Do both parts of the ying-yang always exist? Are they opposites which have existence as a constantly common characteristic, or could one of the opposites actually never exist (is there a scenario where there is only ying or only yang)?

Do you consider the-deficiency-of-some-quality as something that exists?

↪Gnomon
It's not the same if you study yin-yang further my definition is different, it is also slightly different from what you explained — Thinking

I haven't studied Taoism or Yin-Yang in depth. My definitions are tailored to fit my own personal philosophical worldview. I was not intending to adopt the "Chinese indigenous religion". Instead, I was only interested in the general concept of a natural balancing & harmonizing trend that is similar to my own BothAnd Principle.

The Taoism definitions in my post above came from websites. And the BothAnd definition was only intended to show a family resemblance to Lao Tse's philosophy. But, I would be interested in hearing about any important differences you see between our worldviews. :smile:

Conceptually absolute extremes exist but in reality no. So long as there exists its other it can't truly be non-existent. to your latter question my answer is yes because the only way you would know it had a deficiency is if it could have an excess. Notice the word deficiency doesn't mean non-existent.

I'm not saying your wrong, but your words fail to illustrate the more details I have already discussed in this forum. Just to be super clear my opposites are simply existence vs non-existence. While taoism duality is positive and negative, male and female, hot and cold, etc. My opposites could mean the excess and deficiency of a positive or negative value in the Yin-Yang duality, therefore it is subject to my union of opposites.

Do both parts of the ying-yang always exist? Are they opposites which have existence as a constantly common characteristic, or could one of the opposites actually never exist (is there a scenario where there is only ying or only yang)? — Daniel

I can't speak for Taoists. But in my worldview, the natural world is inherently dualistic. It's as-if the Big Bang Singularity was a fertilized Ovum, which divided via Meiosis/Mitosis, and has continued to divide ever since into the myriad "forms most beautiful", as described by Darwin. The first division converted Eternity-Infinity into Space-Time. Then came Matter/Energy, and so forth & so on, right on down to the essential Male/Female distinction that is necessary for most reproduction..

So it seems that everything in the Real world has its opposite. In Physics, that same notion is called "Symmetry". And one example is the assumption that every Electron (matter) is balanced by a Positron (anti-matter). But in reality, the symmetry (balance) is not perfect, in which case the world would be static and unchanging. Hence, the world maintains a dynamic see-saw balance between opposites.

Ironically, a perfectly balanced universe would leave no room for Free Will. That may be why the Epicurean philosopher Lucretius postulated a "Swerve" or "asymmetry", which allowed some freedom for Change in the world. The Yin Yang symbol illustrates that principle, by including dots of the opposite color within each lobe of the circle.

Moreover, even the hypothetical holistic Singularity, would necessarily possess the Potential for duality & opposition. If you want to go even further back into pre-existence, even G*D (ALL) would have the creative power to multiply the fish & loaves (so to speak) into enough to feed the multitude. Yet, for all practical purposes, the Yin Yang opposition is a characteristic only of our imperfect Reality. Perhaps though, as an optimistic speculation, it is evolving toward ultimate perfection at the Omega Point. :nerd:

Cosmic Symmetry : The symmetry of the universe would bake us in no time at all, but an asymmetry rescues us.
https://slate.com/technology/2013/08/symmetry-in-the-universe-physics-says-you-shouldnt-exist.html

The Swerve : Lucretius’ arguments on the swerve and free-action
https://philpapers.org/archive/EVALAO.pdf

Just to be super clear my opposites are simply existence vs non-existence. — Thinking

That is indeed the ultimate opposition. That's why I say that BEING (power to exist) is the ultimate Truth. But, apparently, absolute BEING somehow became split into Existence vs Non-Existence. The possibility of non-existence is inherent in the Life or Death duality of our world.

And it's also pertinent to my understanding that Information is fundamental to our reality. In Information theory, the number One represents Existence (something), while the symbol Zero represents Non-existence (nothing). Everything else we know in Reality is some variation on that same essential opposition, which places us into a competitive situation : Live or Die, Succeed or Fail, Win or Lose . But the secret to happiness, not just survival, is find the BothAnd (win-win) sweet-spot between those extremes. :cool:

But the secret to happiness, not just survival, is find the BothAnd (win-win) sweet-spot between those extremes. :cool: — Gnomon

I like your wording there. I will add that to use the devices and methods of non-existence, or anti-mind and press it for good you gain a newfound power in bettering your life.

Epicurean philosopher Lucretius postulated a "Swerve" or "asymmetry", which allowed some freedom for Change in the world. — Gnomon

That's neat, I was wondering if there was an ancient philosopher who shared the same ideas on this as me in the past.

