‘Nothing can see itself [See, Sense, Notice, Mark, Spot…]. If something is seen, there has to be something other than the seen, for it to be so seen’.
I look out the window and see a fence. The fence cannot see itself. If it is seen, there has to be something other than the fence for the event: ‘seeing a fence’ to happen.
A song cannot hear itself. There has to be something other than the song for it to be heard as a song.
This claim is the unspoken origin that underlies our vast binary-infrastructure, the defense of ‘Two-ness’. But is it true?
The seemingly convincing opening claim: ‘Nothing can see itself. If something is seen, there has to be something other than the seen, for it to be so seen’, is itself already mounted on the binary.
In other words, in order to declare the above claim to the binary, you already need to be on the platform of the binary. You already need to be alighted on the ‘Subject-Object’ Divide in order to claim the veracity of the ‘Subject-Object’ Divide.
This is the classic unsighted Self-Loop passing as truth. Revisit the Post on the ‘Folly of Inquiry’.
Most of the Posts on this Site are illustrations of the Self-Loop in varying contexts. But I note in particular that a near -similar argument was used by Aristotle in his famous defense of the : ‘Principle of Contradiction’, the ‘First Principle of all analytic cognition’ as he called it. [See the later Post for details.]
So where does this leave us? We go basic, we go to ground-level as in the next Post.
Not-Two 