The Star of Azazel - Azazelin Tähti

Within the field of esotericism/occultism the union of binary opposites is frequently mentioned, either directly or obliquely. The most common I've see are unions of man and woman, human and god, while of course there are also slogans such as “as above, so below”. However, in the post-modernist and post-structuralist world such absolute unions of proposed opposites are increasingly difficult to accept on first principles. For example, is it viable to posit the union of the supposed opposites of 'human' and 'god' when these are concepts that have a variety of different definitions? There are also implications for subjects like Aristotle's Golden Mean as the middle ground between two extremes and Jung's Self as the union of consciousness and unconsciousness.

In short, what do people think about the practice of unifying opposites when defining opposites is culturally and individually specific to some degree at least?

An interesting and important topic. I´m currently reading Slavoj Zizek´s The Indivisible Remainder - On Schelling and Related Matters which deals with the relation between Schelling (whose philosophy is highly influenced by esotericism) and post-modernism. The most characteristic post-modern thinkers such as Nietzsche, Heidegger, Foucault, Lacan and Zizek usually have some similarities to esotericism, but, on the other hand, they provide the most severe critique of metaphysics. The critique is indeed so convincing that I don´t think it´s possible simply to rely on pre-modern philosophical notions and dismiss contemporary thought as shallow. My solution is something like a Kantian transcendental turn within the framework of occultism. Instead of trying gain metaphysical control of the world perhaps we should concentrate on tracing the subjective conditions for experiencing the world as we experience it. This is not merely "practical" or psychological but it concerns the conditions for psychology. It may not be possible (or desirable!) to prove that actual metaphysical dualisms within unity exist but I believe it can be shown that there is no properly human life-world without the mentioned dualisms and the need to overcome them.

Yeah, I think your solution is the most pragmatic, I've ended up at a similar position.

I guess the problem you're referring to regarding metaphysics is the “but how does it relate to us” issue? Actually, it seems to me that tying metaphysics with post-modernism by using Kant's transcendentalism also responds to the major criticism of post-modernism: “it's basically relativistic nihilism”.

I was recently thinking of the concept of symmetry, which is something that I see as different from the unification of opposites, yet is often utilised as a symbolic substitute for this in diagrams and can perhaps encourage a quantitative conception of the unification of opposites rather than a qualitative unification. I think this manifests on a couple of different levels, e.g. the philosophical Golden Mean of Aristotelean thought and the duality of Neoplatonism, down to the more symbolic left and right hands of god or the two pillars of the Kabbalah.

Basically, I thought I’d revive this thread to see what opinions people have regarding opposites and whether they are quantitative or qualitative, especially in the context of post-modernism.

I think the opposite of white is not black, but everything that is not white and the opposite of man is everything that is not man. The practice of uniting the opposites is therefore increasing self-identification or sympathy with the Other.