Guwaya, please calm down.
You are not under attack.
I am very aware that you are writing in a language that is not your native language, and that the concepts you are attempting to explain are difficult concepts to explain even if we use our own native language.
As I said in an earlier post:- My feeling is that there is no difference between us in our positions, but perhaps a difference in expression of those positions.
You have chosen to express your point of view by use of the term "polarism", which for me is a strange word, and in spite of my searching --- and I might add, a couple of phone calls to people who should know this word in this context --- I am unable to find this word in any relevant context. However, what you describe as polarism , I understand as fitting within the parameters of the Taoist philosophy of dualism.
You understand the system as representing "polarism" . I, and any other source I am familiar with, understand the same system as a form of duality. There is no difference in the understandings, only in your choice of words to describe that understanding.
The one line explanation of dualism that you provided carried with it the danger of misunderstanding, simply because it was dualism explained from a simplistic Western point of view, rather than from a point of view relevant to the culture under discussion.
You have not been misinterpreted or misunderstood, at least not by me, but by your use of the concept of "polarism" you have moved outside the normal terms of reference that we apply to these ideas.
I have attempted to rectify the record.
So just take a deep breath, calm down, and try to realize that I'm on your side. You're not under attack, you're not being challenged, you're not misunderstood. What I am attempting to do is make your position defensible and to encourage you to expand upon your ideas.
Your vision appears to be quite unique in its nature, and I am certain that not only I, but many others would greatly appreciate your continued participation in this discussion.
|