In the end, duality appears to be ๐ ๐๐๐-๐๐๐๐ ๐ข๐๐๐๐. This is one of those governing, authoritative intuitions (like โall apparent opposites balanceโor cancelโeach other outโ) that I find it difficult ๐๐๐ก to take for granted as a ground assumption about โrealityโโunderstood both internally and externally. It doesnโt seem to be something that requires evidential proof or rational justification, since it appears apodictic or axiomatic.ย
Does this idea or principle apply only within the timespace dimension of ordinary conscious experienceโwhere forms may be said to exist, if only ๐ก๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ฆโsince ๐โ๐๐๐๐ makes no sense from a timeless, formless perspective? And yet, precisely because there is a suggestion of finality (in a condition of undifferentiated unity?) at the culmination of this process of mutual consumption (or reconciliation) of the opposites, it is only natural to wonder how such a final state might be meaningfully or intelligibly described.
โQuietnessโ and โremotenessโ leap to mind as descriptors. Something else that leapt to mind was sentence or two from a famous aphorism that Nietzsche added to ๐โ๐๐ข๐โ๐ป๐ข๐๐๐, ๐ด๐๐ ๐ก๐๐ ๐ป๐ข๐๐๐, sect. 9: โ๐๐๐ก๐๐โ๐ฆ๐ ๐๐๐๐ ๐ค๐๐๐๐โฆThere is nothing at all we could state about the metaphysical world except its differentness, a differentness inaccessible and incomprehensible to us. It would be a thing of negative qualities. No matter how well proven the existence of such a world might be, it would still hold true that the knowledge of it would be the most inconsequential of all knowledge, even more inconsequential than the knowledge of the chemical analysis of water must be to the boatman facing a storm.โ
