Polarity and Spectrum

The fourth Hermetic principle is the Principle of Polarity, “Everything has poles; everything has opposites.” This principle describes that along a binary line, everything happens by degree, which also acknowledges that spectrum exists. When we understand the extremes, we can understand a subject more fully, but ultimately the answer lies in the spectrum.

In astrology, we talk about the axis points of a chart and the angles that represent opposing, but related, natures.

Thanks for reading Lawstrology’s Substack! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

In law, we talk about the importance of adversarial process and that in order to more accurately decide a case, we need to include opposing viewpoints in the evidence.

Polarity is not good or evil, positive or negative (although positive and negative are examples of a polarity like hot and cold are). Allowing moral judgment to overlay the topic of polarity clouds the topic. This is because moral judgment falls under the principle of correspondence (what is right for you is typically what we call “good” and what is incorrect for you is “bad”). Polarity lives outside of that type of moral judgment, and it is always a risk of clouding any issue (including correspondence) to overlay moral judgment.

Polarity exists on a spectrum, like hot and cold exist on a spectrum of temperature degrees. Not every topic exists on the same spectrum. So, hot and cold exist as the extremes of temperature, but hard and soft exist on a different spectrum.

This is important for understanding conflict and the nature of adversarial advocacy and for understanding an astrological natal chart.

In law and adversarial advocacy, the concept of polarity and spectrum is important because often what we think of as disagreement is actually people talking about two different topics or two different spectrums, not having polarized viewpoints. For the purposes of this discussion, we will call those different topics “platforms.” So, we see this with the topic of abortion, for example. One side constructs the argument around whether we should murder babies or not (one pole being the “pro-murder-babies” pole and the other being the “pro-life” pole). The other side constructs the argument around whether we should offer healthcare to women or not (one pole being the “withhold healthcare from women” pole and the other being “provide healthcare”). Because these arguments are not polarized to each other, but instead a construction about the topic itself, there is no opportunity for middle ground.

When we cannot agree about the topic of a problem, we cannot reach an understanding about what the spectrum of that problem looks like. Instead we talk separately about our own platforms.

Jumping platforms, versus arguing polarities is sometimes very useful. For example, the polarity of narcissism is “I am the best” and “I am the worst.” In order to escape the narcissism spectrum, we can jump platforms to, “I am curious what a person I love is doing.” So, rather than negotiating a self-defeating and self-centered polarity, we can jump outside of that topic to another one—in this case a topic that is not self-centered.

But, if we fail to acknowledge the original platform, sometimes it is not possible to completely make a shift. This is a fatal flaw in a lot of conflict. For example, in the abortion debate, one side stands on the “pro-life” platform, but people rarely argue “anti-life,” and so this is platforming, or marketing, not debating. However, when two people are platforming, a conflict cannot come to creative resolution. One person has to be able to acknowledge the polarity that the other is arguing in order to invite that person to a different polarity or platform.

Within each of us there is a version of this that in Internal Family Systems Therapy, they call our internal parts. While the astrological natal chart may not be a perfect representation of every person’s internal parts, it is a good starting place to talk about our internal polarities and platforms. Below is an example of an astrological wheel called the “Thema Mundi” the mythological natal chart of the birth of the universe.

The astrological wheel is made up of polarities or “axes.” For example, the signs Aries and Libra are opposite each other on the chart (you find them at the top and bottom of this chart). At their most basic, Aries and Libra represent the polarity of independence/dependence, with Aries being most independent, and Libra being most merged with the other. These are an example of the polarities to look at in your own natal chart (this does not represent the meanings of all of the signs, though, and is just an example):

Aries/Libra: self/other (or independence/dependence)

Taurus/Scorpio: bluntness/sharpness (or comfort/depth)

Gemini/Sagittarius: many ideas/singular truth (or chaos/pointedness)

Cancer/Capricorn: home/institution (or connectedness/separation)

Leo/Aquarius: individual/collective (or hero/community)

Virgo/Pisces: material/spiritual (or specific/nonspecific)

In order to better understand an individual person, topic, or debate, it is relevant to ask what spectrum we are discussing. If we believe we are arguing with each other, and we are really platforming, or arguing about different spectrums, we are unlikely to make progress related to that topic, and we usually leave feeling unheard or invalidated.

When people around us are not arguing in good faith, we can determine this by looking at whether they are willing or unwilling to shift from their platform and whether they do so with curiosity or only to win.

The more we understand an entire topic, including the poles of the topic, the better we can understand how to shift people or shift ourselves in the degrees of that topic to live lives that represent more thoroughly who we truly are.

For example, if I want to be more confident, I need to learn what spectrum confidence lives on and be curious about the poles and degrees of that spectrum. In that case, my experience is that the poles of confidence are willingness and unwillingness to be uncomfortable. The more willing we are to experience discomfort, the more confident we are. If we want to increase our confidence, the practical way to do so is to build tolerance for discomfort.

Mastery of ourselves and communities means learning the poles and the spectrum within the poles of the topics that impact us most.