Maybe physics is a good analogy here. I'll let you decide. The popular myth is that light is "both" a particle and a wave. This arises because physicists aren't good at explaining to the general reader that which they understand to be true, but can't impart on others without a whole lot of mathematics to back up their claims. I'll try to explain it thusly: the particle is the wave. In physics the two are used interchangeably and without contradiction, and the confusion arises when we try to apply our macro perspective to the world of the unseen. I suppose this is a good analogy, because using our limited everyday experience to try to extrapolate (rationally) what should happen at the micro scale fails miserably. The system is impenetrable to all but those who have a certain amount of prior knowledge (I'm not counted among them, FWIW). Here, ordinary logic fails.
I delved deeply enough into physics to get to the point where the professors go "well, light isn't a particle or a wave but we can't explain what's going on to you without relying on one model or the other, depending on the conditions. Light's actually pretty funky and we're still sort of arguing about it. If you are keenly interested in this discussion we recommend you major in Physics but be warned because by the time you have a Master's in theoretical physics you'll understand the problem well enough to know why we're not going further in depth into the explanation."
thx otherben. My limited understanding has to do with math. When we want to measure wave- like behaviour (like speed), we can't measure particle-like behaviour (like mass or position). I probably have that wrong - but thanks for getting back to me. Any argument against binary thinking that isn't itself binary makes my head spin.
Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle You have it pretty close. Basically, you can know where it is or you can know what it is but you can't know both simultaneously. A gross oversimplification but when using theoretical physics for psychological analogies a gross oversimplification is often best.
You got me there exactly, kb. I'm on dangerous ground using theoretical physics for psychological analogies. And thanks for your answer to OB above. I agree with you 100%. Ultimately all these types of questions are bad ways of asking: 1. How do I move in the direction of goodness without losing myself? or perhaps,
2. How do I craft an authentic life? Your answer beginning with "I'll tell you what I do" is a fantastic set of principles and I hope they inspires anyone who happens by the list to write their own. Particularly this: I'm going to "save" that comment because it's a good leaping off point for real-world conversations I find myself in.I don't give advice to people who don't want it. They're not listening and all it'll do is piss them off.
I do give advice to people who want to change.