In many of our chats to date, we’ve run head on into the question of universals. Most theorizing does. That is, is there anything at all that we can consider not culturally loaded – ultimately the same for all people? Is there an objective reality, or is simply everything relative – to cultural biases, to individual perceptions within cultures?

There is no way to answer this question, Campbell felt, but he would’ve added that it doesn’t really matter. The question itself is a product of exclusive reliance on what Lampert might call "cortical thought," and such thought has its limitations. The notion of objective and subjective merely serves as an example of the furthest that logic can take us – fields of opposites. Warm and cold, true and false, good and bad – these are concepts which we make sense of in pairs. Each requires the other to have any meaning. One of the ways that we invent a sense of things is to conceive of a spectrum, so to speak, either end of which has a label (e.g.: fact/belief), and we judge situations, events, etc, according to a graduated scale in between.

But, perhaps, these don’t exist outside of our ideas. Perhaps, rather than force reality into the forms of these concepts, we might consider what myth purports to afford us: knowledge "beyond the fields of opposites." Of course even the word "beyond" is inaccurate because it implies the concept of space, which doesn’t apply other than as metaphor for what we may apprehend rather than comprehend. In myth, good and evil are not opposites, nor are they the same (because similarity is the opposite of opposition and is itself a cortical concept of opposition).

So, what might "reside" beyond the fields of opposites?