An Interview with Hector Dupaix on Navigating a Polarized World

Felix Saxa sat down with Hector Dupaix to discuss his recently published book. The following is a transcript of their discussion.

---

Felix Saxa: Welcome, dear listeners, to another edition of our podcast “Shooting the Sh*t and Eating Some Food.” Today, I have the pleasure of speaking with Hector Dupaix, a thought-provoking philosopher whose new book, “Navigating the Spectrum: Embracing Process in a World Beyond Binaries” offers a fresh perspective on addressing polarization in our world. Hector, thank you for joining us.

Hector Dupaix: Thank you, Felix. It’s a pleasure to be here.

Felix: What do you think of the Kibbeh Nayye? It’s from Babel.

Hector: I love a good Lahmeh Madqooqa, and this is top-notch. It’s very smooth, creamy, and mild in flavor. My wife, who is a connoisseur of this dish, would love it.

Felix: I’m glad you like it. Make sure you try it with a mint leaf; this batch is from my garden, and I’m growing a highly prized cultivar.

Hector: I will.

Felix: Good. So, your book delves into the fundamental tensions we experience as humans, particularly the dichotomy between stillness and striving. Could you start by explaining this central dichotomy?

Hector: Certainly. At the heart of our inner experience lies a tension between what I call Inner Tranquility and Existential Drive. Inner Tranquility refers to our desire for contentment and peace—a state of being present and centered. Existential Drive embodies our push towards accomplishment, action, progress, and fulfilling the demands of life, whether for survival or ambition.

Felix: How does this internal struggle relate to the overarching thesis of your book?

Hector: We oscillate between these poles. For instance, we might meditate to find peace, but as soon as we finish, we pick up our coffee and get back into the hustle—emails, deadlines, and responsibilities. The self-help world has generally adopted this duality with a focus on either complete stillness and detachment (How to Do Nothing) or relentless productivity and achievement (How to Get Things Done). This oscillation exacerbates the dissonance between our physical and psychological needs. It’s schizophrenic.

Felix: And you believe this particular tension reflects broader societal patterns.

Hector: Exactly. Our polar thinking extends outward, influencing how we engage with the world, how we define it. The dichotomy between stillness and striving is artificial and it manifests in our social structures and interactions, leading to polarization on a larger scale.

Felix: So what you’re saying is that dichotomies are an artificial construct and in reality things aren’t black and white.

Hector: Not quite.  I am saying that some things are while others are not.  And most importantly, our lived experience is spectral, never polar.

Felix: But you just said that our daily oscillations reinforce the polarity; we go from still meditative states to turbulent mayhem in a flash.

Hector: Okay. Fair enough. Let me clarify. 

Experience is certainly amenable to instantaneous cutoff – being disrupted.  You can be sitting in a state of complete mental quiet when a venomous snake sinks its fangs into your arm instantly (at the human scale of temporal experience) taking you out of that state.  I am not saying that is not real.  What I am saying is that we are conflating that disruption, that cutoff in our experiential continuity with the way the human experience is and should be.  Let’s use an analogy from film to clarify the difference.

You are watching a scene with a family sitting at dinner eating and chatting, the scene then cuts to the father falling out of a window onto a trafficked city street landing on a car as it drives by.

In and of itself, there’s nothing about this abrupt transition that would lead you to question the functioning of your senses.  You might be jarred by it and that may be the point or you might think it ridiculous or that a scene was cut if the context does not bear it out but you are not questioning your sanity as a result of witnessing that abrupt change.

Contrast that with you actually sitting at a table one moment and then freefalling the next.  That transition is not consistent with our understanding of the world. 

The film is a construct in which transitions can be abrupt whereas our lived conscious experience is constituted by more fluid transitions. That’s not to say that these transitions cannot be disrupted but a disruption is not the experience in the same way a dam is not the river. The world of human experience does not have clearly defined boundaries. And yet we have no problem defining people as black and white and beverages as hot or cold.

Felix: Surely you are not proposing that we stop organizing appetizers in our menus under hot and cold and instead arrange them along a thermal scale?

Hector: It’s not a binary choice….

[Laughter]

Several considerations come into play in organizing a menu.  Their impact on social justice or ethics is not at the top of that list.  But I can imagine instances where a food menu might be organized across a scale of caloric energy or a wine list on a scale of sweetness.

Look, I am not saying we must completely dispense with dualities, the point I am making is that when it comes to the experienced world, the reduction of any aspect of it to a binary choice is artificial.  While it may be useful in certain circumstances due to imposed limitations, which is what my movie analogy was supposed to bear out, we need to keep in mind that this reduction is artificial.

