The present article seeks to critically analyze the dominant dualistic perspective in most theories of the humanities and social sciences through an interdisciplinary approach inspired by psychoanalysis, sociology, and theoretical mysticism. To do this, it first gives a psychoanalytic narrative of the emergence of the subject. Then, it argues that the main problem of the dualistic perspective is that through the amnesia of the moment of separation from being, subjectivity—as a secondary, temporary, yet necessary form of knowledge—illusively replaces true ontology, and then attempts to explain external reality based on the subject-object dualism. The article then, relying on the later works of Simmel, refutes the idea that the experience of unity with being is impossible in the post-Oedipal world. This becomes possible through Simmel’s neo-Kantian reading of Kant’s idea that the subject-object boundary can be suspended in the aesthetic realm. Accordingly, Simmel considers the suspension of the dualistic subject-object relationship feasible at the social and political levels as well. The article further introduces the concept of “transgression” and attempts to explore the suspension of this dualism through the sociological concepts of “I” and “me” from Mead, as well as through a mystical reading based on the thoughts of Ibn Arabi and Rumi.
The present article seeks to critically analyze the dominant dualistic perspective that governs most theories in the humanities and social sciences, specifically the paradigm of “social constructionism” in theories of social sciences and “ego psychology” in psychological theories. It adopts an interdisciplinary approach inspired by psychoanalysis, sociology, and theoretical mysticism. The discussion begins with a psychoanalytic narrative of the birth of the subject, through which the problem of the article is introduced. This psychoanalytic narrative starts with what is known as the “oceanic feeling”—a sense of unity the infant experiences in the womb through physical fusion with the mother, and which continues after birth, not physically but psychically, for several months. With the formation of the ego (subjectivity), the infant undergoes a symbolic experience of “separation” or, metaphorically, “death.” Over time, however, this moment of separation is repressed and denied, as if the infant had never experienced it, as if the unity with being had never occurred—as if the separation of subject and object were an eternal truth rather than the result of necessity. What is forgotten here is that subjectivity was supposed to generate a minimal degree of “fixity”—by accepting the moment of separation—so that overcoming the obstacles to full satisfaction could become possible. Instead, the illusion arises that one was born in the post-Oedipal age. The emergence of modernity and the dominance of its central signifier—namely, the subject-object dualism—across all human knowledge led to this illusion being legitimized under the name of “science.” This article argues that the fundamental problem of the modern dualistic perspective is that, by forgetting the moment of separation from being, subjectivity—though secondary, temporary, and necessary—illusively replaces true ontology. It then attempts to explain external reality based on the dualism of subject and object. The article, by relying on the later works of Georg Simmel, refutes the idea that the experience of unity with being is impossible in the post-Oedipal world. Instead, it proposes the possibility of a non-dualistic experience. Drawing on Simmel's concept of “transgression,” the article demonstrates that the suspension of this dualism is also possible on a social level. Simmel conceives of society as a work of art, and through Kant’s distinction between the epistemological and aesthetic realms, he considers the suspension of the subject-object dualism socially feasible. The article then engages George Herbert Mead’s sociological theories, using the concept of “transgression” as a means to overcome dualism and reach a non-dualistic perspective. Mead, through the concept of the “I,” seeks to account for an aspect of the self that is not socially constructed—a space in which “transgression” becomes possible. The article subsequently explores how the suspension of the subject-object dualism can also be approached through theoretical mysticism. It discusses how concepts like rebellion and disobedience relate to “transgression” as a way of transcending dualistic perspectives. To this end, the article turns to the works of two prominent thinkers in Islamic theoretical mysticism: Ibn Arabi and Rumi, analyzing how the concept of rebellion plays a role in suspending the subject-object binary. Islamic mysticism, rooted in a unifying ontology of divine unity, critiques and rejects Cartesian dualism. Cartesian dualism, which underpins the dominant epistemology of modern thought, reduces reality to binaries such as subject-object, self-world, and mind-body. Theoretical mysticism, however, rejects these binaries, considering them human perceptual constructs. Instead, it proposes that all dualities dissolve in the unity of the Divine. Islamic theoretical mysticism, through the concepts of rebellion and transgression, and by reinterpreting the mythic story of Adam, challenges dualistic frameworks and offers a holistic view of reality. In mystical thought, all of being is seen as a manifestation of one light, and thus a non-dualistic perspective is constantly at work. In this tradition, Adam’s consumption of the forbidden fruit is not seen as a sin but as the moment of “transgression”—a moment that, through the lens of modern philosophy, can be understood as the birth of subjectivity. Yet the point is that just as the formation of ego and subjectivity should not, on a psychoanalytic level, be mistakenly taken as a “true” necessity—when in fact it is an illusory necessity for constructing a coherent narrative of the self—so too, on a social level, the formation of the subject should not be seen as an inherent truth, but as a secondary and temporary construct that creates a minimal degree of fixity for the continuation of life. In conclusion, modern knowledge has emerged from the clashes of social, political, and economic forces acting upon human beings. However, the dominant modern dualistic perspective in the humanities and social sciences illusively treats this condition as a universal truth.