Yin-yang - not what you think

Every now and then, I like stepping back from WHAT we are talking about and look at HOW we talk about it. 

In particular, I find it useful to look at the mental 'boxes' we use when we talk about things; the 'boxes' that we put ourselves and everyone else into, the categories of our daily lives.

The previous article on Gendered adjectives was about the way we tend to see human traits and behaviour as either feminine or masculine. A simplistic dichotomy, given how varied and complex human beings are. 

This got me thinking again about the fascinating human tendency to see the world in dichotomies - categories to which we become quite attached (see more on dichotomies in Gruntled). 

The strange thing is, many of our dichotomies are false, simplistic and unhelpful. 

False dichotomies often lead to false debates about false and sometimes brutal choices in society. We could do a lot better.

We humans like a dichotomy - they help to make the world easier to understand.

A dichotomy is when two things are clearly opposed to each other; things can only be on one side of the dichotomy. 

We see things in dichotomies all the time: clean vs dirty washing, friendly vs unfriendly neighbour, broken vs intact cup, yummy vs yucky food, easy vs hard work, dark vs light, interesting vs boring articles on blogs. We create a mental barrier between the two types of things and think of them in separate 'boxes'. Clean clothes in this basket; dirty clothes in that basket. Separate categories that don't mix.  

And these categories work for us a lot of the time. I rarely go out in a dirty shirt as I have easy access to the dichotomy of 'clean/dirty' when I'm working out what to wear. My friendly neighbour and I share a lawn mower, but I stay away from the unfriendly neighbour, who has been known to punch people over disagreements. These basic categories help me make choices to stay safe socially (no one mocks me for my stained shirt at work) and safe physically (my nose is still intact after four years).

We also tend to think this way about more complicated, multifaceted things, and we use simple dichotomies like right vs left wing politicians, environmentally safe vs dangerous products, able vs disabled bodies. We know that these things are not at all clear and simple dichotomies. 

Most dichotomies are over-simplifications but, they are quick and convenient, they help us make decisions and interact with others.

Dichotomies help us feel the world is predictable and safe.

An image often used to talk about dichotomies is the yin-yang symbol.

Here are some examples (I didn't note the sources, as they are just examples of extensive writing of this type):

♦️ The yin-yang symbol shows a balance between two opposites with a portion of the opposite element in each section.

♦️ Yin is the dark half of the yin and yang symbol. It means the shady place, and it is cold, wet, yielding, passive, slow, and feminine. Yang is the light half of the symbol and it means the sunny place. It is hot, dry, active, focused, and masculine.

So often, people describe the yin-yang as symbolising the nature of all things in the cosmos as being in a dichotomy, even if 'things' can shift to the opposite sides at times.

But this is a fundamental misinterpretation.

Yin-yang says that we humans tend to see simple, static dichotomies where they do not exist.

Source: Michael C Kalton

The yin-yang symbol grew out of the work of various Chinese schools of philosophy attempting to explain the world and all of existence. 

In its early form, the yin-yang was part of a larger diagram called The Great Ultimate (or The Supreme Ultimate) which represented the fundamental principles that make up the cosmos. It took the form we recognise today in the late twelfth century and was called Heaven and Earth’s Natural Diagram of the River.

Yin-yang articulates the underlying patterns and principles that govern all phenomena in the world according to Chinese philosophy. It provides a coherent view of the cosmos, for human understanding as well as ethical guidance for moral action and health. 

Yin-yang articulates the principle that 'energy' or chi acts through and in all things that are material (like a plant) or experienced (like temperature) or cycles (like the seasons). Given that chi is energy, its nature is to flow: yang is always transforming to yin, and yin is always transforming to yang.

Chi is in constant dynamic flow within and between people and natural systems. The yin-yang symbol says that a true understanding of the world involves accepting the inevitable flux and change of everything. Yes, everything!

The outside circle of yin-yang represents a concept of unified wholeness. Together the black and white teardrops represent the flow of the chi manifest through all things, people and natural cycles. The dots represent the constant process of change - yin is always emerging from yang, and vice versa. The s-curve is intended the show the constant transitioning from one state to the other.

So, what is yin-yang NOT?

This beautiful symbol is NOT about achieving a static state of balance. In fact, yin-yang says that nothing in the universe is ever perfectly static or in balance - there is always change. In contrast, it says that imbalance and dynamic movement are the fundamental underlying organising principles of the universe (something that Complex Systems Theory now also says).

Source: Zhoa Huiqian

There is NOT a conception within yin-yang of the superiority of either manifestation of chi, and no possibility that yin could be abstracted from yang (or vice versa) or even considered separately. Instead, yin-yang is a symbol of complementary forces constantly acting as the basis of the unified but dynamic structure of the cosmos.

Therefore, yin-yang is NOT about things or behaviours; yin-yang refers to the relationship of forces. The constant flow of chi is evident in everything humans observe and do. Chinese philosophy would say each object, person, society, natural cycle, etc is the manifestation of the duality of chi, of yin and yang, and the constant flow between them.

It is NOT about opposites. To say something 'is yang' is not an absolute statement; it is always relative to something else. An object is neither inherently yin nor yang - this is a comparative description only. For instance, a wood floor is yang when compared to a carpeted floor. But when compared to a stone floor, the wood floor is yin. 

Likewise, no person is either yin or yang. 

At a point in time, in a certain action, either yin or yang is being expressed or predominating for that person. My feet are yin compared with my shoulders. Unless I'm doing a head stand, then my feet are yang. Or more accurately, a current expression of yang energy. My chin is yang compared with my hand. Unless I raise my hand... you get it, right? Listening behaviour is an expression of yin while speaking is yang. But that depends on what emotion you may be speaking about. 

If it were designed in the twenty-first rather than twelfth century, it would be a perpetual cycle GIF showing yin becoming yang and continuing to become yin again. A bit like this, maybe.

So in summary, yin-yang is not about opposites, and it is not about achieving balance between two opposing states. Instead, it is about the nature of reality as a constant state of imbalance and movement toward balancing and then toward imbalance - always movement, always change. The unified whole is not the sum of yin plus yang, rather it is the flow of chi between yin and yang 'states' that makes a whole.

Described as 'inauspicious' by Chinese philosophy, problems result when yin and yang are completely polarised and static; problems exist when chi energy cannot flow.

As in a dichotomy. 

Beautifully and clearly, the yin-yang symbol is a direct challenge to simplistic thinking in dichotomies.

The fundamental message of the yin-yang is that the cosmos is mindbogglingly complex: every object, every plant, every person, every natural cycle, every planet is dynamic and part of a larger and unending cycle of change. This can be just a bit much to think about on a Monday morning.

We much prefer simplistic thinking - we want things to make sense and we're happy when someone gives us a simple answer.

Source: Brainy Quote

As Mencken so famously said, simplistic thinking and easy answers are almost always wrong. They are wrong because they rest on a limited or false understanding of the nature of reality, the complicated state of human interactions and problems, and the complexity underlying any question. They so often rest on false dichotomies. 

However, we latch on to simple dichotomies because they are appealing, and they make us feel safe. 

Being happy to accept simple answers based on simplistic dichotomies means people are easy to manipulate and mislead. False dichotomies are the basis of simplistic political jingles and poor policy proposals - lifters or leaners, hard workers or welfare cheats, quiet Australians or troublemakers, science or humanities, thoughts or feelings, us or them.

False dichotomies, false debates, brutal choices.

It seems we just prefer to avoid thinking about complexity.

I said at the beginning that 'we humans like a dichotomy'. More accurately, we tend to impose dichotomies on the world as a default way of thinking. 

We know there might be complexity, diversity and unpredictability in the cosmos, but we then search out simplifications and mental ‘boxes’ to sort things into, in order to create order and make sense of things. We are so deeply attached to this way of thinking, that we can easily start to see everything in the world in terms of dichotomies.

People are nothing like clothing to be sorted into separate baskets for washing. People are complex, diverse and variable. But we still try to put them into sets of two opposing ‘boxes’.

That is what a stereotype is - we put people into our mental 'boxes' - young people box, old people box, people of various nationalities boxes, etc, etc - and we forget these mental 'boxes' are simplifications that do not represent the real world or real people. 

Dichotomies are so core to our thinking we can find it hard to understand the world in other ways. 

For example, 'cancel culture' is based on wanting 'ugly' and 'beautiful' to be clear opposites. We want our artists and movie makers to fit our need for people to one thing OR the other (and to stay that way). We want a ‘good and beautiful’ artist to make ‘beautiful’ work, not a ‘bad, ugly’ person to make ‘beautiful’ work. We feel deeply uncomfortable thinking about a movie director's awful behaviour as ‘bad or offensive’ at the same time as holding that artist’s creative work as ‘good'. We don't want to think about other people as being complex, nuanced, self-contradictory and messy.

Essentially, we find it uncomfortable to think about complexity, overlaps and contradiction. We WANT a dichotomy, simple - and comfortable. And false.

By doing this, we are imposing dichotomies where they don't exist, or when they don't really reflect reality at all. Then they don't really help us make sense of the world.

Humans can get very attached to 'false dichotomies'.

A false dichotomy is when we think there are only two options, when in fact other options, or indeed other ways of thinking about a topic altogether, are available. We impose a dichotomy on what we observe, and we ignore or discredit other options. 

