Introduction

This chapter empowers a dialogue between the East Asian Taijitu—related to yin-yang theory—and Western dialectics while enriching the notion of dialogue itself. Applications or resonances, such as those found in quantum physics, are also identified; with a focus on exploring brain hemispheric function (McGilchrist 2009)—an inquiry which has far-reaching consequences for social theory and global academia. The Taijitu can be interpreted in a reductive (inferring cyclical stasis) or a rich (involving complex evolution) fashion and this chapter adopts the latter interpretation, indicating its aptness. The topic aspires to the betterment of humanity and the planet through identifying the critical underuse of such semiotic patterns as the Taijitu in academia and—at least in a formal way—in Western society at large. A general import for social theory comprises the empowerment of adequately complex articulations of understanding, in contrast to more reductive theorisations involving flat ontologies in conjunction with strong bias toward one half of apparent dichotomies, such as that of ‘agency versus structure’.Footnote 1 The chapter indicates the usefulness of both Bhaksar’s (2008) philosophy of dialectical critical realism in ‘underlabouring’ such apt social science, and that of the notion of ‘the scholarship of complex integration’ (after Boyer 1990). An additional contextualising triangulation via postformal reasoning (Hampson 2007) further enhances the significance of the work. The chapter ends by offering a key conceptual formulation for understanding the underlying logic of the Taijitu and postformal dialectics as part of Gödel’s (1931/1992) incompleteness theorem(s).

An introduction to Taijitu scholarship is followed by an identification of Western dialectics, focusing on Bhaskar’s dialectical critical realism as a nuanced sublation of the dialectical approaches of both Hegel and Marx, thence opening up a dialogue between it and the Taijitu. After a brief review of Taijitu applications in academia, including that pertaining to quantum physics, there is an exploratory inquiry into the relationship between the Taijitu and brain hemispheric function via the scholarship of McGilchrist (2009). A useful global academic context then follows, namely, that of the scholarship of complex integration—an adaptation of Boyer’s (1990) scholarship of integration. This is enriched by addressing the lens of postformal reasoning. Finally, an ‘ends-in-view’ (Dewey 1919/2004) section presents a summary of the chapter and indicates avenues for further exploration.Footnote 2

The Taijitu

The Taijitu or yin-yang symbol—indicating yin-yang theory (see Fig. 1)—can be interpreted in a variety of ways, some of which can be categorised as contractive or reductive, and others expansive or rich. Whilst the chapter adopts the latter, it is worth giving an example of the reductive interpretation, such as that of Bell and Bell (2008) on why the Taijitu is unsuitable for use in the field of environmental sociology: ‘from the perspective of ecological dialogue, the Taijitu represents the world as overly unified, static, and finished’ (Bell and Bell 2008, p. 6). This contrasts with a more complex interpretation such as Choi’s (2013), regarding the ‘ecological promise’ of the Taijitu, which he explores via the insights of Thomas Berry. In terms of the symbol itself, one perspective on how a reductive interpretation might be seen by some as merely cyclical and static involves the under-regarding of not only possible consequences arising from the aspect of dynamism but also the potential significance of the complex identity of the ‘seeds’ of yin within yang, and yang within yin as elaborate fractal subtotalities. But first, let us consider the historical context of the Taijitu.

Fig. 1
figure 1

The classic Daoist Taijitu

Full size image

Historical Context of the Taijitu

Yin-yang theory has formed part of the dominant worldview of eastern Asia for millennia. For example, ‘the Han thinker, Dong Zhongshu (Tung Chung-shu, 179–104 BCE), commonly regarded as the founder of Imperial Confucianism, explored the relationship between yinyang theory and Confucian morality’ (Wang 2005, p. 308, original italics), thus infusing a type of yin-yang orientation into the authoritarian mindset of early Confucianism. It was not until a millennium or so later, however, that a Taijitu was formed in relation to a philosophical perspective on yin and yang.Footnote 3 Following on from a drawing of the Great Void by Daoist hermit Chen Tuan (906–989 CE), Zhou Dunyi (Chou Tun-i, 1017–1073 CE) wrote the Taijitu Shuo, a philosophical account of the Taijitu that first introduced the notion of non-being into East Asian thinking (Wang 2005). Via a particular infusion of Chinese Buddhism and Daoism, Zhou Dunyi heralded Neo-Confucianism, which lasted as a dominant cultural style in China until the early twentieth century. This realisation is relayed in the Daodejing (study 42—as quoted in Stalling 2010—as):

Verse

Verse   Dao engenders One;   One engenders Two;   Two engenders Three;   Three engenders the ten thousand things

In terms of the first line, Stalling (2010) comments:

Here, we begin with the undifferentiated ‘Source,’ variously referred to as taiyi [Great One], taiji [Great Ultimate], hundun [Primordial Chaos], or qiantian [Primordial Heavens]—or even xu [the Void], which is often figured as pure undifferentiated potentiality that is the foundation of being, its origin and its destination. (Stalling 2010, p. 167)

Beyond the ‘one’, the ‘two’ of yin and yang are formed. The ‘three’ can be understood as involving their complex relationship. This relationship thence leads to ‘the ten thousand things’, that is, the myriad phenomena we witness in the universe.

