unity of opposites

A world of balanced opposites may be better caught in tensions held together than in tidy logic.

A clear, systematic argument about the unity of opposites would, in a sense, betray the very idea it was trying to express.

Consider what it would mean to explain the unity of opposites in a straightforward, linear argument the way a modern philosopher might.

You would say, premise one: Opposites are bound together.

Premise two: Their binding creates a harmony.

The argument would be valid.

It might even be sound.

But it would miss the point entirely, because it would present the unity of opposites as a solved problem, a concluded argument, a matter settled and filed away.