Source: Jayrod P Garrot

We then use these false dichotomies to interact with other people. We forget that most often a dichotomy is just a convenient human simplification, not a reality of the world. We decide a complex social issue is black or white (not complex and multifaceted). We decide a sportsperson is either good or bad (not a bit of both). People are right or wrong, well-intentioned or malicious. And that's all the thinking required.

This is how I see the dichotomy of human traits* as either masculine or feminine: it’s a simplistic, convenient, but false dichotomy; we just ignore the existence of other options and other ways of thinking about human traits.

Many people do this when they refer to yin-yang to say that feminine traits are the natural opposite of masculine traits. I heard this on the radio yesterday, a man speaking: 'Of course, the wife had a different point of view entirely. Well, you'd expect that wouldn't you: yin and yang - that's how couples work.'

I say, if you want to use a mystical symbol to justify your idea that human traits and behaviours exist as a dichotomy of feminine versus masculine, it would be good if you did a bit of work to understand that symbol. It's clear that the speaker doesn't know what yin-yang actually represents, and doesn't know how happily humans create and sit with false dichotomies. 

In Part 2 of this article, I explore the use of the yin-yang symbol in relation to discussions of gender, and in Part 3, I get back to the idea from Gendered adjectives 2 of ditching the feminine/masculine dichotomy altogether when talking about human traits*.

Here's a new interpretation of yin-yang.

Yin-yang is most often seen as a mystical or ethical symbol which says each human, each thing, each natural cycle is a constant flow of yin and yang energy endlessly transforming into each other. In this world view, distress or ill health results from static imbalance and when the flow of energy has been blocked – in nature, in our society, our relationships, as well as our inner selves.

Not being particularly into mystical symbols to understand the world, I prefer to look at yin-yang as a philosophical or epistemological (how we know things) symbol.

I see yin-yang as a sophisticated exploration of how humans think; it highlights how we create mental 'boxes' (categories) and 'fit' our experience into those 'boxes', and how easy it is to forget those 'boxes' are a human creation, not the nature of reality.

Yin-yang says that the categories that humans use to understand and simplify the world are an illusion.

To me, yin-yang represents a philosophy of human knowledge and understanding: that the universe APPEARS to be composed of dichotomies of things and experiences, and we humans will see those things as different and separate, but that is actually NOT the nature of reality. It says that real understanding can only be found when one looks at the 'truth' about reality, about the way things really are, as complicated as that might be, and as uncomfortable as that might make us feel.

I feel enormous sympathy for those ancient Chinese philosophers labouring over how best to represent such challenging and complex concepts. The yin-yang symbol was an attempt to communicate the same message as this article, and a lot of my writing about categories: Dichotomies are simple, and some are true or useful for some purposes, but very often they are simplistic or false - and misleading. And they can lead us to false and brutal choices.

At its core, yin-yang says, 'Things might appear as opposites but are not in reality. Do not being misled by false dichotomies.' 

The irony is enormous. 

Ancient philosophers devote years of mental work to create a symbol to say that the world is unimaginably complex and relentless dynamic, and dichotomies are a fabrication only of the human mind. 

And we interpret that symbol as a dichotomy.

Footnote

*It's important to note this refers to human traits and behaviour, not human biological sexes. The biological dichotomy of humans as either male or female is a true dichotomy. The separateness of the categories is what makes it a true dichotomy. You get one set of genitals or the other - there is no other way to conceptualise these two categories. I know there are rare biological variations which we call ‘intersex’ but that doesn't impact on the physical reality of the biological distinction between male/female (or if you prefer, the biological distinction of male/female/intersex) - a true dichotomy (or trichotomy). This dichotomy of biological sex in no way means there is a dichotomy of human traits and behaviours. (Read more on gender and human traits in Part 2 and true and false dichotomies in Part 3.)

Images, used under Creative Commons

• Yin-yang symbol: Dessy92 [Public domain]: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Yin%26Yang_trasparent.png (CC BY-SA)
• The Supreme Ultimate: Michael C Kalton (1988) To Become a Sage - The essence of Neo-Confucianism  
  https://faculty.washington.edu/mkalton/10dia%20ch1%20web.htm [Public domain]
• Heaven and Earth’s Natural Diagram of the River: Zhao Huiqian 趙撝謙  
  https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bagua_Zhao_Huiqian.jpg [Public domain]
• Yin-yang GIF: KT https://gph.is/1KTcrm (Personal use only) 
• HL Mencken quote: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/h_l_mencken_129796 (Personal use only)
• Two types of people: Jayrod P Garrot: http://the1stog.blogspot.com/2012/04/black-white-and-rainbow.htm (CC BY-SA)

Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Yinyang (Yin-yang) is a great source for more on the history and interpretation of the yin-yang symbol https://www.iep.utm.edu/yinyang/