You can't have one without the other?

I have often seen it said, in regards to any pair of contrasting principles, that "you can't have one without the other." I have seen this cited so many times in spiritual circles that it almost takes on the air of doctrine. This, of course, is invoked with the contrasts of pleasure/pain, comfort/discomfort, "good"/"evil", order/chaos, etc in the same manner as up/down, hot/cold, light/dark, etc.

It is said that each contrasting principle relationally defines the other and that one cannot "know" one element without the other. Taken as an inextricable pair, they are self-defining. Thus, it is said that "hot" has no meaning apart from "cold".

Therefore, meaning is engendered through the human act of defining. But, it should hardly need stating that the act of defining something- whether it is a concrete object or a subjective sensation- is strictly a conceptual endeavor. It is a process of categorization in which the analytical mind engages.

But we have to be careful not to conflate the act of defining, which is inherently conceptual, with that of pure experience, which is not.

Sometimes the terms "have" or even "know" are employed in this way. You've probably heard many say, "you cannot have good without evil", "you can't have the good without the bad", "you cannot know peace apart from upheaval", etc. With this use of "know" and "have", a subtle nuance is introduced. This change may seem inconsequential and ultimately synonymous with the inextricability of contrasts necessary for defining (or attaching value or meaning to) each element. Now we've introduced the idea that you cannot "have", i.e., experience, the 'good' without the 'bad' or pleasure without suffering. But what we've done is confuse abstraction with experience. We've conflated the conceptual act of defining an experience, and all that this implies and necessitates, with the experience itself.

This is often where the notion of "appreciation" comes in to play. There are those that contend that one can only appreciate the experience of one state in relational context of the experience of a contrasting state. They postulate that the experiential "value" of any subjective state is informed by and through the value (or lack thereof) of a correspondingly contrasting experience.

So, is this true?

Our best way to examine this assumption is by the practical example of applying it to beings that are without experience and conceptual thinking: new-born babies.

Is a newborn baby unable to enjoy the comforting experience of their mothers touch and caress unless they are correspondingly beaten as well? Will the baby only develop a distaste for being physically hit only after it has experienced the warmth of a mother's loving embrace? This would be necessary so that that the new-born can properly compare the two experiences and develop the necessary conceptual framework to establish experiential value, and thus, what experiences he/she finds pleasing versus displeasing?

No, the baby finds the mothers embrace pleasing without even knowing what "pleasing" even is. The conceptual value and meaning ascribed to a state have nothing to do with the pure experience of such a state.

Thus, you can have one without the other. You can experience one state without experiencing the contrasting state.

You can experience pleasure without having ever experienced pain. You don't need pain to be able to experience, or even appreciate, pleasure. You will only need the concept of "pain" to arrive at a concept of "pleasure." You will need to have experienced both in order to give meaning and/or value to each state, but this has absolutely nothing to do with the experience itself.

Agree. I think this belief is popular because it supposedly explains away suffering, but I've met people who believe they have to feel bad in order to be happy.

Originally Posted by Aquarian

Agree. I think this belief is popular because it supposedly explains away suffering

Exactly right. This is an extremely poor attempt to explain away suffering. The entire "you can't have pleasure without suffering" argument is completely erroneous and easily refuted.

Originally Posted by Aquarian

but I've met people who believe they have to feel bad in order to be happy.

Yeah, unfortunately this is very common. I can't tell you how many times I've heard it mindlessly barfed up on this forum. As such a widely embraced philosophical tenet, it has the irrationality of most religious doctrines.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Aquarian

Agree. I think this belief is popular because it supposedly explains away suffering, but I've met people who believe they have to feel bad in order to be happy.

It's just sometimes ya feel bad and sometimes ya feel happy.

Originally Posted by LIFE

So, is this true?

Our best way to examine this assumption is by the practical example of applying it to beings that are without experience and conceptual thinking: new-born babies.

Is a newborn baby unable to enjoy the comforting experience of their mothers touch and caress unless they are correspondingly beaten as well? Will the baby only develop a distaste for being physically hit only after it has experienced the warmth of a mother's loving embrace? This would be necessary so that that the new-born can properly compare the two experiences and develop the necessary conceptual framework to establish experiential value, and thus, what experiences he/she finds pleasing versus displeasing?

No, the baby finds the mothers embrace pleasing without even knowing what "pleasing" even is. The conceptual value and meaning ascribed to a state have nothing to do with the pure experience of such a state.

Thus, you can have one without the other. You can experience one state without experiencing the contrasting state.

You can experience pleasure without having ever experienced pain. You don't need pain to be able to experience, or even appreciate, pleasure. You will only need the concept of "pain" to arrive at a concept of "pleasure." You will need to have experienced both in order to give meaning and/or value to each state, but this has absolutely nothing to do with the experience itself.

