Bi-furcations of whatever sort – nature versus spirit, mind versus body, ultimate reality versus appearance, etc. – have their usage at the level of entrance into metaphysical ‘issues’ and as heuristics making it easier to investigate, discuss, and perhaps solve them, alone and together. Complication and nuance of the bifurcations, perhaps leading to zones of non-duality, come after contemplation of the basic dilemma, whereupon the either/or nature of the duality can be superseded.
Given how widespread these bi-furcation dilemmas are in human history, it is unlikely that they are just fabrications of this or that philosopher who happened to get stumped. When they receive canonical definition, for example by folks like Descartes and the mind-body problem, the drawback is that thought can then suffer from adherence to that definition as though it were an authority. Mental effort is then exerted to comprehend the canonical definition, rather than employing it for the sake of inner metaphysical discovery. Such definitions can provide coordinates to help orient in the conceptual territory, and so they can allow progress toward refutation, reformulation, and perhaps resolution of the dilemma, but only if enough time and contemplation is taken for them to become more than ‘intellectual’ exercises driven by the desire to be ‘right’.
In my experience, it is best to gain exposure to as many definitions of the dilemma as possible, both the canonical and the marginal, the obsessive and the dismissive, and to receive them all without bias, valuing whatever is unique about each model. That way contemplation avoids sticking to one specific model or definition and does not fall into the error of thinking that one specific model or conclusion – a merely external, discursive solution – will somehow resolve the issue. Rather, exposure to a multiplicity of models allows one to be experientially open to a creative transformation of the problem itself and especially its articulation. This can only happen once one feels in some way unbound from the dilemma as stated, once the original coordinates are well underway to reconfiguration. In other words, once a sort of non-discursive ‘resolution’ has been perceived or understood, through extended contemplation, thought can then freely enter back into the discourse without feeling detrimentally entangled by its many historical and conceptual referents. This is perhaps a resolution in ‘simplicity’; but it is also the grounding of thought in the non-temporal actuality that motivates the problem to begin with and which has been occluded by its contingent, imperfect articulation.
From such simplicity and grounding, a greater degree of conceptual and expressive innovation can take place; and one can do so playfully, perspicaciously, ‘indifferently’. This is not to detract from the importance of the operation, however, since those who earnestly undertake it often become innovators in the field, having transcended it enough towards actuality that they are able to play upon it differently and perhaps even rewrite the rules. It goes without saying that this ‘rewrite’ and its results are ever an invitation to future participants in the field to exert themselves similarly in the direction of inner metaphysical experience and simplicity in expressive freedom.
The emotion to such a procedure is, manifestly, joy: the pleasure of participating in the actuality of God. Such is not belabored by merely rationalist distinctions, by canonical grinding of gears, or by any need to reference tradition or gain authority from it. For now the articulation of the dilemma has gained the boldness to stand in the bifurcation without angst as a catalyst for novel future investigations. Its intention now derives not from the ‘imposition of view’, but from love: love of the contemplation and love for those who are still fruitfully animated by the bi-furcation dilemmas, those who have realized that these are necessary for the progression of speculative thought. This is the stance of a ‘loving circumstantialist’ who addresses each individual context of utterance with care, tied to none of them except to the extent that it is exactly those contexts which are to be worked with creatively, for the sake of being metaphysically unbound.