Felix: Why?

Hector:  Because nobody has time for nuance anymore and the insistence on distillation and circumspection has become normative.  We demand that everything is boiled down to a choice between two options so I can pick between them and move on to the next.  And even then, the choice made is either right or wrong – binary.  I can live with being wrong in a binary world because I then immediately know what the right choice is by elimination.

Felix: Fine, how does this polar thinking manifest externally in society in more significant ways beyond Android and iOS?

Hector: Polar thinking leads us to categorize complex issues into binary oppositions—good vs. evil, us vs. them, progress vs. tradition. This oversimplified artificial construction has replaced the nuanced realities of human experiences and presented itself as our truth. Turn on your TV and you see this in play – Democrats or Republicans, Pro-Life vs Pro-Choice, People who love Freedom against their enemies, East, West or Global North and Global South – with the prevailing discourse ignoring the spectrum of perspectives that exist and forcing people into one of two camps.

Felix: But nobody thinks people are fundamentally Republican or Democrat, they are simply choosing between two available options, and some people consider themselves Libertarian so it’s not really a choice between only two options. 

Hector: For sure, there are always exceptions.  But what is the rule?  To see the absurdity of this bipolarity consider the case of Elon Musk, an immigrant to the US, who hails from the Global South and is anti-immigration.  Or consider the case of Israelis whose seder is the telling of a history of enslavement and torture who don’t see the hypocrisy in their support of a government whose policies and actions are inflicting the same humiliation and suffering on the Palestinians.  Some Palestinians, in turn, having been brutalized by the Israelis, paint all Jews with the same broad brush even though they themselves are victims of guilt by association and their religion tells them the Jewish story and identifies them as part of their Abrahamic lineage. 

This is all born of a polar mindset.  National vs Immigrant, Jew vs Non-Jew.

Felix: Alright, so let’s say both our inner and outer worlds are in disarray due to this polar thinking. If so, what’s the solution?

Hector: The answer isn’t to choose one pole over the other or to find a simple middle ground (halving the baby). The solution is to recognize that human life is always in process and to drop the false notion that we are achieving our goals. We may sail towards a point on the horizon, but we will never reach it. As our ability to process larger data sets and contend with greater complexity and variability improves, we will increase our ability to produce better outcomes along our journey, but we should never grow so bold as a result of our success to think like Candide that we can ever be in the best of all possible worlds.

Felix: That’s a profound shift in perspective. How can we begin to move from this polar thinking to embracing the spectrum?

Hector: It starts with our acknowledging that our embodied lives do not commune with ideals – that the Platonic forms, das Ding an sich, call these ideals what you may are intellectual constructs that we will never experience. We can then apply this understanding to how we manage our personal evolution, interact with others and address societal issues, promoting dialogue and empathy.

Felix: But some might argue that in practical terms, especially in governance or justice, binary choices are necessary. How do you respond to that?

Hector: While binary decisions are sometimes unavoidable due to systemic constraints, it’s crucial to acknowledge that such distillations are reductive and to allow for expansion when advances in information processing allow it. Our limitations in processing complexity do not justify our fully leaning into a reductionist approach. Acknowledging that “it’s complicated” allows for more compassionate and effective policy-making. For instance, in the justice system, acknowledging the spectrum of factors influencing behavior—such as socioeconomic conditions, mental health, and upbringing—can lead to more equitable models of governance.

Felix: Can you give an example of how this nuanced approach is pragmatically beneficial?

Hector: Certainly. Consider addiction treatment. Viewing addiction not simply as a personal failure (binary thinking) but as a condition influenced by a spectrum of genetic, psychological, and social factors leads to more effective interventions and less stigmatization. Programs that address these various factors have higher success rates than those that rely solely on punitive measures.

Felix: So in your view, gender is non-binary?

Hector: Both sides of the gender fluidity debate in fact highlight the limitations of binary thinking. Those advocating for a more spectral view of gender have missed the point by insisting on the universal adoption of new categories. Conversely, those insisting on a strict binary view are referencing a dichotomy that doesn’t reflect the real-world spectrum of gender identities.

As a result, we are dealing with people who identify as a hose and others whose masculinity is radioactive. These are the people who are taking up all the oxygen in the room. Neither is the answer.