The baby also experiences undesirable conditions, too, and the baby expresses its displeasure.. it is possible to experience only desirable experiences, but i am not aware of any such conditions.. through manipulating one's environment and redefining the values of one's existence it might be possible to convince one's self that everything experienced is desirable, but it would be a pretense.. what contrasting principles reveal, is the actuality of Life.. that there will be degrees of desirability associated with Life, form ecstasy to agony.. we will experience a broad range of human experiences, and label them according to our individual desirabilities.. it is the "labels" that align with the contrasting principles, and there is no necessity for labeling, but.. the life we live will reveal our preferences, and those preferences will align with contrasting principles..

I don't need pain to know i prefer pleasure, but.. until there is pain, pleasure is just normal, not pleasure and so has no meaningful reference, yet.. the extremes of our experiences define the boundaries of our labels.. adding validity to the notion that "one man's pain is another man's pleasure", each having different references for the same experiences..

Be well..

Originally Posted by TzuJanLi

it is possible to experience only desirable experiences, but i am not aware of any such conditions

Neither am I.

I am not saying that there is, or can be, a state of only desirable experiences. I am simply saying that the cliched doctrine of "you can't experience pleasure without suffering" is unfounded.

I don't need pain to know i prefer pleasure, but.. until there is pain, pleasure is just normal, not pleasure and so has no meaningful reference

You seem to be invoking the old "you can't experience pleasure without suffering" argument. Except in this sense you are saying that pleasure has no meaning without a reference (i.e, something displeasurable to compare it with).

The question is, can you experience something to which you haven't conceptually attached a meaning?

One will still be gravitated towards what we call comfort/pleasure regardless of whether or not they have any concept of what constitutes "pleasure." There is a difference between experiencing something and attaching meaning/value to an experience.

We tend to unconsciously attach value and meaning to experiences in such an automatic fashion that the experience and subsequent interpretation of the experience become seamlessly fused in our minds. Ascribing meaning to an experience is an abstraction- the domain of conceptuality.

"one man's pain is another man's pleasure", each having different references for the same experiences..

Yes, but there are more similarities than differences- shared human proclivities.

Just as the plant grows toward the light (heliotropism), human beings naturally seek comfort, fulfillment, pleasure, etc.

They do so even if they have no prior experience, no meaningful frame of reference, ability to think conceptually or ascribe meaning, etc.

It's fairly safe to assume that the plant knows nothing about the "contrasting principles" of light and dark, why it seeks the light, etc. Yet, it will bend and contort it's foliage to bathe itself on the nourishing sunlight.

Don't know if this has been discussed anywhere but I communicate with plants and trees a bit.

They're a bit like an iceberg in the sense that most of their intelligence is not in the physical plane. They have a collective consciousness and are almost completely unattached to their physical counterparts.

Their IQs might be around 80, but their wisdom definitely surpasses that of the human race.

I'm sure enough of this to state it as fact although there may be exceptions such as young/smaller plants not being as connected.

That we need the opposite to validate something or even to allow it to exist is utter fallacy. We’ve been in a duality environment for quite some time, so this can be seen to be the truth, but it is just a particular characteristic of this dimension & a certain polarized mindset. Just because something has been repeated often & for a long time doesn't make it the truth, just often said.

Lets look at the literal example of dark/light. Increasing the darkness doesn’t generate light while increasing the light decreases the darkness.

This is one of many fallacies, cliches, & nuggets of flawed information that benefit from discussion.

Greetings..

Originally Posted by mattie

That we need the opposite to validate something or even to allow it to exist is utter fallacy. We’ve been in a duality environment for quite some time, so this can be seen to be the truth, but it is just a particular characteristic of this dimension & a certain polarized mindset. Just because something has been repeated often & for a long time doesn't make it the truth, just often said.

Lets look at the literal example of dark/light. Increasing the darkness doesn’t generate light while increasing the light decreases the darkness.

This is one of many fallacies, cliches, & nuggets of flawed information that benefit from discussion.

Not quite.. the reason we 'name' something is to identify it apart from other 'things'.. if there was nothing but 'light' there would no need to name it, there would be no contrasting condition.. there is no condition in the Cosmos that is not contrasted by another condition, except as an imagined situation.. of course, i am completely open to any verifiable examples of conditions existing independent of a contrasting condition..

Be well..

Originally Posted by TzuJanLi

Greetings..


Not quite.. the reason we 'name' something is to identify it apart from other 'things'.. if there was nothing but 'light' there would no need to name it, there would be no contrasting condition.. there is no condition in the Cosmos that is not contrasted by another condition, except as an imagined situation.. of course, i am completely open to any verifiable examples of conditions existing independent of a contrasting condition..

Be well..

That's something that has puzzled me for a long time. If there was no dark, would we truly understand the Light? Would we question its nature or would we never give it a second thought, thereby not understand it and not be Enlightened? How different is the experience of all sunshine and roses to one that has known pain? Knowledge is one thing but understanding is something different and perhaps understanding is Enlightenment. Does knowing something exists mean you are Enlightened, or does the understanding through experience Enlighten you?

Perhaps that rocky road to true Enlightenment is about questioning and gaining an understanding from the answers that come of experience. Are you Enlightened because you know there is the Light, or are you Enlightened because you have experienced the dark and that experience gives you a better understanding of the Light?