The complex relationship and its consequences are traditionally explored through the notion of trigrams (combinations involving three units, each unit being either yin or yang: a total of eight possibilities), and thence hexagrams (combinations of two trigrams: a total of sixty-four possibilities). These form the core elements of the I Ching (see Walls 1995, for example, regarding the I Ching in systems thinking). Closely associated with this context is that of the five elements (see Mišić 2011, for example, regarding the five elements with respect to systems biology). The perspective taken in the current chapter, however, is an exploration of the Taijitu without focusing on the level of trigrams (or beyond), and without substantive association to the five elements.

Taijitu Semiotics

In Fig. 1 the Taijitu can be identified as involving four aspects: (a) a circular sense of totality; (b) a contrast between a yin (black) half and yang (white) half; (c) an S-like curve between the yin and yang halves; and (d) a yin ‘seed’ within the yang half, and a yang ‘seed’ within the yin half.

The first aspect refers to the ‘one’ discussed above. The second aspect is a contrasting binary involving an apparent opposition, dichotomy, dualism or complementarity. In relation to such possibilities Brons (2009) notes that ‘while strict oppositional variants are more common in the West (and perhaps in Indian thought as well), the yin-yang model is more common in East-Asian thought’ (Brons 2009, p. 294).Footnote 4 He is referring to the interpretation that the Taijitu offers yin and yang as a complementary pair rather than a pair in opposition. This understanding can be identified as the first level of insight. However, it is interesting to observe Yoke’s (2000) more nuanced—(meta-)dialectical—interpretation that yin and yang can be understood as both complementary and oppositional: this can be identified as a second level of insight.Footnote 5

A more nuanced understanding of the yin-yang pairing also indicates the possibility of asymmetry-within-symmetry.Footnote 6 Specifically, at the initial level of understanding, yin and yang are symmetrical; yet particular contexts also highlight the asymmetry not only between the characters of yin and yang but also with respect to their systemic structure. From the traditional historical context, for example, the relationship between Heaven and Earth is described asymmetrically, specifically that Heaven (yang) begets Earth (yin), that Heaven/Source is primary, whilst receptive/reflective Earth is secondary. So, at the level of abstract complementarity, yin and yang can be understood as symmetrical, but in a more nuanced way, structural asymmetries can also be identified at different levels of understanding in various contexts.Footnote 7

The third aspect indicates change, movement, dynamism—the type of which is dependent on the interpretation of the fourth aspect. The fourth aspect offers at least two possible readings. The first imaginary would be that the seeds merely indicate that yin becomes yang and yang becomes yin in a mechanical cyclical motion. But such an idea could surely be adequately represented by a diagram involving either the third aspect or the fourth aspect but not both (note that both would infer a redundancy—something unlikely in such a tight semiotic form). So even from the symbol itself, a richer reading would appear to be more apt. Firstly, it can be seen that the very identity of yin does not solely consist of yin but also of a little yang—and vice versa. In other words, each half of the Taijitu is already a complex identity, one which acknowledges the Other in its midst. Resonating with both Lacan (1988) (regarding the omnipresence of the Other in identity) and Derrida (1967/2001) (regarding what one might say as the omnipresence of the Other in the identity of the textFootnote 8), one could specify such a complex identity as of a type of dialectical identity.Footnote 9 Secondly, the positioning of the seed, namely, in the fullness of its Other, gives rise to the type of ‘movement’ found in the I Ching in relation to the varying strengths of yin (i.e. full versus moderate) and the two corresponding strengths of yang.Footnote 10 Thirdly, and perhaps most generatively, the seeds can be interpreted as elaborate fractals, recursions or holographs of the whole: given that the seed itself can/will grow through time, it will surely become similar-but-not-identical to the major half of the Taijitu with which it shares its colour—and therefore have already implicit within itself the seeds of its own opposite or complement. In this explanation, I use the term elaborate (after Davis and Sumara 2006), to indicate that this process is not mechanical but organic, so that—analogous to the procession of different generations of a biological family—the later iterations will be similar but never identical to the preceding ones. The combination of this aspect with the third aspect of dynamics thus indicates the prospect of evolution. Moreover, the path of evolution is very likely to be non-linear (i.e. does not form a neat geometrical helixFootnote 11), as Robinet (1992/1997) indicates (through her discussion of the Taijitu in the context of an alchemical spiritual path):

The cyclical process occurs in stages and, in a time quite apart from linear time, a cyclical and achronic time during which the materials on which the adept works … are progressively deepened, purified, exalted, in an upward moving, widening spiral that culminates in the universal and the ultimate truth and finally permits escape from the cycle of life and death.

All explanations of the alchemical task follow this spiraling movement. Progress is never linear but always truncated, punctuated by movements backward. Like the task itself, these explanations do not proceed in a straight line but in a labyrinthine fashion, with repetitions and returns to earlier points, circularity, repetitively, dialectically. The perpetual reiterations are never identical, thus suggesting a constant labor or renewal and enlarging of understanding. (Robinet 1992/1997 quoted in Staling 2010, p. 234)

Here, Robinet’s identification of evolution as a spiral (or helixFootnote 12) involving a labyrinth of repetitions, regressions, truncations, punctuations, dialecticisations and so on is perhaps reminiscent of the philosopher Mary Midgley’s (1985) identification of the character of evolution, in which she postulates the concept of the bush as offering an apt metaphor to indicate the degree and type of evolutionary complexity.Footnote 13

But what of the Taijitu’s relationship with the notion of dialectics?