Do both parts of the ying-yang always exist? Are they opposites which have existence as a constantly common characteristic, or could one of the opposites actually never exist (is there a scenario where there is only ying or only yang)? — Daniel

Dan. This is an afterthought or postscript to your question.

The existence of a Yin without its complementary Yang would be like finding a Magnetic Monopole. All magnets have two poles. But some theorists imagine that a Monopole should exist somewhere out in the physical universe. Of course, in imagination, anything is possible. But Yin-Yang is not a physical thing. It's a metaphysical concept. To remove the Yin from the Yang would be like playing on a See without the Saw. :smile:

Magnetic Monopole : A magnetic monopole is the magnetic version of a charged particle like an electron, and for the last 70 years physicists have believed that one might exist somewhere in the universe.
https://phys.org/news/2016-08-mysterious-magnetic-monopole.html

The Ying/Yang things is rather interesting. Interesting in that in general I reject this in all but a digital or classical physics framework. It seems there is some sort of capacity for the human mind to try dichotomise things... right and wrong, left and right, up and down, black and white, good and evil...

The lower down the philosophy lake you go the more dichotomised, IMO the arguments get. And, yes, if you'll pardon my strong feelings on this I'm alluding to the general tendency for the bottom feeders of that lake to digitise all into 1 and 0!

But the universe is a very complex system, it is not 1 or 0... packed to brimming with complex systems where no matter how many strings you cut the system survives, changes and moves on...

Ying/Yang models fail to recognise that there are granulations of processes which are neither good nor bad or left or right... You might evaluate or value them as such though and a dichotomy as a binary evaluation is very easy to understand. You are on one side completely or the other side completely.

A good example "Given the ability to time travel would one assassinate Hitler?" well I wouldn't because although I know history... I don't know what the outfall might be? I don't know 'what if' history...nobody does... and its not black and white. It could be horrendous, it might be utopian... and Hitlers early demise would be irrelevant to how that might pan out... but I'm sure as hell not going to take the chance. One may as well ask "Would you kill Aristotle or Socrates?" and my answer would be exactly the same... the gradients are too fine for me to evaluate if the outcome would be a benefit or not, (lets assume I was going for benefit and not clusterfuck)

Now DO NOT GET ME WRONG... there are binary things in the universe... there really is information and its consists of the lowest possible values of 0 and 1 (and 0 isn't even a thing!). But there are also gradients made up of those and thats all we can evaluate.

But in a complex thing like universes and their manifest reality, their origin and their capacity for complexity... well I'm sorry, but that falls outside the simplicity of 1 or 0... or ying/yang.

I think its a little more than imagination with monopoles, its inference. Only the bravest of physicists will announce the whole monopole thing is imagination... brave, and deluded I think.

For example we know that we have matter in the universe... but we also know that the odds of antimatter in the descriptions offered by all physicists including, *cough* string theorists, is that there must have been antimatter in abundance and after an annihilation event only the slight discrepancy between matter and antimatter left some small amount of matter. Also in that description we should see monopoles absolutely everywhere, we should be at least knee deep in monopoles... we should be pulling them out of our sandwiches at the beech! Yet no demonstration of any has ever been produced.

But for the entire story of the formation of the universe to make any sense at all we need copious monopoles right?

At the moment this is like the fermi paradox of classical and quantum physics... where are all the monopoles? Nobody is suggesting they do not exist except in a descriptive or imaginary sense...or perhaps physicists who are mentally ill? Instead they are asking where these things, as absolutely a necessity, are!

These are like the boson problem, the Higgs field... which was not imaginary when just math...because absolutely everything else lined up... the odds of all lining up with the exception of this one thing... and also all that lining up to be sheer coincidence is a lot less likely than imaginary higgs fields or an illusory standard model... there really were such bosons... we just never found any... until that is July 4th 2012 when it was announced they were no longer in hiding.

So the monopole thing is an example of us just not finding a thing we know is there... or a coincidence of unheard of probability where everything else lines up, is the case.

Ying/Yang models fail to recognise that there are granulations of processes which are neither good nor bad or left or right... — Mick Wright

Actually, the Yin-Yang model does "recognize" gradients of dichotomies. That's the meaning of the black spot in the white lobe, and the white spot in the black lobe. The world is pulled-apart by competing forces, but neither is strong-enough to overcome completely. That's because each side contains some of the power (seed) of its opposite. So, instead of a black & white world, we see shades of gray. :smile:

Taijitu : The dots represent the seed of yin within yang and the seed of yang within yin; the idea that neither can exist without the other.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taijitu

So the monopole thing is an example of us just not finding a thing we know is there... — Mick Wright

OK. When you find it, let me know, and I'll use a different allegory. :joke: