The Daily Q'uote for August 28:
"The primary assumption that we use as the basis for balancing is that there is a center to things, that there is a sense to be made of the universe. This ground of being is difficult to talk about because its mode of being is that which is in process. The living processes of self relating to self and other self cannot be pinned like the butterfly on the collector's exhibit. It cannot be stopped, for when it is halted it ceases being living. So the basic picture, shall we say, that we have of the illusion is that it does make sense. It does add up to a unified and complete whole, but that sense is not linear and that whole or totality holds each pair of opposites in a dynamic balance."
https://www.llresearch.org/transcripts/i..._0324.aspx
Forgive me for citing someone else here (Alan Watts) but I think it fits perfectly with what the Q'uo say :
„…oneself,“ in the ordinary sense of one’s ego, doesn’t exist. It seems to exist, in a way, in the same sense that the equator exists as an abstraction. The ego is not a psychological or physical organ, it’s a social convention, like the equator, like the clock or the calendar, or like the dollar bill. These social conventions are abstractions which we agree to treat as is if they did exist. We live in relation to the external world in just exactly the same way that one end of the stick exists in relation to the other end. The ends are indeed different, but they’re of the same stick.
Likewise, there is a polar relationship between what you call your „self“ and what you call „other.“ You couldn’t experience your „self“ unless you could experience „other,“ nor could you experience „other“ unless you also had the experience of „self.“ We might say that we feel that one’s „self“ and the „other“ are poles apart. Oddly, we use that phrase, „poles apart,“ to express extreme difference. But things that are „poles apart“ are poles of something, as of a magnet, or a globe, and so are actually inseparable. What happens if you saw the south pole off a magnet with a hacksaw? The new end, opposite the original north pole, becomes the south pole, and the piece that was chopped off develops its own north pole. The poles are inseparable and generate each other.“
From: Alan Watts, Cloud-hidden, Whereabouts Unknown, published 1974, (pg. 93.)
And this also:
POLARITY.
"Everything is dual; everything has poles; everything has its pair of opposites;
like and unlike are the same; opposites are identical in nature, but different in
degree; extremes meet; all truths are but half-truths; all paradoxes may be
reconciled." — The Kybalion.
Actually I was looking for that quote by Alan Watts, here it is, where he talks about the Tao:
"Where can you go and find Tao not to exist? Where can you go and find that words cannot be proved? The Tao is obscured by our inadequate understanding, and words got obscured by flowery expressions hence the affirmations and denials of the Confucian and Lamurtian (?) schools each denying what the other affirms and affirming what the other denies brings us only confusion. There is nothing which is not this there is nothing which is not that. What cannot be seen by that, the other person, can be known by myself. Hence I say, this emanates from that that also derives from this this is the theory of the interdependence of this and that. Nevertheless, life arises from death and vice versa, possibility arises from impossibility and vice versa affirmation is based upon denial, and vice versa. Which being the case the true sage rejects all distinctions and takes his refuge in heaven. That’s in the universe.
For one may base it on this yet this is also that and that is also this this also has its right and wrong and that has its right and wrong does then the distinction between this and that really exists or not? When this the subjective, and that the objective are both without their correlates. That is the very axis of Tao and when that axis passes through the center at which all infinities converge affirmations and denials alike blend into the infinite one and so it is said that there is nothing like using the light. And see the axis of the opposites is the perception of that polarity. The difference between them is explicit but the unity of them is implicit. The difference the explicit difference between two ends of the stick but the implicit unity that they are ends of the same stick you see? So that’s the axis the axis of Tao, is the what you might call it the secret conspiracy. That it lies between all poles and all opposites which is implicit. Esoteric, or whatever you want to call it that they’re fundamentally one. "
... the center at which all infinities converge and affirmations and denials alike blend into the INFINITE ONE....