The Pythagoreans considered numbers to be co-existent qualitative dimensions of reality, rather than distinct sequential units of quantitative measurement that we understand them to be today. In my book, Astrology and the Archetypal Power of Numbers: A Contemporary Reformulation of Pythagorean Number Theory, I consider the spiritual psychology of each of these dimensions – which I call the Number Realms. In the following blog series, taken from Chapter Two of my book, I explore the Realm of Two.
This is Part 2 of an 11-Part Series
The entire Introduction can be read
as a prelude to this series here.
Previous posts in this series include:
Consciousness as a Play of Opposites
Consciousness evolves within the Realm of Two as the interplay of opposites. It is only through an encounter with darkness that I can know there is such a thing as light. It is only as male interacts with female that gender identification becomes possible[i]. It is only as I notice something “moving” that I know what “at rest” means; only as I encounter something “crooked” that the concept of “straight” is relevant; only as I become aware of the difference between one side of the Aristotelian Table of Opposites and the other that I become aware at all. Within the Ream of Two, consciousness arises through contrast and comparison.
This simple model of consciousness offers two possibilities for navigating the Realm of Two. If we treat each member of each polarity as a necessary and useful complement to the other, we have the possibility for creative synthesis, love, mutual respect, compassionate tolerance of differences, and a synergistic interaction in which the Whole becomes more than the sum of its parts. If, on the other hand, we treat one member of each polarity as superior to the other – e.g. light is better than dark; male is superior to female; good is good and bad is bad – then we have a recipe for conflict, for hatred, disrespect and cruel intolerance, and for an antagonistic interaction in which the Whole becomes compromised and remains fragmented.
In the last chapter, That Which Remains After All Else Has Been Eliminated – or Ain Soph, the essence of the One – was observed to be the power of choice. There is, however, nothing to choose until we get to the Realm of Two, where our hard-won prerogative is immediately tested. For choosing equality between the opposites is a recipe for becoming, which can be furthered within the Realm of Two. Choosing inequality is a sure ticket back to the Realm of Zero.
Although Two is honored as necessary to the evolutionary process throughout the Pythagorean literature, there is also a sense of inequality implied within the system. In theory, Pythagoras honored all the numbers as necessary to the process of creative evolution. At the same time, however, he saw the overriding spiritual goal of this life to be reunion with the One, and the process that led through the Dyad away from the One seemed contrary to that goal. In practice, the preferred strategy in pursuing reunion with the One was to adhere to the Monad and everything it represented in contrast to the Dyad. The Monad was considered by Pythagoreans to be good, while the Dyad was – if not exactly evil – at least fraught with ambivalence, and thus somewhat suspect.
Through Plato’s adoption of Pythagorean sensibilities, this focus on the inequality between the Monad and the Dyad led to the establishment of dogmatic, monotheistic, judgmental religions that tended to treat the Dyad as “sinful,” and punish it accordingly. Although the doctrinal sources and the terminology were very different in the East, it should not be assumed that this attitude of inequality in the Realm of Two is endemic to the West. In China, for example, both Confucianism and Taoism espouse the virtues of harmony between yin and yang. Yet in practice, Confucianism tends to stress the importance of a patriarchal (yang) moral code, while Taoists tend to prefer a yin approach to life modeled after water (Oxtoby Eastern 369). When any religion, Eastern or Western, favors one side of any polarity and considers the other sinful or inferior, this is a failure to become fully conscious within the Realm of Two.
Within the Realm of Two, becoming is a matter of intentionally embracing the Other in all its many guises, learning what we can from it, and assimilating all that is different from us. In this way, we find a place of balance within ourselves, a center amidst the extremes. To do this requires that we consider everything the Dyad has to offer without judgment. Judgment leads only to separation, separation leads to suspicion, suspicion leads to intolerance, intolerance leads to conflict, and conflict leads to chaos – which takes us back to where we started in the Realm of Zero. Unfortunately, such a mindset seems endemic to the Pythagoreans, who did not hold the Dyad in the same light of reverence that they reserved for the Monad. It also appears to be endemic to most religions on the planet today, vociferously promoting their beliefs as superior to those that exist in contrast to them.
The number Two is potentially a source of ambivalence within this tradition of inequality, and the catastrophic backward slide toward the Abyss it precipitates. The discussion that follows focuses mostly on the roots of ambivalence that stem from Pythagorean principles, with the understanding that ambivalence is intrinsic to the Realm of Two, and at play wherever inequality prevails.
[i] This is true, even in gay and lesbian relationships, since it is male and female principles we are talking about here – yin and yang – and not merely body gender. In order for attraction to exist at all between two people, there must be some polarity within the relationship.
If you find the ideas presented in this blog series intriquing and want to read the whole story, you can buy Astrology and the Archetypal Power of Numbers, Part One here.