SAME CONTEXT: When we realize that something exists in pairs within a context, choosing one of the two or more options is not entirely selecting just one. Rather, it means choosing both, but prioritizing one side to understand the other.
Good-Bad: Choosing something good means prioritizing the side considered good to understand the bad side, so it can be appropriately placed.
Hot-Cold: Choosing cold is not merely rejecting hot; rather, it is to understand "hot" and respond proportionally.
Thus, choosing one does not mean rejecting the other side, as they are interconnected.
The Dynamics of Pairing
How can we understand the limits of pairing❓
Because even "cold" is not always the pair of "hot"; for instance, "hot" in the context of "expansion" can be paired with something that doesn't necessarily "contract" but rather "solidifies."
Thus, the limit of pairing exists within the framework of a function that forms a certain cyclical direction.
For example, "liquid-solid" in one condition may shift to "liquid-evaporate" in another.
In certain conditions of a particular function, a different cycle shows different pairings. It could be a pairing of two or three—"Acid-Salty-Sweet"—or even 4 or more, where two sides of the cycle are considered the pairing.
Pairing Within Cycles
IN A CYCLICAL CONTEXT: For instance, in the cycle "A-B-C-D-E," the pairing would be A-E, where at one point, after the state of "A," it transitions to "E." However, in another condition, the cycle might be "A-C-E-B-D," where the pairing is "A-D."
This is how we find the dynamic range of pairing.
Dualism
Dualism, too, follows this principle. The pairing seen as dualism is actually part of a cycle in a particular function.
A function has various operations formed by a certain cycle or priority sequence. From this, we can see the pairing.
Different functions will have different sequences of priority or process, meaning the pairing pattern will also differ.
This pairing is actually the structure of cause and effect or a form of dependency from a cyclic order (process).
And as our perspective deepens, the structure of cause and effect narrows, which causes our perception to also see the limits of pairing as a result of the decreasing structure forming the pair, due to the reduction of cause and effect.
Dualism is part of a larger process, not merely a separate entity but a unity of a function.
Dogma & Intellectualism
Those who claim, "it's just based on dogma, not intellectual," actually lack understanding at the meta level.
Because any statement must have a cause-and-effect relationship, it inherently possesses an intellectual aspect.
Why, then, does dogma or doctrine seem non-intellectual? It's not that it lacks intellectual content; rather, dogma or doctrine represents the simplest level of understanding because its intellectual content is straightforward, clear, and directly points toward a tendency. THIS PROVIDES CLARITY, SO THE INTELLECTUAL SIDE THAT INVITES AMBIGUITY AND CAN BE DEBATED BECOMES OBSCURED, AND ONE SIDE OF UNDERSTANDING BECOMES MORE PROMINENT, FORCING A SINGLE DIRECTION.
Logical Consequences
Although a dogma may have multiple logical consequences, its clarity is indeed far from ambiguous.
For those who are not trained in certain intellectual sharpness, they won't see the branching consequences of a dogma except toward one direction, or they may not understand it at all. However, regardless of how deeply one understands it, a dogma or doctrine asserts an initial understanding far from the deeper level of comprehension that can be achieved through more in-depth intellectual interpretation.
In simpler terms: a dogma or doctrine can be complex but still simpler compared to when understood at a deeper level.
Reason & Dogma
Since they are two sides of the same coin, prioritizing reason can never be separated from dogma, in the sense of how essential the simple side of understanding is for reason to comprehend other things more practically and efficiently.
Likewise, prioritizing dogma means basing reason’s exploration within the limits set by the possible direction of understanding from dogma.
For instance, a clear rule can indeed be reinterpreted intellectually within its boundaries, but its adaptation cannot stray far from the limits of the dogma.
Similarly, an insight gained through reasoning can be easily understood through the simple approach of dogma or doctrine, but that does not make it overly narrow.
The Source of Dogma
By realizing that dogma is a simple, unambiguous teaching from knowledge, we understand that dogma is not only found in religion but also in various areas of life outside religion.
The Depth of Dogma
HIERARCHY: Dogma or statements considered simple have a hierarchical meaning, which gives them an intellectual side to be interpreted in terms of which direction the hierarchy of understanding is leading. This is an effort to expand understanding but still within the hierarchical context, without stepping out of bounds.
This is what distinguishes between interpreting within context and interpreting out of context.
When a dogma’s understanding is expanded while staying within its hierarchical limits, no matter how far it goes, it remains within context, thus staying relevant and offering a diverse range of applicable adaptations.
For example: "bread is delicious" can be expanded to "wheat has the potential to bring comfort to emotions." But it would be wrong to interpret it as "wheat is delicious" (because unless it is processed into bread, it is unlikely to be delicious).
So, even from something simple, understanding can be expanded without going out of context.
Priority vs Foundation
Which is more important between reason and dogma? Both are essential, but if we believe a dogma to be true, then it serves as the reference—standardization. Thus, both (reason and dogma) are important, but acknowledged dogma, which serves as standardization, means the exploration of possibilities through reason must rely on the standardization we hold.
Share this post