Western Dialectics

The Taijitu has been identified as a form of dialectics, as Brons (2009) indicates:

There are several forms such dialectics can take, and most of these forms can be found around the world. The famous yin-yang circle (taijitu) is a surprisingly good graphical representation of one of these forms—yin and yang are entangled, in perpetual flux, and contain each other’s ‘seeds’. (Brons 2009, p. 293, original italics)

Despite Brons’ identification, it is mostly the case that dialectics has primarily been identified with respect to Western philosophy, involving such figures as Socrates, Hegel, Marx and Bhaskar. It is likely that Bhaskar’s dialectical critical realism (Bhaskar 2008; Norrie 2010) provides the most nuanced approach to dialectics with respect to the Western tradition. It addresses the salient details of both Hegelian and Marxist dialectics and then moves dialectical understanding beyond each of these in a detailed and rigorous fashion. In its realist and emancipatory commitments, dialectical critical realism can be linked more closely to Marx, yet in its systematic philosophical rigour, it can be linked more closely to Hegel. Analogous to this, Norrie indicates that, ‘Bhaskar’s [theory of dialectics] is a partially preservative sublation of Hegel … via the insights of Marx’ (Norrie 2010, p. 85). The term ‘preservative sublation’ indicates the aforementioned manoeuvre of nuancing—in this instance signifying the differentiation of the Hegelian concept of aufheben or dialectical sublation (the process involved in achieving a new level of dialectical synthesis resulting from the apparent resolution of ‘thesis’ and ‘antithesis’) such that sublation may not only (‘preservatively’) involve transcending and including but also (‘non-preservatively’) involve transcending and excluding. As Bhaskar indicates, ‘sublations involve the ‘determinate transformative negation’ of an existing state of affairs, and, as such, ‘may be totally, essentially, or partially preservative’’ (Bhaskar 2008, quoted in Norrie 2010, p. 82).

A relationship to poststructuralism and process philosophy—via Deleuze—can also be identified through observing differing interpretations of Heraclitus. Specifically, whilst Deleuze and some other process philosophers characterise Heraclitus as a philosopher of flux or flow, Norrie indicates that Bhaskar interprets Heraclitus as essentially offering a dialectical perspective—one specifically regarding the dialectical unit (or ‘dual’ in critical realist terms) between flow and structure (thus implicating Heraclitus in the fruitful identification of a dialectic to process).Footnote 14

Given this heritage and substantive address of Hegel and Marx (with additional insights regarding Deleuze), dialectical critical realism can be used as an appropriate voice to represent Western dialectics as we bring this into dialogue with the Eastern Taijitu.

Dialogue with the Taijitu

The first thing to note is that neither Bhaskar’s (2008) volume on dialectics nor Norrie’s (2010) synergistic volume mention the Taijitu. Nonetheless, the degree of Bhaskar’s enrichment of dialectical understanding adequately facilitates a conceptual landscape within which dialogue can generatively occur. Indeed, the overall relationship can perhaps best be described as a philosophical embrace in which the Taijitu can be understood as forming a particular subset of the general landscape formed by dialectical critical realism. In other words, dialectical critical realism can be identified as a ‘philosophical underlabourer’ (Bhaskar 2008) for the Taijitu.Footnote 15 The following represents the detailing of this by referring back to the section on the semiotics of the Taijitu:

  1. 1.

    The wholeness aspect of the Taijitu is valorised by dialectical critical realism through the concept of totality; specifically, the Taijitu can be identified as a totality;

  2. 2.

    The complementary(-opposite) aspect of the Taijitu is identified in dialectical critical realism as a dual, which can be understood as a subset of the concept of constellation—noting that:

    1. (a)

      ‘Constellationality involves an overall co-relation, emergent from its parts and containing them, which depends on the real relation of the individual terms, together with the relative autonomy between them, making mediation possible. Mutual intra-action and co-mediation in a constellational state, rather than subsumption of one term within another, are stressed’ (Norrie 2010, p. 100);

    2. (b)

      ‘Linked to [constellationality] is the figure of the dual, which also sustains the independence of linked terms, whilst insisting on their interdependence’ (Norrie 2010, p. 100);

    3. (c)

      Thus, in dialectical critical realist terms, the Taijitu can be understood as a dual (or constellational dual);

  3. 3.

    The dynamic aspect of the Taijitu is identified in dialectical critical realism in a complex way, one which draws together particular identifications from:

    1. (a)

      Plotinus and Schiller—dialectical process (unity to differentiation to differentiated unity);

    2. (b)

      Hegel—dialectical intelligibility (involving teleology);

    3. (c)

      Marx—dialectical praxis (involving a unity of theory and praxis);

  4. 4.

