either/or' existence. 'Either/or' supposition renders the illusion of control (and a fake experience of assurance and stability). It permits superficial and oversimplified selections, between two non-variable options. Such dualistic persuasion is reactive, produces opposition, and consequently enemies, and over-simplifies human relationships unrealistically. Dualistic systems of thinking and being perpetuate the construction of limits, boarders and boundaries around things that must be protected. Innumerable opportunities are missed, when people are limited to choosing one side of a dichotomy blindly, over the other .

We find often in life, for instance that as one longstanding ideology switches and changes, there is an inclination to cast aside the amassed wisdom of the "previous past" in the gusto to adopt the ''recent new''. The peril of this reactionary style, is that a great deal of treasured and precious material, is overlooked and forsaken.

Generally, innate wisdom en-grafted in the previous past, is to be called up and integrated with the recent ensuing in the departure of the foregone conclusion that dualities proffer. We require a more amalgamating concept--a 'both/and' orientation--to carry us beyond the limitations of this mechanistic, 'either/or' premise of existence.

We are told, that the physicist Niels Bohr, formulated the construct of a complementarity, to identify the wave/particle duality of light (A light particle, is an entity confined to a small concentrated volume. A light wave on the other hand, is spread over a much larger area). Let's suppose that we have a person of science, who wishes to study these dimensions of light. If the scientist selects one experiment, the wave aspect, of light is witnessed. If the scientist selects the other experiment, the particle aspect, of light is envisioned. Light cannot display wave/particle aspects at concurrent times, yet we know that both are essential, to understand light. The interaction between the scientist, the experiment, and the light, is what shapes the conduct of the (wave or particle) that is conveyed . This paradox can only be known when in awareness and cognizance, of a much wider and larger unifying construct, "both/and" rather than "either/or."

The wave/particle duality of light, in quantum physics, is the commencing of the conclusion of Manichean oppositional thought. Either/or thinking makes no sense in the world of quantum physics, and of sustainable living systems. We can never realize for certain, what the "correct" course of action represents. The "correct" cause of action will vary from instant to instant, contingent on our suppositions and on the circumstances we are in. At a human level, we do know by our own experience, that very little indeed of importance in living, is either "this or that."

'Both/and' thinking rather than 'either/or', follows the character of a majority of matters in life. For example, folks are not either good or evil, cooperative or competitive, friendly or antagonistic, a team player or an individualist. Folks are both good and evil, both charitable and selfish, kind and cruel, a team participant and individualist. Establishments can be both honorable and successful, emotional and intellectual, and regulated and creative. We decide the expressions of our humanness that we will reveal, based on the interconnections we have with other people, and with our surroundings. People are "both/and" rather than "either/or."

The recognition that no concrete reality exists, seperate of the perceiver; and that the perceiver engenders what is observed, by the nature of the interconnection with reality, has major ramifications for managerial thinking.


Let me illustrate the point with this example. A manager of an organisation, once entered into a higher management staff meeting visibly vexed. He had just completed a staff meeting and was acutely distressed to find that the members of his own staff had not taken any part. "I do not understand why these fools simply sit there and steer at me," he remarked. Some weeks later, I studied one of his meetings. He did all the speaking, spoke in absolutes, threatened and bullied, and provided no space for participant involvement. He frightened people, and did this with no awareness of how he affected other people. Subsequently, he then got furious at others, for not taking part desiring to modify and alter others to be the way he required them to be. Naturally they could not alter their natural and genuine responses, and they dreaded being authentic with the manager about the way they really felt. So they were fake with him, and baulked at him in passive ways.

The manager wasn't cognizant of his effect on his employees, nor of his inherent belief that their responses were in some way independent of his conduct. A Newtonian mind, like a lot of managers, he was disjointed emotionally from himself and his staff. The complementarity precept teaches that this manager engendered the response he received in his staff by the nature of his interaction with them. If he wishes to alter their response, he must modify his reasoning and his conduct rather than attempting to "fix" others mechanically.

If we viewed a man of science "thrashing the wave aspect of light because he desired to observe the particle aspect of light we might think he was inexperienced at best or demented at worst. We would ask, "Why don't you switch the experimentation so you get what you desire?" Yet this conduct, like the manager's, goes on day in and day out in mechanistic establishments.

Supervisors and managers don't acquire the outcomes they desire so they blame, demonize, and scapegoat other people (typically those lower on the organizational chain of command or the labor union). They work laboriously to cause other people to alter and complain of resistive employees. Then they regroup to produce the deception of advancement. This conduct is insane. I tell administrators, "you receive what you direct." If you are not pleased with what you discover in the organization, give up finding fault with the employees, look in the mirror, and consider your own thoughts.

This ownership and accountability for congruence in the organization is a more truthful and fearless way of living and leadership than is finding fault, demonizing, and scapegoating those less powerful.
'Both/and' reasoning challenges our creative powers and our relational abilities. We are motivated to formulate fresh possibilities when we clamber to breakthrough common ground and to meet the needs of all elements and stakeholders.

'Both/and' thinking does not attempt to balance dualities evenly nor does integrative thinking try to maximize each of the polarities at concurrently (and all of the variables within each mutual opposition).


Both/and thinking acquires what is required at the time from each mutual opposition and produces a fresh, inclusive reality that seeks to optimize the whole. These ramifications guide to the significant recognition that overseeing a societal system--a company, a metropolis, or an economy--means discovering the optimal aggregates for the system's variables. If someone attempts to maximize any one variable instead of optimizing the conglomeration this will invariably contribute to the death of the system at large.

A simple method can assist us to run through mutual opposition*. Pick out a polarity--for illustration, group or individual. Number the positives of groups and individuals. Then number the negatives of for each one. Then precipitate a fresh authentication that augments the assets and downplays the minuses of each. When conditions change, do the practice once more for the context of use is progressive.
The Chicago Bulls professional basketball team is an example of this amalgamation of dualities. They are a distinguished team with a eminent star in Michael Jordan. Occasionally the team dominates, once in a while Michael Jordan dominates. We require great squads, and we need great individuals. Teamwork can only take us thus far and then we require individual greatness. Individual greatness can but take us thus far and then we need group greatness. 'Group' and 'individual' are not distinct and clear-cut constructs. They are in energetic relationship; integrated organically into one unit.

An example given, is that the Chicago Bulls, as their success shows, maximize the interlacing durabilities of teamwork and individual stardom and downplay the shortcomings of reliance entirely on group or individual performance. The coach (leader) is aware and augments the "totality" by shaping it constantly. Optimization isn't trouncing the "border of chaos" all of the time. In-between games optimization is relaxation and replenishment.

Some managers believe their administrations require an opponent to contend against and to use so as to motivate employees. Not so. This is a reactive answer that restricts potential. Most establishments are second-rate, most occupations are too lowly for the people who do them, and most people do far beneath their ability. If people vie against these "foes" they could wind up slightly better than second-rate. This isn't adequate for great people and great organizations who compete against their own standards and touchstones. 'Both/and' reasoning yields a huge promise of creativity in people and organizations.

In conclusion, I would advocate that both the dualistic mechanistic approach and the non-dualistic approach, should be practiced side by side in our organizations, and the results compared and contrasted. This would give people a broader view of how the universe works. Allowing people to draw their own conclusions would cause creative debates and advanced thinking. Also allowing both would alleviate the religious dilemma's that certain people still have. People have the right to know the facts and believe them as they see fit. This is important in all forms of spiritual awareness and social development.

by Rev.Bola A
(copyright 7.10.09 - ARR)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------