As our level of understanding evolves so does our language in a dialectical relationship. Language will have to evolve as our understanding broadens. For example, in Italian, a gendered language, the term “non-binary” becomes “non-binario” or “non-binaria,” depending on the gender of the person—the paradox highlights how deeply rooted the prevailing polar framework is.

These advances require work. They can happen collaboratively or they will happen by adjudication. Adjudication is a binary framework that is necessary to resolve intractable disputes because “Life” must go on and we are limited in our capacities. But it doesn’t create optimal outcomes.

Felix: Earlier, you mentioned that this pattern isn’t limited to human experiences but extends to the external world. Can you elaborate on that?

Hector: Certainly. If we move from internal human experience to external human interactions and then to the external world, we notice similar patterns of dualities. At the macro, micro, and ultra-micro scales, we observe fundamental dualities interceded by a spectrum.

For instance, in physics, we have the macro duality of Order and Chaos. This duality is connected by a spectrum where life exists, exhibiting both order and unpredictability. The spectrum isn’t linear but has an asymptotic relationship with these macro-level poles—it approaches them but never fully reaches them.

Felix: Why did you choose “Order vs. Chaos” as your fundamental duality?

Hector: “Order vs. Chaos” effectively captures both human experience and physical reality. Order represents structure, predictability, and stability—paralleling our desire for Inner Tranquility. Chaos symbolizes change, unpredictability, and innovation—mirroring our Existential Drive.

For example, inanimate matter often behaves predictably; a rock will fall when dropped due to gravity. In contrast, living organisms, even simple ones like bacteria, exhibit spontaneity and adaptability, introducing unpredictability into their behavior. This unpredictability isn’t random but exists along a spectrum influenced by various factors that we may never come to fully understand.

Felix: Could you elaborate on how these scientific concepts parallel human dichotomies?

Hector: Certainly. In physics, General Relativity deals with the macrocosm, providing deterministic descriptions of gravitational phenomena—reflecting Order. Quantum Mechanics governs the microcosm, characterized by probabilities and uncertainties—reflecting Chaos.

Our internal experiences mirror this duality. We seek order in our lives through routines and expectations, but we also embrace chaos through creativity and adaptation. The interplay we experience isn’t binary but a fluid movement along a spectrum.

Felix: That’s intriguing. How does this relate to our understanding of the world and ourselves?

Hector: Recognizing these patterns helps us see that the dichotomies we have constructed are reflections of a “reality” that is not part of our lived experience but part of our intellected world. By understanding that our lived experience lies along a spectrum, we can more meaningfully pursue our place within it.

Felix: You draw parallels between your ontological concepts and various philosophical theories. You reference Kant’s concepts of the transcendent and the transcendental. Could you explain how these fit into your framework?

Hector: Certainly. Immanuel Kant distinguishes between the transcendental, which concerns the conditions that make experience possible, and the transcendent, which lies beyond possible experience. In our context, I am arguing that we cannot fully experience or comprehend the unity of dichotomies—the transcendent. However, we can engage with the processes and conditions that allow us to navigate these dichotomies—the transcendental.

Felix: In your book, you discuss transcendence as a way to contend with dichotomies. Are you adopting the Eastern Philosophical position that aims to transcend past duality to reach the unitary?

Hector: I view transcendence not as reaching a fixed state but as engaging in an ongoing process. It’s like exercising a muscle—you become stronger through continuous effort, but there’s no final targeted destination that is accessible. Transcendence involves experiencing the journey and the transformations it brings, rather than seeking an ultimate understanding or resolution of the tensions.

Those who have profound experiences, such as through meditation, psilocybin use, or near-death events, often report significant shifts in perception. They don’t necessarily understand these experiences intellectually; they feel them deeply, which can lead to lasting changes in how they navigate life’s spectra.

Felix: So is your work an evolution of Kantian thought?

Hector: Not necessarily, other thinkers have explored similar concepts. For example, Hegel introduced the idea of the dialectic, where thesis and antithesis resolve into a synthesis, a process that continually evolves. Heraclitus spoke of change being central to the universe, encapsulated in his phrase “everything flows.” Laozi, in Taoism, emphasized the balance of opposites through the concept of the Yin and Yang. These philosophies recognize the interplay of opposing forces and the importance of the process in navigating them.

Felix: So, your framework departs from these ideas by emphasizing the process over seeking a definitive resolution.

Hector: Exactly. The goal isn’t to eliminate tension or find a permanent balance but to acknowledge that ours is strictly a world of process, the ends belong to the Other.

Felix: Who is the Other.

Hector: The Other has many names. Para Brahman, Nyambi, Yahweh, Allah. The Other is basically the macro duality of Everything and Nothing. The universe is the spectrum that sits between those two poles.

Felix: I think that’s a subject that requires more time than we have, and you allude to an upcoming separate and more thorough treatment of it in your book, so let’s go back to lived experience – how does this new framework impact our approach to social justice and societal issues?

Hector: When we apply polar thinking to social justice, we often end up with rigid categories—oppressor vs. oppressed, right vs. wrong—which can hinder progress. By focusing on the process and acknowledging the spectrum of experiences and perspectives, we open up space for dialogue and collaborative solutions.

For example, in discussions about systemic inequality, recognizing the nuances and intersecting factors allows for more effective strategies that address root causes rather than symptoms.

Felix: So a shift from an adversarial approach to a collaborative one?

Hector: Precisely. By moving away from binaries, in which the interlocutors assume they have access to and have selected the right path and any departure from their demands is a fundamental concession, we can foster empathy and understanding, which are crucial for meaningful change.

Felix: Earlier, you mentioned the concept of asymptotic relationships with macro-level poles. Could you explain that in simpler terms?

Hector: Of course. An asymptote is a line that a curve approaches but never quite reaches. In the context of our discussion, the spectrum between dualities approaches the extremes but never fully attains them. We can get closer to one pole—say, complete stillness—but we can never exist there entirely because life is dynamic. This illustrates that while we may strive toward certain ideals, the reality is that we exist somewhere along the spectrum.

Felix: That’s a helpful analogy. How can individuals apply this understanding in their daily lives?

Hector: By acknowledging that our lives are incommensurate with ideals, we can alleviate the pressure to reach them. Instead, we focus on the journey and the growth that comes from sailing the continuum of experience. This mindset encourages flexibility and resilience.

Felix: so it’s not about the goal, it’s about the journey – I think I’ve heard that before; a lot.

Hector: True Ecclesiastes. But there’s a little more to it. There is this inclination in putting this adage to work to picture oneself running a marathon and focusing not on crossing the finish line first, but just enjoying the run or finishing the race with a better time. What I am trying to get across is that there is no finish line in the human experience. As far as we know, the only finish line in human experience is death. This is not to say that you wander aimlessly and let the world take you where it may. You are certainly free to choose that path but the way the world is today, it is more likely than not that yours will be a painful journey. Focus on the journey is about recognizing there is no attaining any “Goal”. We can set targets or trajectories if we want to take control of our journey but that is the limitation of what is possible.

Felix: Bringing this back to societal implications, how can this framework help reduce polarization?

Hector: When society adopts a process-oriented approach, recognizing the spectrum of experiences and viewpoints, it diminishes the us-versus-them mentality. It encourages open dialogue and collaborative problem-solving, which are essential for addressing complex issues like climate change, inequality, and global conflicts.

Felix: It’s interesting how this journey starts from inner tension and extends outward to global concerns.

Hector: That’s the trajectory I’ve aimed to highlight. Our internal processes reflect and influence the external world. By transforming how we navigate our inner dichotomies, we can impact societal structures and contribute to a more harmonious world.

Felix: We seem to be out of Arak.

Hector: Another binary—you either have Arak, or you don’t.

Felix: [Laughs] True.

Hector: But even that’s more nuanced. You go from having none to having so much you render yourself unable to have anymore. And, in fact, there is an ultra-micro duality at both ends of that spectrum. You have no Araq at all or none in your system at one end and at the other end your body has knocked you out to prevent more coming in and to process it out of your system or it pulls the trigger and launches it out whence it entered.

Felix: [Laughs] Not the typical experience with this spirit, but I get your point.

Hector: Exactly. Even in situations that seem binary, there’s often a spectrum of experiences in between.

Felix: Before we conclude, are there any final thoughts you’d like to share?

Hector: I’d encourage everyone to embrace the process of navigating life’s spectrums. Instead of seeking absolute answers or aligning rigidly with one side, engage with the complexities. This approach not only enriches personal experience but also fosters a more compassionate and connected society.

Felix: Hector, thank you for sharing your insights. This conversation has provided much food for thought—both literally and figuratively.

Hector: Thank you, Felix. It’s been a pleasure.

Felix: To our listeners, I highly recommend delving into Hector’s book, “Beyond the Binaries: Navigating the Spectrum of Human Experience,” for a deeper exploration of these concepts. Until next time, let’s continue to seek understanding beyond the binaries.

---

This interview has been edited for clarity and length.