    Whilst the ‘seeds’ aspect of the Taijitu is facilitated by the concepts of:

    1. (a)

      Heterology—‘Something is heterologous where it has a relationship of difference with another entity, or contains elements of difference in itself’ (Norrie 2010, p. 96). The Taijitu involves heterology because yin is not entirely itself but rather contains the seed of yang and vice versa. Through dialectical critical realism, yin and yang are identified as heterologous;

    2. (b)

      Levels—‘A totality can be made up of distinct, yet interconnected, levels, with each enjoying both a sui generis importance and being linked to other levels in the whole’ (Norrie 2010, p. 97). In the Taijitu, the seeds of yin and yang can be identified as operating at a different level to the main identity of yin and yang;

    3. (c)

      Subtotalities (totalities within totalities)—The seeds of yin and yang can be identified as subtotalities, indicating the holistic complexity of character not only at the main level of the Taijitu but also at the level of the Taijitu seeds (as indicated above).

Dialectical critical realism further points to the contextual pertinence of such features as the dual, indicating the Taijitu’s usefulness in philosophy and social theory. For example, the Taijitu dual indicates the default significance of both agency and structure in social theory. This enables certain commonly held theoretical viewpoints to be identified as partial; for example: ‘deconstructive semiotics (Derrida) and reconstructive hermeneutics (Habermas) represent one-sided, complicit antagonists’ (Norrie 2010, p. 103).Footnote 16 At a more encompassing level, the dialectic between Apollonian and Dionysian approaches (Norrie 2010) could even contextualise the usefulness or comprehensiveness of (Apollonian) academic/scientific theorisation itself!Footnote 17

Brief Review of Taijitu Applications

The academic use of the Taijitu can involve different degrees of depth. At the shallower end are applications such as Beatty and Torbert’s (2013) use of yin-yang theory in leisure studies, in which yang represents the world of work and yin the world of leisure (through which yin-yang theory enables a better appreciation of the value of leisure); also Hillson’s (2011) ‘success-failure ecocycle’ (through which yin-yang theory enables a better appreciation of the role of failure); and Chen’s (2009) use of yin-yang theory as a novel methodology in biomolecular science. Whilst the possible import of Corpo’s and Vannini’s (2012) ‘new theory of thermodynamics’—involving yang as visible, causal entropy (the divergent energy of physical systems) complementing yin as invisible and retrocausal syntropy (the convergent energy of living systems)—has merit, there are a number of questions about the details of their conception. Similarly, Bell’s and Bell’s (2008) reference to yin and yang with respect to the material and the ideal in philosophy appears to remain under-explored.

In terms of a deeper engagement with the Taijitu, the following vectors are indicative. Bock-Mobius (2012) indicates the usefulness of addressing the Taijitu in relation to methods of insight, exploring the idea that the scientific method (yang) can be complemented by mystic approaches (yin), where the former involves the objective and reproducible whilst the latter allows for the subjective and the non-reproducible.Footnote 18 Additionally, she suggests that quantum entanglement analogises to the unity of the Dao beyond polarities.

From within the realm of science, one notable context for its application is in physics, particularly quantum physics. Specifically, the ‘complementarity principle’, which was introduced by Niels Bohr in 1927 to account for the, so-called, wave-particle duality (and other mutually exclusive yet collectively required descriptors of quanta).Footnote 19 The principle has since received a steady interest from a small number of scientists and philosophers seeking to explore its transdisciplinary applicability in other subject matters (see von Stillfried 2010). This includes the possibility of a complementarity between:

  • relativity theory and quantum theory (von Stillfried 2010),

as well as between:

  • determinism–indeterminism (regarding a quantum event);

  • physical–mental (regarding human individuals);

  • structure–function (regarding systems);

  • substance–process (regarding systems);

  • science–spirituality (regarding reality as a whole); and

  • individual–connectedness (regarding human being/humanity) (Walach and von Stillfried 2011).

In view of the potential of a generalised notion of complementarity, Stillfried and Walach (2006) even go as far as hypothesising that complementarity might well be an intrinsic property in all kinds of systems under certain conditions. In addition, at a paradigmatic level, Walach and von Stillfried (2011) identify possible challenges to the dominant philosophy of science following on from serious consideration of such complementarity. Such contested paradigmatic dominations include (a) science’s undue privileging of reductionist and atomistic modalities; (b) the notion that ‘all causes can be reduced to efficient causes in Aristotleian terms’, (p. 190); and (c) the logic of the excluded middle.

Another aspect of quantum physics—namely that of the spontaneous, near-instantaneous creation and destruction of ‘virtual’ particles and antiparticles in a(n otherwise) vacuum—is explicitly brought into relation with the Taijitu by Schöter (2011) with respect to wuji (as apparent vacuum), yin (as virtual particle) and yang (as virtual antiparticle). Schöter (2011) additionally addresses the Taijitu with respect to Bohm’s (1980) implicate (yang) and explicate (yin) orders.Footnote 20 Moreover, the author makes a parallel between this relational picture and the structure given in the Yijing based on the traditional realms of tian (Heaven), di (earth) and ren (humanity):

The trigram associated with Heaven is qian, the Creative; this is pure yang, the source of all movement, and generates the patterns which events follow. In contrast, the trigram associated with Earth is kun, the Receptive, pure yin; this provides a material substrate in which the unfolding of the Creative patterns can actually take form. The parallels between the implicate order as tian and the explicate order as di are clear. Further, in the traditional metaphysics Humanity, ren, arises between, and serves to connect, Heaven and Earth, which is exactly how consciousness functions in Bohm’s picture, connecting the implicate and explicate. (Schöter 2011, p. 417)

Here, Schöter indicates a type of asymmetry between a primary yang (as Heaven) and a secondary yin (as Earth)—interestingly concurring with the asymmetry of spiritual ontologies often reported as part of rich near death experiences, such as those of Danison (2007) and Alexander (2012), in which the spiritual realm is identified as more real (i.e. the primary reality) than that we conventionally identify as real (i.e. our normal phenomenological experience as humans within this manifested universe of space and time). This asymmetry can be understood with respect to Taijitu semiotics as discussed above; it can also be connected to insights arising from scholarship on brain hemispheric function, as indicated in the following section.

