Quote:
Originally Posted by Stitchawl
With all due respect, I would and do. 
The basis of Taoist writings, the 'Tao Te Ching' (Taoism's most fundamental teaching) states it as its second chapter. As one translations says;
" Judging beauty creates ugliness.
Defining good creates evil.
All and void arise together.
Hard and soft,
long and short,
high and low,
sound and silence,
now and then.
Opposites exist because of each other." 
This is repeated once again in Chapter Five;
"The realm of heaven and earth is indifferent to the myriad creatures.
They appear as straw dogs.
The sage is indifferent to the multitudes of men.
They appear as straw dogs.
The realm of heaven and earth is like a bellows,
both empty and full.
Moving, it brings forth, endlessly." 
Again, in Chapter Twenty;
"Between yes and no, is there really much difference?
Good and bad, are they so far apart?
Must I think as others think?
Alas, there would be no end to fear.
Sorry, but I must disagree with you. We do need balance. We do need to accept both parts of the 'issue.' We need to see them not as opposites but as compliments to each other. Classic literature and pulp fiction.
This is at the heart of Chuang Tsu's writings, Kwang Dze's writings, early Confucian writing, as well as Lao Tsu's two classics, 'Treatise on Response and Retrobution' and the 'Tao Te Ching.' It's the second fundamental concept of the Tao. 
Stitchawl |
I think I misread your usage of "fundamental", taking the colloquial usage of "important" and not the technical as a "background" detail, which I would agree with.
Duality in Daoism wasn't really that big a thing until commentaries written much later and later redefinitions like Zhuangzi. Early on it was simply a part of the Daodejing, a contextual background for understanding the actual teachings. Trying to assign philosophical
significance to it compared to anything else in the book like the water analogy is more of a later interpretation, again similar to my taijiquan analogy. I won't comment on Marshall's translation, other than I don't really care for it. Depending on how a person learns to read classical Chinese, their view of how a phrase is rendered is often distorted.
Also note that duality was not unique to Daoism and likely predates it by a significant margin. It was not a new idea to Laozi or his students, which is why I play down the "significance" aspect.