How does one inquire into ‘Two-ness’ when the very claim: ‘Two-ness’ mounts on the distinction of ‘Two’ [‘Two; Not-Two’].
How does one talk about the ‘Binary’? when the notion of ‘Binary’ itself is a binary division [Binary; Non-Binary’]?
How does one talk about exiting the Binary when the notions of ‘Entry and Exit’ are themselves Binary constructs?
How does one talk about a ‘Modeled-Understanding’ when the notion of ‘Model’ itself arises from a Modeled-View? [See Post on ‘Model’]
How do ‘I’ investigate ‘Me’?
The confrontation with this loopiness births the Self-Eating Expression [‘SEE’], the next Post.
Traditionally, Inquiry into Self-Referential Loops has been the preamble to actual Inquiry in the Dharmic Tradition. [See Posts; the discipline is long-lost as can be seen in the quality of contemporary Dharmic Inquiry]
In the Western Tradition you can see selective acknowledgment of this issue in such early thinkers as Heraclitus [‘Logos’] and Denys the Areopagite, more modern thinkers as Nicolas of Cusa [Docta Ignorantia; Coincidentia Oppositorum] among the Mystics, the new Quantum Physicists among the Scientists and so on.
See Friedrich Hegel on ‘The Purpose of Philosophy’ [‘Hegel To Heidegger’].
Not-Two 