Brain Hemispheric Function

An application not yet identified in the literature but one which appears to have great promise pertains to the qualities and differences regarding the functioning of brain hemispheres—as richly exemplified in the human animal.Footnote 21

The most scholarly integrative mention in the brain hemisphere literature to date appears to be by McGilchrist in his seminal tome, The Master and his Emissary (2009). This section presents a reading of McGilchrist’s account of the character of the two hemispheres; followed by an exploration of the relationship between brain hemispheric function and the Taijitu based on McGilchrist’s scholarship.

Firstly, the context of a shared hemispheric involvement in one brain (similar to the variously entwined involvements of yin and yang as a totality in lifeworld contexts) can be identified when McGilchrist notes that, ‘both hemispheres take part in virtually all ‘functions’ to some extent, and in reality both are always engaged’ (p. 93). McGilchrist notes that the hemispheres operate in many ways as two separate brains engaging the world in decidedly contrasting ways. Within such a context, major types of Taijitu-like complementarity(/opposition)—one might say, complex complementarity—can be identified. In general, the aspect of complex co-involvement between the hemispheres can be understood in relation to (although not necessarily conterminous with) the seed vector where the Other is included in Identity (e.g. yin within yang). A more specific aspect that may arise in certain contexts is that of structural asymmetries between the hemispheres, such as is indicated by McGilchrist’s primary metaphor for the hemispheres comprising ‘master and emissary’.

A complex complementarity which could be explored as being useful as a key overarching category with which to frame other dialectical categories involved in brain hemisphere function is that of ‘presentation’ v ‘re-presentation’. Footnote 22 Specifically, it is the right brain hemisphere that has a strong tendency to directly present living reality to us, whilst the left has a strong tendency to re-present (i.e. represent) the information which comes from the right hemisphere; here one might note that the left thus has a more indirect or secondary relationship to living reality.Footnote 23 We will first address the right hemisphere.Footnote 24

Given that each moment of living reality involves a significant intensity of possible information encompassing myriad types of phenomena arriving through multiple outer sensory inputs—in addition to inner sensations, emotions, thoughts and so on—and given that one moment is followed almost instantaneously (as it were) by the next (which involves some change to the previous moment), then for the right hemisphere to capture the whole of the moment (in its unique flavour) for it to be sufficiently ‘presented’ to us, it needs to be oriented by the following particular type of operation and sensibility:

  • that of prioritising process (i.e. regarding the movement of moments) over static structures;

  • that of prioritising a necessarily soft focus or fuzzy felt sensing of the whole rather than prioritising (more distinct) focusing on any particular part (note that the latter would distract it from being able to take in a sense of comprehensiveness or Gestalt); and

  • that of an intimate connection with the body and its sensory abilities.

With respect to the first characteristic, given that the present moment is ever-changing into the new, the right hemisphere incorporates a corresponding interest in openness to novelty or to the Other (in relation to that which is already known). Additionally, as each moment presents a slightly different context to the previous one, the right hemisphere prioritises context-dependent knowing (over abstract or context-independent knowledge).

With regard to the second characteristic, given the multifarious (complex, living) nature of phenomenological reality, the right hemisphere carries a competence regarding ‘complex pattern recognition’ (McGilchrist 2009, p. 93), a type of integration or coherence which can be signified as ‘heteromodal’ or ‘complex’ (p. 93). Such complex integration involves a prioritisation of ‘broad connectivity’ rather than the prioritising of more ‘local’ connections. The manoeuvre of analogising can be understood as one example of broad connectivity; the notions of ‘family resemblances’ (after Wittgenstein—as noted by McGilchrist) and ‘clustering’ (Hampson 2013) can be used as additional framing here. Resonantly, the analogising ‘organic’ quality of our living reality inclines the right hemisphere to prefer more poetic or aesthetic communication modalities over more linear media such as prose. Furthermore, given the complexity of connectivity, the right brain has a meta-interest, so to speak, in connectivity itself (i.e. it has an explicit interest in the relationship between things and not only in the things themselves).

In terms of the third characteristic, the right hemisphere prioritises connection to the body. It thus has stronger connectivity with the lower brain and the nervous system.

Additionally, given that living reality involves we humans, and given that we have an intimate knowledge of our interest in being cared for and for caring, the right hemisphere prioritises an attitude of care. This can be understood as involving prioritising a recognition of the inherent value in all things. Such an orientation can be understood with respect to another right hemisphere orientation, namely, that of prioritising the how (i.e. with careful manner) over the what.

