Beyond Us and Them

Living as an Imaginal Bridge between Worlds (Part #3)

---

[Parts: First | Prev | Next | Last | All] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]

---

Metaphorically both archetypal bridges offer understandings of the relation between "us" and "them" and between "here" and "there" (Us and Them: relating to challenging others, 2009).

The Bridge of Sighs transmutes the relationship into an atemporal experience -- to be recalled across time. The Ponte Vecchio suggests the existence of a "space" between "us" and "them" -- a strange space effectively nourished by the ambiguity which typically undermines any conventional decision-making or strategic mindset. This space is not supposed to be a place in which it is possible to be. In principle it is the essence of unsustainability. Strangely too it has connotations of age -- it is the "old bridge" from "a time before" and as such perhaps readily (if not too readily) to be deprecated as obsolete. However it has also become a central symbol of the Renaissance to which Florence gave birth.

Such a "space" raises questions about how it is distinguished from more conventional spaces and how "who" can survive and thrive there. Such questions evoke both mythical dimensions as well as the strangeness envisaged by the multi-universe of physicists and celebrated in science fiction (as with the Stargate series or The Time Zone series). It is the stuff of imagination and as such is effectively a "strange attractor" notably celebrated in some forms of art (as noted below).

The argument can be developed by enlarging the discourse space offered by the binary logic of "us" and "them" through the quadrilemma articulated by Kinhide Mushakoji (Global Issues and Interparadigmatic Dialogue, 1988):

• A (as with "us")
• not-A (as with "them")
• both A and not-A (as expressed to a degree in arguments for "tolerance")
• neither A nor not-A (a characteristic of "betwixt and between", as discussed below)

These can be related by the bridge metaphor in that a conventional bridge enables a degree of traffic between "A" and "not-A" -- as with the Bridge of Sighs (potentially one-way traffic, as in many other situations). However the sense of "both A and not-A" is better conveyed by the Ponte Vecchio in that people can dwell on that bridge and can conduct their business there. It is a place for exchange. More intriguing is the case of "neither A nor not-A" which, through its emphasis on "otherwise", suggests an orientation that is not adequately encompassed by any flows across the bridge, having significant associations to what flows beneath of a different orientation and disassociated from such conventional flows. This flow may acquire a surprising degree of significance when the bridged "river" rises and "floods" over its "sides", possibly even destroying any conventional bridge in the process -- or rendering it impassable.

In the latter case, the unconventional nature of any associated cognition is a theme of apophatic discourse, and "unsaying", as discussed separately (Being What You Want: problematic kataphatic identity vs. potential of apophatic identity? 2008). This could be understood as related to the concern of Eric Voegelin that a more fundamental sense of order is conveyed by an experience of transcendence which can never be fully defined nor described, though it may be conveyed in symbols (In Search of Order, 1987). It remains to be seen how the widely-publicized focus of Ray Kurzweil on both technological singularity and human transcendence responds to their "entanglement" in memetic singularity (Emerging Memetic Singularity in the Global Knowledge Society, 2009).

There is a case for associating "between" with the "both/and" logic, and using "betwixt" for the "neither/nor" case. With respect to "us" and "them", it would seem that the challenge is in the cognitive nature of the conjunctive "and" in providing a bridge. Why and how is the "middle" excluded so strangely by convention?

The issue of concern here is the manner in which conventional responses to the challenges of governance and sustainability would seem to be stuck in "us and them" logic -- as with US foreign policy -- when the possibilities of responding to the challenges of experience call for consideration of "both/and" and "neither/nor". However efforts at "both/and" would seem to have been less than successful -- as exemplified by the UN Year of Dialogue between Civilizations (2001) in the very year in which the "you're either with us, or against us" mindset was given such dramatic focus in Afghanistan and Iraq.

---

[Parts: First | Prev | Next | Last | All] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]