The first ingredient

The first ingredient I put in any meal served at the Heaven Path Diner is the answer to the problem of ambiguity in the language and perception of our shared reality.

Modern science has brought to light a rather interesting phenomenon that should be kept in mind by the searcher for fulfillment, that being the phenomenon of complimentarity.

If you were a scientist studying the fundamental phenomenon of light, you might desire to set up an experiment that you can use to prove once and for all that light is made up of particles. There are a variety of ways that you might do this, and if the method you choose adheres to all the accepted scientific principles for conducting such experiments, you would no doubt end up with absolutely inescapable proof that light is, in fact, particulate in its nature.

Unfortunately, your scientific neighbor had the same idea, but decided to prove that light was wave-like in nature. Having adhered to the aforementioned scientific principles, his results are equally conclusive that light is wave-like.

So, which result is correct?

This particular scientific battle has been fought out for most of a century, and the only conclusion that holds together across time is that both results are correct within the perspective each was derived in.

This is complimentarity. That at the most basic level, scientific results may be antithetical and still be correct. The correctness will, however, be limited to the fundamental perspective of the research.

We find complimentarity in a wide variety of non-scientific pursuits such as religion and politics. In religion we see it in theism vs. atheism, gnosticism vs. agnosticism, works vs. faith, etc. In politics we find it in liberalism vs. conservatism, authoritarianism vs. libertarianism, and so forth.

Anyone who has ever tried to argue any of the above subjects with someone of the opposing bent has probably arrived at the conclusion that the opposing party is speaking a language where the words they are using have a different meaning than that of the same words when used by you.

This is essentially the case.

This is not to say that there aren’t some blind, ignorant debaters out there, but if we always start with the assumption that the other party is as sincere and intellectually honest as we are, and why would you bother to debate with someone who you believed to be otherwise, then a failure to adequately communicate should first be considered as being a result of arguing from complimentaritous perspectives.

That is to say, if you want to change the mind of a liberal, your argument will have to be conducted within the liberal perspective. If you want to change the mind of a conservative, then your argument will have to be conducted within the conservative perspective.

The reason for this is found in the principle of complimentarity. Just because a liberal position is untenable in the conservative perspective doesn’t make it wrong. It does however make the argument itself fail because one side is arguing apples, and the other side is arguing oranges.

The above discussion might be seen as just another defense of ‘relativism,’ and it is, but it also describes the way things ultimately are in our shared reality.

So, to feed the spirit, we must frequently dine on complimentarity.

Of course, the concept of complimentarity existed a long time before that particular term was used to describe it.

We find it in a very old book from China called the Dao De Ching, in such sayings as “The path that can be spoken of is not the true path.” and “He that thinks he knows, doesn’t know, but he that doesn’t know, knows.”

In your quest for eternal fulfillment you should seek to incorporate complimentarity into your understanding.