Shifting our attention now to the left hemisphere, a general understanding is that it complements (or opposes, or sits in dynamic tension/generativity with) the right in all the above ways, through its operations and sensibilities of re-presenting the right hemisphere’s presentations. The left hemisphere thus prioritises:

  • static structures over process;

  • a decidedly focused address of parts of the whole (rather than fuzzily ‘grokking’ the whole);

  • an intimate connection with itself (rather than with outer reality), thus enabling depths of abstract thought;

  • internal logical (closed system) consistencies within any particular item of address (rather than more open-ended coherences arising from the overall open system of the living whole);

  • context-independent (universal or invariant) types of knowledge over context-dependent knowing;

  • atomistic, digital, monomodal thinking—which may include complicated atomistic (technological) forms (see Hampson 2010)—rather than thinking in terms of complex-integrative patterns;

  • prose over poetics;

  • identifying things-in-themselves rather than things-in-relationship;

  • an interest in the what—synergising with an interest in control (rather than care) and extrinsic value (necessitating instrumental reasoning) over inherent worth.

Dialogue with the Taijitu

An initial exploratory comparative reading between the general semiotics of the Taijitu and that of brain hemispheric function suggests—via McGilchrist’s (2009) insights—significant similarities, as follows:

  • The wholeness aspect of the Taijitu corresponds to the totality of brain function as a whole;

  • The complex complementary (dual) aspect of the Taijitu corresponds to the hemispheric differentiation of brain function;

  • The dynamic or developmental aspect of the Taijitu corresponds to the intricate, ‘conversations’ (at a spectrum of speeds from neuron-firing to those regarding the human life cycle)—and parallel-processing ‘non-conversations’—that occur between hemispheres;Footnote 25

  • The seeds, or complex-identity, aspect of the Taijitu corresponds to the ways in which each hemisphere holds the other; specifically, the left hemisphere can have conceptual understandings regarding the right (such as enables the current inquiry!), whilst the right hemisphere directly knows or ‘feels’ its neighbor—it has this knowing inside itself such that it has the ability to choose to enact left brain modalities itself if the context indicates the pertinence of such a manoeuvre. As identified at the beginning of the section, it is also the case that the more general co-involvement of both hemispheres in virtually all contexts indicates something of a mixed identity for each.

The asymmetrical character of the hemispheres is already apparent in this fourth point in that the seed of the left-in-right has a decidedly different nature to the seed of the right-in-left. Moreover, the aforementioned descriptions of the hemispheric functions indicates a more fundamental asymmetry, namely, that the right holds the big picture of reality (including a sufficiently accurate, intimate knowing of the two hemispheres) whilst the left does not have such direct access to immediate knowing and consequently has the ability to distort, marginalise or otherwise misinterpret reality, including the nature and systemic significance of itself and its hemispheric neighbour (McGilchrist 2009). In McGilchrist’s terms (calling upon a parable by Nietzsche), the right is the ‘master’ and the left is (merely) the ‘emissary’, even if the emissary has the ability to (inaccurately) imagine itself to be the master (due to its ability to prioritise addressing partialities with consequent possibilities regarding degrees of misrepresentation conveyed as denial of that which does not pertain to this part).

The following question arises: Is it possible to compare not only the structural relationship of yin and yang with that of left and right hemispheric cognition, but also to compare the characteristics of the poles that enter into these relations? For example, we might ask which hemisphere maps on to yin and which on to yang? At first, it might be assumed that the left hemisphere maps on to yang due to the left’s ‘loud’ interest in focus, directionality and particularisation (perhaps corresponding to particle in the quantum complementarity of wave-particle), in contrast to the right’s ‘quiet’ interest in embracing, allowing and yielding (yin); and indeed, there is much to be said about this correspondence at this level of content or sensibility (see McGilchrist, 2009). Yet, at a subtler or more structural level, our exploratory lens might inquire (calling upon Bohm, 1980) into the relationship between the right hemisphere as corresponding to the ‘implicate order’ of Heaven (as yang) and the left hemisphere as corresponding to the receptive ‘explicate order’ of the Earth (as yin), through noting that the left hemisphere receives, complexly echoes and works with information from the right hemisphere analogous to the way in which the Earth realm receives, complexly echoes and works with the Heaven realm, according to the Daoist understanding relayed above (in which Heaven ‘begets’ Earth). The yin-type receptivity here is that the left hemisphere receives direction from the right. From the left hemisphere (Earthly) perspective, the right hemisphere (Heaven) looks ‘quiet’ or hidden—even if it is in reality that which initiates; from the left hemisphere (Earthly) perspective, the left hemisphere (Earth) looks ‘loud’ or even self-evidently causally efficacious—even if in reality it is that which reflects, resonates and responds.

So, in this regard, it seems that a vertical understanding of the relationship between brain hemispheres and yin-yang—one involving at least two levels of understanding—might well be in order.

Context: The Scholarship of Complex Integration

At this juncture, it might be useful to introduce an overarching academic context which can help valorise the current chapter’s interest in such a global, integratively complex dialogue—potentially operating at three levels, namely: (a) intra-dialogue (e.g. within an Identity such as the Taijitu); (b) inter-dialogue or simply dialogue (e.g. between the Taijitu and Western dialectics); and (c) extra-dialogue or dialogue between Identity and context (e.g. regarding the scholarship of complex integration as per the current section). Specifically, the chapter can be contextualised as taking place within the general notion of Boyer’s (1990) ‘scholarship of integration’—a framing which (inter alia) seeks to increase meaning-making through pertinently drawing together otherwise unrelated items. A slight adaptation to Boyer’s signifier can be made: the preferred term could become ‘the scholarship of complex integration’.Footnote 26 Such a move attempts to ensure that the type of integration intended is not taken to mean reductive integration (of a flat, assimilative, overly hierarchical, mono-discursive nature), but rather one which pays homage to such philosophical understandings of complexity as that offered by Morin (2007)—complexity as paradigm—or one, perhaps, offering a creative transdisciplinary orientation (Giri 2002). There are numerous implications of complexity. The following two default structural imaginaries are indicative. The first involves more ecosystemic patterns than atomistic expectations. The second problematises the privileging of closed system thought in favour of open system thinking. The radicality of open system thinking is indicated by Gödel’s (1931/1992) mathematical incompleteness theorems, which point to the logical impossibility of a system being both comprehensive and internally consistent. Such an idea can be used (inter alia) to underscore the notion of eternal change implied by the Taijitu.

Complex integration not only allows for the complex integration of atomistic parts, but more radically enables an elaborate holography of complex integrative fractals such that the very ‘units’ of integration are already complexly integrative (see Hampson 2013). An example of a complex integrative semiotic language is Tim Winton’s ‘pattern dynamics’, which potentially offers various further generative perspectives on the Taijitu through such patterns as linguistically signified by ‘source’, ‘pattern’, ‘enantiodromia’, ‘polarity’, ‘holarchy’, ‘seed’, ‘evolution’, ‘elegance’, ‘iteration’ and ‘harmony’—see Winton (n.d.).Footnote 27

Moreover, through the valorisation of this form of scholarship, the concept and practice of dialogue becomes foregrounded. This occurs both within and beyond the identity of the system in question—in this instance, the Taijitu. Firstly, complex integration necessitates intra-dialogical manoeuvres. Regarding the Taijitu, the above exploration indicates a complex ‘conversation’ between yin and yang involving complex identities (intra-dialogue within these two subtotalities), a complex conversational character of a dynamic or context-dependent dialectic between complementarity and opposition (‘contrast’ being an additional useful signifier in such a cluster or constellation), a dynamic element in which the conversation changes through time (with the prospect of developing or evolving, albeit in a non-linear fashion in all probability), and various symmetries and asymmetries. Such a type of integration additionally involves extra-dialogical manoeuvres due to its identity as an open system and consequent commitment to identifying pertinent contexts. In this regard, the current chapter brings the East Asian Taijitu into dialogue with items (apparently or initially) beyond itself, such as Western dialectics (as part of planetary complex integration) and brain hemispheric function (as a form of complex integration between domains).

Such a multilevel analysis regarding dialogue in this chapter hopefully contributes to enhancing dialogical consciousness in general. Specifically, dialogue is valorised as a key intellectual tool. This can readily be seen to have implications for practice, too, such as the empowerment of a new prioritisation of dialogical spaces within the academy (in addition to other organisational types such as corporations) to better enable complex integrations—spaces which would no doubt necessitate considerable ‘social innovations’ in the social practices and structures of such organisations, involving the facilitation of deep dialogue among members/workers/faculty, as well as in inter-domain contexts such as between faculty and other ‘stakeholders’ in the (creative) transdisciplinary system (where ‘stakeholders’ is defined in very broad terms allowing for not only governmental, community and corporate players, but also the inclusion of such ‘actors’ as future human generations, other sentient beings, and ecosystems). Such structural innovations obviously have implications for both the interior (e.g. communication paradigms and sensibilities—see, e.g. Kantor 2012 and Isaacs 1999) and exterior of organisations, namely, a heralding of transformations in both (sub)cultural norms and structural–institutional forms. In short, the scholarship of complex integration requires a transformation of worldviews (in both ideational and exterioralised forms) for ‘optimal’ operation.Footnote 28 (Of course, there is a Morin-type feedback loop here in that it is the new worldview which is most likely to be able to identify the pertinence of this scholarship in the first place, and thus to seek to empower it).Footnote 29

A Festal Ecosystem of Postformal Modalities

To deepen coherence regarding complex integrative scholarship, it would be useful to indicate the value of postformal reasoning. Postformal discourse arises from the interrelationship between postformal operations addressed in positive adult developmental psychology (specifically, psychological operations beyond Piaget’s identification of ‘formal operations’—see Hampson 2007) and postformal approaches to education arising within critical educational discourse (see Kincheloe and Steinberg 1993). A contextualisation of the current chapter with respect to the potential dialogical ‘festival’ of postformal modalities might offer the following indications at the first level of analysis (i.e. without strongly focusing on implications arising from the possible interactions of postformal modalities):Footnote 30

  • Critical contextualisations.Footnote 31 These include the following four vectors that help rectify an under-regard for: (a) non-Western approaches; (b) various pre-modern insights; (c) the significance of brain hemisphere function—particularly with respect to appropriately valorising right hemispheric function (in contrast to much conventional scholarship—see McGilchrist 2009); and (d) the scholarship of integration, with its consequential rectification (through the above argument) of the under-enactment of deep dialogue;

