AUTHOR’S NOTE: The current social antipathy toward “binary thinking” is a puzzler for the life-long student of occult number theory. Just because some college professor or Hollywood influencer decided that “binary is bad” in terms of self-identity doesn’t make it a functionally sound or rational premise. We might have asked the last scion of the long-extinct (and celibate) Shaker cult about the legitimacy of that assumption just before taking his or her last breath (but of course that was well before artificial insemination, and they might sing a different tune now).

I’m familiar with a couple of approaches to the subject of “Two-ness.” By far the most common is the concept of the Line. Static “One-ness” is represented by the Point, which exhibits neither mass nor motion; it is therefore more hypothetical than real since there can be an unlimited number of such points in any volume of space. The Line represents its extension, bringing movement but not yet depth or width; it is the initial creative urge of the Point to project itself into multi-dimensional reality. Rather than as a “one-way trip” from Point A to Point B, a better way to see it would be as a cyclical evolution that travels in both directions like an electrical current. This brings us to the reciprocal or compensatory nature of all dual phenomena: up/down; in/out; left/right; near/far; light/dark; black/white; active/passive; etc. Every expression of singularity has its equal and opposite counterpart. Although post-modern physics, psychology and sociology may march to a radically different drum, it’s basically how the natural world and the human mind have always worked (and will continue to work) when left to their own devices. As one who believes that the Enlightenment was one of the worst things ever to happen to esoteric philosophy, I’m inclined to let it ride.

From there it is only a short hop to the idea of the pendulum. Ideally, a pendulum swings along the most efficient and economical arc possible, with no wobble or other aberration to disturb its metronomic regularity. It reaches a brief station at opposite ends of its swing (Points A and B of its travel), but it also experiences an infinitesimal pause (call it “Point C”) as it passes through “bottom-dead-center” on is path. This is the precarious instant of total equilibrium in any relational matter, which is immediately offset by countervailing influences of greater or lesser significance. The farther one diverges from “Point C,” the more exaggerated the anomalies in behavior become, and it is at least theoretically possible that, upon arriving at Point A or Point B, the deflection is too great to be recovered by the anticipated convergence on center. Think of it as becoming “stuck” in an extreme position, and also of the human relationships that come to this “sticking point.”

A second way to contemplate “Two-ness” is according to Qabalistic number theory. There are ten “spheres of emanation” on the Tree of Life, descending from the spiritual “crown” at the top to the most mundane rendering at the bottom. Two is embodied in the second sphere, which brings the metaphysical idea of masculine projection (but not yet that of incipient form) to formless unity. Two suggests emergence along a single-pointed linear track that does not yet envision the concept of lateral boundaries, a factor that doesn’t manifest until later in the sequence. The Two must be counterbalanced by the feminine number Three in order to achieve parity. (This is a necessarily truncated explanation of a complex subject.)

The third way to address the number Two is Joseph Maxwell’s observation that Two is the binary root of all even numbers up to Eight, and as such it and its extensions are balanced, harmonious and passive, in contrast to the odd numbers, which are unbalanced, dissonant and active. His assumption is that the even numbers strive to retain their equilibrium, while the odd numbers are trying to return to balance. In practical terms, even numbers suggest standing pat or maintaining the status quo while odd numbers are harbingers of change. In this sense, the even numbers are not so much mutably creative as persevering in their changeless stability.

As can be seen from the above, creative potential is somewhat “locked up” in the number Two, since it is delimited by two extremes bound to a cyclical pattern of behavior, which it can’t escape until “Three-ness” is introduced through the appearance of the two-dimensional Plane (specifically the Triangle). Taking any three related points on the circumference of a circle and putting them in motion turns lateral expansion into rotational velocity, and the practical result is forward progress. If I’m considering some kind of innovative endeavor, I would much rather embrace the vigor of the odd (aka “unitary”) numbers than the placid inertia of their binary companions.