  • Dialectical operations. The substantive content of this chapter can be identified as comprising dialectics;

  • Complex integration. The postformal interest in unitive consciousness coupled with its interest in complexity—particularly as represented by Morin’s (2007) paradigmatic interpretation of complexity—enables this chapter’s advocacy of complex integration;

  • Complex sublation. This indicates that various pre-formal (pre-modern) and formal (modern) aspects might be identified as worthy of inclusion, and others of exclusion. The current chapter includes the formal (modern) interest of enabling the Taijitu to be employed as a ‘conceptual technology’; unlike a mere formal–modern viewpoint, however, it also honours particular mythic understandings as aptly contributing to rich understanding; the chapter further prioritises types of nuancing, reflexivity and contextualisation characteristic of specifically postformal reasoning modalities;

  • Context-dependency. This vector indicates that the Taijitu should be employed judiciously (i.e. depending on context) rather than universally (fundamentalistically). This synergises with reflexively employing dialectical operations upon itself;

  • Discernment and creative agility. The degree of judgement involved in many of the above vectors should indicate that a necessary ingredient in postformal reasoning is the use of discernment or creative agility (adaptive intelligence) in service of purpose;

  • Reflexivity. In what way can or does this chapter address itself through its own terms? This is a complex question, but it is hoped that by at least explicating the vector of reflexivity, an ongoing inquiry can be conducted in this regard beyond the following two initial thoughts as indicative: (a) a dialectic of the Taijitu (as yang) is indicated through context dependency in theorising in the possible usefulness of non-usage (yin) in particular contexts; and (b) I acknowledge the intuitive or ‘Gestalt felt-senses’ I have that fuel my motivation to address such topics as those in the current chapter that can be understood as arising from an explicit empowerment of right hemispheric functions;

  • Construct awareness. An attempt has been made in to indicate transparencies regarding terms used. The complex integrative manoeuvre of semantic clustering (Nietzsche’s family resemblances) forms part of this quest.

Ends-in-View

Thought as process, reasoning or ‘thinking’, and the role of more complex or abstract concepts in (such) thought tend to be mostly ignored in psychology and philosophy. Conceptual and intellectual history, on the other hand, cannot be accused of such neglect, but the common lack of a comparative perspective in those fields precludes any generalized inference. (Brons 2009, p. 293)

It is hoped that the current chapter has helped rectify some of the imbalances identified in the above quotation as problematic within the dominant form of contemporary academia, both with regard to addressing complex conceptual patterns and with respect to indicating the facilitation of conceptual landscapes and lifeworld contexts which enable apt conversations to take place. Specifically, the inquiry has opened up (or furthered) dialogical spaces between the Taijitu, Western dialectics, brain hemispheric function and other possible similar patterns, such as those identified in quantum physics. It has additionally offered meta-frameworks and understandings that empower the facilitation of such work. The exploratory nature of these early understandings clearly beckons for further scholarship to delve more deeply into this integrative territory, to unpack its nuances, to identify its complexities and implications more strongly and to act as a generative springboard in this regard. The following indications can hopefully add appropriate strength and flavour to this prospect:

  • The Western philosophy of science of dialectical critical realism can adequately act as philosophical ‘underlabourer’ in general support of the East Asian Taijitu construct;

  • The (Western) notion of the scholarship of integration valorises addressing the Taijitu as topic; in addition, it specifically enables an integrative address of the topic; through so doing, it valorises (at a meta-level) the concept and practice of (sufficiently deep) dialogue—in terms of: (a) dialogue as topic (here, between the Taijitu and Western dialectics); (b) dialogue within features of the topic (here, between yin and yang, for example); and (c) dialogue between topic and context (here, where context includes the scholarship of complex integration). Obversely, the Taijitu valorises the significance of the scholarship of integration. Furthermore, postformal reasoning can be used as an appropriate ecosystem of modalities to enhance the expression and evaluation of such an integrative address;

  • The Taijitu might well be a useful construct in addressing the topic of quantum complementarity;

  • A generative horizon of understanding opens up when the Taijitu is brought into dialogue with brain hemispheric function, suggesting substantive implications for social theory, for academia in general and, indeed, for society as a whole as it manifests through myriad organisational forms (including those pertaining to business and government) at different scales. For example, regarding academia, it might be identified that conventional orientations to (or interpretations of) science unduly privilege left hemispheric function. If so, a matrix of questions would arise, including: What meanings might be given to this realisation? and What might happen if science adopted a more hemispherically balanced approach to understanding itself and the world? What new ‘world dance’ might unfold?

Such a summary indicates the fruitfulness of a kaleidoscope of directions regarding further thought and research. It is thus perhaps best to understand the current juncture not as offering a conclusion but rather as comprising (a more dialectical notion of) ‘ends-in-view’ (Dewey 1919/2004), ones which might nevertheless benefit from the following generic wish:

Toward the way of way-and-no-way-and-both-and-neither-and-all-and-none-and-some-and-other-and …

    (… and yet the Dao …)

        … in service of pertinence.